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, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
1. What assessment his Department has made of the main causes of insecurity in the workplace.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
Employees’ views on job security are related to their individual circumstances and underlying economic conditions. Unsurprisingly, insecurity rose in the recession, but the fall in unemployment from 7.9% when we came into office in May 2010 to 6.6% in April 2014 and the creation of 700,000 permanent employee jobs since 2012 will almost certainly have reduced it.
Tom Blenkinsop
The national minimum wage gives people at work security and a statutory minimum, ensuring decent wages. In January, the Chancellor advocated a £7 minimum. Was that not just empty rhetoric, given that no action has occurred since? Why are Ministers refusing to back Labour’s living wage plans?
Vince Cable
Before I reply directly to the supplementary question, may I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), who comes to the end of her admirable period in office at the end of this week as her colleague returns from maternity leave?
The Chancellor was not advocating a £7 minimum wage; he was explaining the simple arithmetic of what would happen if a real minimum wage were restored. The hon. Gentleman will well know that measures will be coming before the House to introduce much more effective enforcement action on the minimum wage. We should concentrate on strengthening the minimum wage, rather than pursuing the living wage as a mandatory option, about which there is confusion among Opposition Members.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any employer found not to be complying with the national minimum wage legislation will be prosecuted, and that any employer seeking to use zero-hours contracts to get around the national minimum wage legislation will therefore be prosecuted? If employers seek to exclude people on zero-hours contracts from being able to take work with any other employer, cannot those contracts be declared void as being contrary to public policy?
Vince Cable
On the latter point, we shall discuss in the forthcoming legislation how enforcement action might be taken in respect of exclusivity contracts. The answer to the first part of the question is yes, indeed: if the minimum wage legislation has been breached, action is taken, initially by retrieving the sums involved and by naming and shaming, and under the forthcoming legislation it will be by very significant penalties.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s approach to zero-hours contracts has to tread the difficult line between supporting the vast majority of employees who want to continue with those contracts, and limiting the use of such contracts where they are neither necessary nor appropriate?
Vince Cable
My colleague is right that this is a difficult line to tread, which is why we must base our policy on evidence and not on dogma. The evidence very clearly shows that a large number of people do appreciate and see value in the current arrangements but that there is also abuse, which needs to be dealt with.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
2. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Office for National Statistics report on zero-hours contracts, published on 30 April 2014.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
The ONS report was a helpful addition to the debate on zero-hours contracts, alongside the Department’s call for evidence and final consultation. Our policy is that although zero-hours contracts benefit many employers and employees, there is a need to address abuse.
Mrs Moon
The ONS study showed that 1.4 million workers were on zero-hours contracts. Those workers are unable to access rented property, because they cannot prove a work record, or mobile phone contracts and hire purchase contracts. What work has the Department undertaken also to identify the status of the 1.3 million people whose jobs were not examined as part of the ONS study? Do we not need to find out more about the people on zero-hours contracts rather than staying where we are?
Vince Cable
I thank the hon. Lady for her close interest in this matter and for trying to build up the evidence base. There is some confusion here, because the 1.4 million figure relates to the number of contracts, and individual workers may have several contracts; the best number we have from the ONS for the number of workers involved is 583,000, which represents about 2% of the total labour force.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that in today’s modern workplace many employees find zero-hours contracts very attractive because of the freedom they give them to combine different jobs, to work from home and be available to work, or to work and study at the same time?
Vince Cable
My hon. Friend rightly says that certain groups of workers find these contracts advantageous, the main ones being workers who have passed retirement age and wish to do optional, flexible work, and students, for whom the lack of an obligation to turn up at a fixed time for a fixed period is compatible with their studies.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State clear up the confusion he created during the last debate on this issue in the Chamber and confirm that workers on jobseeker’s allowance who turn down a zero-hours contract job will not face sanctions?
Vince Cable
They will not face sanctions. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Employers are trying to steer a course between being flexible and skirting around their legal obligations, but there is concern about the zero-hours contracts for care workers, on whom we are becoming increasingly dependent. Will the Secretary of State’s Department take a careful look at that industry with a view to giving it further guidance if required?
Vince Cable
Yes, indeed. We are already doing that, and I am discussing the matter with the Minister with responsibility for care. The problem with domiciliary care is that there is almost certainly an avoidance by companies to pay the minimum wage, and that overlaps with the problem of zero-hours contracts. We recognise that there are some very specific problems for workers in that sector.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
3. What contribution the regional growth fund has made to rebalancing the economy across regions.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
Some £765 million of regional growth fund support has been paid to companies throughout England, which has leveraged £1.8 billion of private money. This combined investment of £2.5 billion in areas that need private sector growth has already delivered or safeguarded 97,000 jobs. Round 6 was launched last week and I encourage hon. Members to support companies in their constituencies in applying for funding.
Diana Johnson
In paying tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), perhaps the Secretary of State could put in a good word for her to get another job—there are so few Liberal Democrat women Ministers in the coalition Government.
Humber local enterprise partnership has been among the best in showing that it needs to go further than Ministers are with Lord Heseltine’s agenda on devolved funding, distributing £30 million of round 3 RGF funding to more than 80 companies, mainly small and medium-size enterprises. The funding ends in March 2015, and the fact that future rounds will be open only to larger businesses and universities with a minimum bid of £1 million will exclude many SMEs that are vital to the future of Hull. Will Ministers look again at this matter?
Vince Cable
On the hon. Lady’s first point about women in senior roles in Government—of course I want to add again compliments to my colleague—she may have noticed that the last of the FTSE companies that did not have a woman on the board, Glencore, has listened to our clear advice that it should proceed, and Mr Glasenberg appointed a woman director this morning. On the £30 million, which is of course the local fund that was hitherto administered through the local enterprise partnership but will come under the local growth fund when it is available from 2015-16, the local enterprise partnership will have discretion over how to use the funding available to it. I am sure that it will, as before, continue to support development in Hull.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
For Kettering’s sustainable urban extension to be sustainable, the Department for Transport says that a new junction on the A14 called junction 10A is required at a cost of £39 million. That is supported by both the Northamptonshire LEP and the South-East Midlands LEP. Given that the junction could release economic activity worth up to £1 billion under the Treasury green book rules, will the Secretary of State look favourably at this bid from Kettering for this new road junction?
Vince Cable
That is an issue that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), the Department for Transport and I will have to examine. As I understand it, under the arrangements that will prevail in 2015, this is very much a matter for the two LEPs involved to exercise their priorities.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Some really good stuff has happened under the regional growth fund, and I am glad to see the next round, but it is still not enough. We are still not getting borrowing for start-ups. New entrepreneurs are not being encouraged enough, and we are not using crowdfunding and crowdsourcing enough. What will the Secretary of State do to increase the number of young entrepreneurs who have access to capital so that they can make a difference?
Vince Cable
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive remarks at the beginning. On funding, he will be pleased to know that under the StartUp loan scheme, we now have 13,000 loans that have been disbursed. They operate through the Business Bank, which is also funding crowdfunding, and it is operating on a significant scale and accelerating fast.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
4. What steps he is taking to strengthen vocational training.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
We are creating a system of vocational training to enable everyone to achieve their potential. We are on track to deliver 2 million apprenticeship starts. We have introduced traineeships for young people, we are supporting national colleges for key sectors and technologies and of course more than half of university students are doing a course that leads directly to a profession.
Mr Dominic Raab
I welcome the huge progress that has been made. What progress has been made in implementing the Richards review recommendation to give employers greater purchasing power over apprentices’ training to drive up standards?
Mr Willetts
I met Doug Richards in a very upbeat mood only half an hour ago, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we agree with Doug Richards that employers should purchase apprenticeship training. We want providers to respond to businesses, not to Government. We have consulted widely on how to make that happen. We will publish details of our preferred payment mechanism and next steps in the autumn.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman and the Minister appear to have a symbiotic relationship, and we are grateful for that, I am sure.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Despite all the praiseworthy emphasis that the Government have placed on increasing the number of apprentices, the number of apprenticeship starts in the under-19 age group is dropping. The BIS Committee recommended that the Government should use public procurement to increase those numbers, as a lot of local authorities do. Why have the Government not done it?
Mr Willetts
The Government believe in promoting apprenticeships across the public sector. Figures published today show an increase in the number of apprenticeships in that crucial age group.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Apprenticeships are essential to help deliver a growing economy, but nearly 400 employers in the north-west have replied to the future of apprenticeships in England funding reform technical consultation, and they have said that they will no longer recruit apprentices under the reforms that the Government propose. Will the Minister please say what he intends to do specifically for SMEs, which are concerned about the proposals?
Mr Willetts
We have had a range of reactions to our consultation, and the national bodies that represent businesses strongly support the proposals that we and in particular my excellent colleague the Minister for Skills and Enterprise are putting forward.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
As a dyspraxic, I remember how much extra effort I needed to put in to succeed at university. Students with disabilities and learning difficulties will be concerned about the Government’s reforms to the disabled students allowance, under which many of them will lose out. The evidence shows that students with learning difficulties are already less likely to complete their course and less likely to achieve the highest grades. Why does the Minister want to widen that gap even further?
Mr Willetts
Let me be clear: we are committed to helping disabled students. We will expect universities to do more to discharge their direct responsibilities to disabled students. Often, improved provision by universities is a better way of helping disabled students than funding to individual students. We will maintain strong support for disabled students.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
5. What support his Department is giving to the life sciences sector.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
We are promoting research and development, innovation and manufacturing so the UK is a global leader in life sciences. Businesses in life sciences have announced more than £2 billion of investment since our strategy was launched.
Mr Buckland
Following my right hon. Friend’s recent visit with me to see cutting edge 3D print technology at BD’s plant in Swindon, will he work with me to help the further development of high-value specialist manufacturing at companies such as BD, Patheon and Catalent, which form an important part of Swindon’s life sciences sector?
Mr Willetts
I remember vividly that visit last month and congratulate my hon. Friend on his very good working relationships with local employers. He is right that our life sciences strategy is not simply about research and development, important though that is. It is also about supporting high-tech manufacturing and promoting more of that in the UK.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
In the run-up to the election, it is important that we try to maximise consensus across the House on science policy. To help the debate, we launched our Green Paper on science on Tuesday, and I welcome the Royal Society’s report today. It is important to be honest about where we are, though. Life science investment has fallen, according to the Library, by almost £500 million since 2010. In the last year for which data are available, total R and D spending in the UK is down by nearly £1 billion. We are now 23rd out of 33 for R and D spending in the OECD. Why does the Minister think that is? I am sure he will agree that this is not the way to win a race to the top.
Mr Willetts
A major change is happening in the structure of the life sciences industry, with it moving away from having large, in-house R and D facilities. That trend is happening around the world. We have been particularly successful in this country in making sure that as that happens we promote alternative investment, and we are now seeing—for example, in the facility that Pfizer operated in Kent—significant renewal as new, small businesses come in. Our life sciences strategy is attracting new investment to the UK—£2 billion of it since we launched the strategy.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
6. What steps he is taking to promote regional growth.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
We want to see growth that is sustainable and balanced, but it is local businesses and civic leaders who best understand what drives growth in their area. Through local enterprise partnerships they will have at least £20 billion to allocate until 2020.
Mark Menzies
May I take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s proposed plans to build a high-speed rail network between our great northern cities? In the light of that announcement will the Minister assure me that local businesses in Fylde and the local enterprise zone in Warton will continue to receive the full support of Government to promote growth in west Lancashire?
Michael Fallon
Yes, I give my hon. Friend that assurance and tell him that we hope before the summer recess to agree a growth deal with the Lancashire local enterprise partnership, centring on the arc of prosperity it has identified alongside Lancashire’s huge strengths in energy, manufacturing and engineering.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
On support for regional growth, when will the financing be agreed for the electrification of the south Wales valleys train lines?
Michael Fallon
I shall certainly raise that with my colleagues in the Department for Transport. I do not have the date to hand, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that investment.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
17. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on local government leaders, LEPs and local MPs to work with local businesses to ensure that places such as Carlisle maximise their potential as an economic powerhouse in their region? Does he agree also that local government and local businesses are as important as national Government in promoting growth and job creation?
Michael Fallon
Yes, I absolutely agree. I thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues for their input into the Cumbria economic plan. I saw that close working for myself when I chaired the recent Cumbria forum on advanced manufacturing.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Regional growth is dependent on good transport connections, and there has been widespread concern in northern Lincolnshire among the business community about the threat to services on the south transpennine line. Will the Minister agree to meet a delegation of business leaders from northern Lincolnshire to discuss that and other issues?
Michael Fallon
I am very happy to meet any delegation of business leaders with my hon. Friend. I am not the Minister for rail transport, but I shall certainly refer the issue to the Department for Transport, and I am happy to have the meeting that my hon. Friend requests.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
7. What additional funding for training his Department has provided to support unemployed people and people aged 16 to 24 to get into employment.
The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
We have record numbers participating in apprenticeships, new traineeships, maths and English training, which, with the record number of jobs, have contributed to a 98,000 fall in youth unemployment over the last year. We are simplifying vocational education and today publishing a simple slide showing young people their education options between the ages of 14 and 18.
Mr Evans
I have a BAE Systems plant at Samlesbury in my constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) has one in Warton. BAE Systems took on a record number of apprentices last year, giving young people an opportunity to learn new skills to use in highly paid jobs when they are later taken on. What are the Government doing to encourage many more smaller firms to understand that apprenticeships can also benefit them?
Matthew Hancock
I pay tribute to the work that BAE Systems does with its apprenticeships. It not only has hundreds of apprentices, many of whom I have met, but offers more and more higher apprenticeships, which provide the very best available training on the job. We have to make sure that smaller businesses get the message that apprenticeships can help them too; in fact, the majority of apprentices are in smaller businesses. We have made the apprenticeship grant for employers focused on smaller businesses to help them with the extra costs they have in taking on apprentices.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
15. When are the Government going to put an emphasis on quality apprenticeships? Why do we need 47 different streams of funding for skills generally? When are we going to sort out on-the-job training from actual apprenticeships? Are the Government lumping on-the-job training into the figures for apprenticeships, when apprenticeships are totally different?
Matthew Hancock
No, the figures for apprenticeships show the number of apprenticeships. They also show that we are on track to achieve 2 million apprenticeships in this Parliament—in fact, figures published at 9.30 this morning show that there have been 1.8 million apprenticeships since the election. We are simplifying the funding structures and putting more money through employers, so that they can buy the apprenticeship training they need.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I believe that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), and I are both due to attend the Royal London Society for Blind People’s youth forum launch of “Let’s Work It Out”, which seeks to identify the barriers to visually impaired young people getting into employment. What more can the Government do to encourage employers to see the potential of visually impaired young people and to make them more aware of the technological assistance that can enable them to function in the workplace?
Matthew Hancock
Making sure that those who are visually impaired can fulfil their potential in the workplace is a vital part of the training we support. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is the president of the organisation that the hon. Lady mentions. Apprenticeships are one option, and there are specific mechanisms to ensure that those who are visually impaired can complete an apprenticeship, but more broadly we need to make sure that the whole skills system works as much for those with disabilities as for those who are fully able.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s policies on small businesses and the self-employed.
The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
The Government are making it easier to start, finance and grow small businesses. There are now 400,000 more small businesses than in 2010. The total number stands at a record 4.9 million, with a record 4.5 million people in self-employment. Yesterday, we introduced in the House the first ever small business Bill.
Bill Esterson
The Federation of Small Businesses index has highlighted that small businesses are still struggling to get the finance they need to expand—something confirmed by small businesses in my constituency to a very large degree. The FSB also calls for greater competition and choice in business banking. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s failed schemes, including Project Merlin and credit easing, have had no impact whatsoever?
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman was doing quite well until that last exaggeration. I certainly agree that strengthening access to finance is a vital part of securing our recovery, and of course measures in the Bill announced yesterday will help to do that, but according to the FSB, small businesses’ confidence is at a high since Labour’s great recession. Small businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are playing their part, because unemployment on the claimant count has fallen by 30% in the past year.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Small businesses in my constituency and around the country tell me that the real struggle when they are supplying large businesses is payment terms. Does my hon. Friend agree that requiring large companies to publish their payment practices is an important step in helping to drive a more responsible payment culture between large and small businesses?
Matthew Hancock
I agree with my hon. Friend so much that we put such measures in the Bill we published yesterday.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I recently held a listening event for businesses across Bolton West. A major concern for them, and a definite barrier to success for micro-businesses, is business rates. As they have gone up by £1,500 already in this Parliament and by another £270 in April, will the Minister support a cut in business rates in 2015 and a freeze the year after?
Matthew Hancock
It is interesting to hear another Labour proposal that is uncosted and unfunded. We have instead taken action to reduce by £1,000 the business rates on retail premises. We are clear that business rates need reform, and that reform will happen, but what we need are sensible contributions to the debate, given the enormous hole in the public finances that we are still having to fill.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
9. What plans he has to encourage foreign direct investment.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
UK Trade & Investment is promoting a highly competitive corporation tax regime, seeking investment in regeneration and infrastructure and emphasising the quality of our research base, all of which make us the best place in Europe to do business.
Mr Bellingham
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been hugely significant inward investment of £500 million by the German firm Palm Paper in a paper mill in King’s Lynn? Does he agree that we need more such inward investment, and that to promote more foreign direct investment we need to deregulate further social and employment measures?
Mr Willetts
Our flexible labour market is one of the many reasons that foreign investors are keen to invest in the UK and we can always pursue that important agenda further. The latest independent assessment shows that the UK was the most successful country in Europe in attracting inward investment.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
10. What steps he is taking to reduce the burden of regulation on businesses.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
We have significantly reduced the burden of regulation on business. The one-in, two-out rule has cut the annual cost of domestic regulation by £1.2 billion so far, and the red tape challenge has identified over 3,000 regulations to be scrapped or improved. To ensure that all future Governments remain committed to reducing burdens, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill published yesterday requires Governments to publish a target for removing regulatory burdens in each Parliament and to report against it.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent reply. Does he agree that for business and enterprise to flourish, particularly in constituencies such as mine that have many small and medium-sized enterprises, we must stop the strangling of business by regulation from the European Union, and that means that the Prime Minister is doing absolutely the right thing in trying to reform Europe so that business can flourish in this country?
Michael Fallon
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I can tell him that of the 30 specific reforms requested by the business taskforce I chaired last year, nine have already been delivered, two further directives were withdrawn last month, and since the transposition rules were tightened three years ago there has been only one example of a European directive being gold-plated, which was the consumer credit directive that banned excessive payment surcharges.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Bathroom Manufacturers Association is just one trade body which feels that regulatory policy has too little focus on enforcement of regulation. That leads to the undercutting of compliant, high-quality British manufacturers by cheap, non-compliant foreign imports. When will the Government understand that a mature and consistent approach to enforcement of regulation is not a burden on high-quality British manufacturing business, but an aid to it?
Michael Fallon
I am happy to meet that trade association to follow up its specific concerns. The hon. Gentleman is right that business needs uniform and proportionate enforcement, and we are looking to deliver that through improved guidance with the relevant bodies, such as the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
11. What steps his Department is taking to support energy-intensive industries.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
In the Budget the Government announced a package of support of £500 million a year for energy-intensive industries. From 2016, we will introduce compensation for the costs of the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff. We will also be extending to 2019 the compensation scheme for the emissions trading scheme and the carbon price floor. Together with amendments to the carbon price floor, these changes will be worth around £7 billion to businesses in Britain.
David Mowat
My right hon. Friend will be aware that several of our EU competitors are increasingly cross-subsidising industrial use of electricity, creating a difficult landscape for our energy-intensive industries. A recent example of the impact of this is BOAL Aluminium, an aluminium processor which was going to invest £2 million in the UK but has moved that, with all the associated jobs, to Belgium, where energy costs 30% less. Is there more we can do to prevent carbon leakage of that type?
Michael Fallon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing representatives of the aluminium industry to see me in the Department. It is important that we in Britain do not lose out on such investment. We have already paid out some £30 million of compensation to 53 of the most electricity-intensive companies and we will continue to press for further reform in Europe.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is good that some support is coming from 2016, but energy-intensive industries need support now in the challenging times they face. It is good that the Government have finally got their package of compensation for their unilateral carbon floor tax through Europe, but the Minister has previously given commitments to get that backdated to 2013, as promised to business. What progress has he made in getting that compensation backdated?
Michael Fallon
It took some 18 months to get that compensation scheme approved by the Commission, which is why it will take some time to get the compensation for the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff and why that scheme will not apply until April 2016. The Commission did not agree to our request for backdating.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) asked exactly the same question in April and today received pretty much word for word the same unsatisfactory response. The fact is that the Government have imposed a unilateral carbon price floor that is widely divergent from the EU emissions trading scheme, which has put Britain’s energy-intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage to our European counterparts and done nothing to prevent carbon leakage or encourage investment in low-carbon energy. What practical steps is the Minister taking to shape reform of the ETS to make it more credible and to level the playing field for British industry, or have the Government lost that battle in Europe too?
Michael Fallon
Other countries such as Germany can of course offer higher support to their industries, but they did not have the appalling deficit that we inherited, because of course they did not have a Labour Government. I intend to ask the new Commission this autumn for an early review of the ETS and to include new sectors, such as cement, that have missed out so far.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
12. What support his Department is providing to apprenticeships.
The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
The number of apprenticeships has doubled and we are on track to deliver 2 million over this Parliament—this morning’s figures show that there are 1.8 million so far. It is all part of our long-term economic plan.
Jack Lopresti
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. There are exciting plans to develop an aerospace apprenticeship training centre as part of the iAero proposals for the former Filton airfield land, which are being discussed by his Department and aerospace businesses in my constituency. Can he assure me of his support for those plans?
Matthew Hancock
I am enthusiastic about those plans. We are working closely with my hon. Friend and colleagues in the aerospace industry to see whether we can make them happen. The number of apprenticeships in Filton is up by 60% since 2010, so it is clearly a success story and we want to build on that success.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
13. What resources have been allocated for enforcement action against employers who do not pay the national minimum wage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)
The Government are committed to increasing compliance with minimum wage legislation. Everyone who is entitled to the minimum wage should receive it. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has 173 staff dedicated to enforcing the national minimum wage, and the Government are already taking tougher action on employers who break the law. We have made it simpler to name and shame employers who do not pay the national minimum wage and have increased the financial penalties for breaking the law.
Andy Sawford
I thank the Minister for her response, but in Corby HMRC found that £120,000 was owed to local workers, and that was just on a three-day visit, so it was the tip of the iceberg and we need to do much more. Will she, in her last days in her role, leave a present for her successor by beginning a review into how local authorities could take a much stronger enforcement role? They currently enforce on planning, parking and environmental health, so why can they not have a role in making the local labour market work for people?
Jenny Willott
Clearly we feel very strongly that employers should pay the national minimum wage. People working on the minimum wage are, by definition, on the lowest incomes in society, so it is critical that everything is done to ensure that they are paid it. Every complaint that is made to the pay and work rights helpline is investigated, and where arrears are found they are paid back and employers pay a significant penalty. We are happy to work with any part of Government and any organisations that are keen to ensure that the minimum wage is paid. We will ensure that any complaints reported to the pay and work rights helpline are investigated.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), who has always been a very kind and effective Minister, and wish her well in her return to the dark arts of the Government Whips Office. Given that compliment, I am sure that she will wish to agree with me that any sanctions for non-compliance with the national minimum wage are ineffective without proper enforcement. Figures show that since the Government came to power the number of national minimum wage inspections is down by 60%, with only two prosecutions. That is hardly surprising, given that a recent answer she gave to a parliamentary question committed a budget of £9.2 million to enforcement, but the head of the national minimum wage enforcement unit publicly stated only last month that the budget is just £8 million. Just like the Chancellor’s hollow promise to increase the national minimum wage to £7, is this not just another example of the Government failing to stand up for the lowest paid against rogue employers?
Jenny Willott
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The enforcement action taken by HMRC has significantly increased the number of workers who are getting the wages they are due. Between 2009-10 and 2013-14, there was an increase of over 17% in the number of workers who were helped and were given arrears, and the amount that has been paid back has been increased significantly. In addition, we are increasing fourfold the penalty that employers have to pay, and we now have in place a very draconian naming and shaming scheme. That means that all employers who are found not to have paid the national minimum wage are put forward for naming and shaming, and, unless exceptional circumstances are involved, they will be named publicly. That is acting as a real disincentive to employers not to treat their staff fairly.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
14. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of manufacturing.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
Office for National Statistics figures for April show that manufacturing output in the UK rose by 4.4% year on year—the fastest pace since February 2011. Industrial production rose by 1.1% in the three months to April compared with the previous three months—the strongest three-monthly growth since June 2010.
Neil Carmichael
I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. With the need for more skills in energy engineering in mind, does he agree that it is a very good idea to have a centre for those skills at the now-decommissioned Berkeley power station, and that that represents a significant step in the right direction for the long-term economic plan?
Michael Fallon
Yes, I do agree. That project is a key part of Gloucestershire’s economic plan, and it can provide the skills that we will need for the next generation of nuclear power stations at Hinkley and Oldbury. We are currently considering Gloucestershire’s request for local growth funding to support the project. I hope to announce the allocation for Gloucestershire as part of the growth deal before the summer recess.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
16. What recent support his Department has provided to small businesses.
The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill builds on a record of 42,000 businesses helped to export by UK Trade & Investment over the past year and 15,000 small businesses supported by the growth accelerator scheme. As the Secretary of State said earlier, the number of start-up loans approved has reached 18,000.
Stephen Metcalfe
As my hon. Friend will be aware, large businesses still owe small businesses over £30 billion in overdue invoices. Only yesterday, a company in Basildon contacted me to say that one of Essex county council’s main contractors owes it well over £100,000 past the due date. Will he expand on how we will use the small business Bill to resolve this issue and pump billions back into the economy?
Matthew Hancock
The Bill contains two elements on prompt payment, the first of which is to increase the amount that Government pay quickly. BIS pays almost all its invoices within 30 days and the vast majority within five days. We will also bring transparency so that when small businesses enter into contracts with large businesses they know their payment performance and can negotiate on that as part of the contract.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thought that we were through all the substantive questions with time to spare, but we will take a question from Debbie Abrahams.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.
I am pleased that the Government have finally produced a Bill to deal with late payments to small businesses by large companies. It includes some of the recommendations from my inquiry last summer into late payments. However, it does not go far enough and will give little comfort to the small businesses whose viability is threatened. Why are these measures so timid?
Matthew Hancock
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this subject. We consulted on all the potential options, including statutory maximums for payment terms. We put the consultation out with an open mind and a wide range of options. In fact, the small business groups that came forward with proposals in response to the consultation favoured transparency, not a statutory limit. We followed the evidence and the response to the consultation. Like her, I am determined to do everything we can to tackle this problem while not getting in the way of freedom of contract between businesses. We have taken these measures because of what the evidence demonstrated, and I think they will have a big impact. That is all part of our long-term economic plan.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
My Department plays a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy through business to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning.
Mr Denham
In September, the Portsmouth warship yard, where many of my constituents work, will shut. That will leave the Government without a plan B for warships if the referendum goes the wrong way. The work force will be dispersed before there is an alternative user and the shipyard’s role in providing manufacturing apprenticeships across southern England will be lost. Will the Secretary of State look to delay the closure until the referendum is over, until there is a new user and until there is a credible plan for training manufacturing and engineering apprentices in southern Hampshire?
Vince Cable
The maritime industries are, of course, crucial in Portsmouth, as they are in the right hon. Gentleman’s Southampton constituency. On the approach we are adopting, a Government group led by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) is as rapidly as possible finding alternative commercial users, working with the Ministry of Defence. I welcome in particular the very exciting Ben Ainslie project and my colleague is working closely with Rear-Admiral Stevens to develop the Solent maritime industries.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
T2. Fylde has a significant amount of advanced manufacturing companies, including BAE Systems and Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel. May we have an update on what steps are being taken to increase the number of highly skilled apprenticeships in the advanced manufacturing sector?
The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
Absolutely. Through the trailblazer process, we are putting employers in charge of the training involved in apprenticeships, to make sure that, in addition to the big increase in numbers we are seeing, we increase the quality of training so that all young people have the opportunity to use an apprenticeship as an alternative to university in order to reach their potential.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State think it is acceptable for a Government Department to increase reporting requirements twelvefold for businesses?
Vince Cable
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but as the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said a moment ago, we have taken considerable action drastically to reduce the regulatory burden on business.
Mr Umunna
I am talking about the disgraceful burden being heaped on the one in five self-employed people in this country who will be in receipt of universal credit. Those businesses are being required to report their income not once a year, but every single month. Their earnings are being computed on a completely different basis from the assessment carried out by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for tax purposes, and the minimum income they will be assumed to have is for 35 hours a week at the minimum wage. That is unjust and unworkable and it does not reflect how those businesses work. Why has this ministerial team sat back and allowed the red tape baron—the Work and Pensions Secretary—to erect this barrier to aspiration?
Vince Cable
I would have thought that most reasonable people would welcome the growth of self-employment and entrepreneurship that is happening under this Government. I think they would also probably welcome the fact that the benefits system demands maximum integrity.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T7. Do Ministers agree that a central part of the long-term economic plan is the delivery of skills to the increasingly innovative and research-oriented manufacturing sector?
Matthew Hancock
Yes. As my hon. Friend may know, I am a fan of the long-term economic plan. In fact, I have found a copy in my pocket if he wants one. Skills are a vital part of our long-term economic plan, because there is no doubt that, if we are not only to maximise our economic capacity in the future, but to make sure everyone in this country fulfils their potential, we have to deliver on the skills that employers need.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
T3. Britain has a crisis in finding young people willing to study engineering, yet I have received an e-mail about a 19-year-old who has been offered a place on a pathways to apprenticeships engineering course. He will get access to £30 a week living allowance, but he will lose his unemployment allowance and he cannot access student grants. He may well not be able to take up the course. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is joined-up action across Departments for young people who want to study crisis employment subjects?
Matthew Hancock
I recognise the problem that used to exist. The introduction of traineeships has tackled that. It is now possible for someone to go on a traineeship while still receiving their jobseeker’s allowance, because we have tackled the 16-hour rule for traineeships. If the hon. Lady writes to me about the individual case, I will make sure it is taken into account.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
At the Mighty Middle conference held by GE Capital and the Reform think-tank this week, mid-sized companies from across Britain were exceptionally positive about the Government’s long-term economic plan. What more can we do to celebrate and assist those mid-sized companies?
Vince Cable
Mid-sized companies are absolutely central to the Government’s industrial strategy. We are working with them to develop supply chains in the car industry, aerospace and the various energy sectors, and to support access to finance, training and innovation. They have a great deal of potential, as they do in countries such as Germany, where the Mittelstand are better developed than they are here.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T4. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the excellent “The state of the coalfields” report produced by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust? The report has highlighted particular problems, including a legacy of high and persistent youth unemployment, especially in the NEETs group of those not in education, employment or training. I also draw to his attention an excellent organisation in east Durham, the East Durham Employability Trust. What additional support can be put in its direction?
Matthew Hancock
I have seen the report on the future of the coalfields. On the issue of NEETs, I would point out that yesterday’s figures show that the number of people not in education, employment or training is at a record low since the series of statistics began in 1994. I have no doubt that there is much more to do, because any young person not in education, employment or training is one NEET too many. The fact that the number of NEETs is at a record low shows that the economic plan is working.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
On the issue of new EU legislation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would benefit British business if the EU adopted the same one-in, two-out rule that the UK Government apply?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
It is encouraging that the one-in, two-out rule, or the one-in, one-out rule, is increasingly being adopted by other member states, including France and Spain. I shall visit Brussels next month to urge the Commission to redouble its efforts to remove unnecessary directives, and to make sure that where new directives are proposed, they fully take account of the needs of small businesses, which are most likely to create the jobs we need in Europe.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
T5. More than a third of winning bidders in the regional growth fund’s first round have now withdrawn, while others have waited about two years to receive any money at all. Is this all part of the Government’s long-term economic plan?
Michael Fallon
It certainly is not. There are many reasons why some RGF bidders withdraw—because they do not get the planning permission they were anticipating, their main board does not give final approval for the plant, or they are not prepared to put in private sector money alongside the regional growth fund grant. Any money that is not used is of course put into future rounds of the fund. It is important that we carry out the necessary due diligence and check before taxpayer money is handed over.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Business Secretary gave us the welcome news that the local growth fund will come on stream next year. Infrastructure is the key to allowing local businesses to develop. Will there be enough money in the local growth fund to improve and upgrade the A64 along its whole route from York through Malton to Scarborough?
Michael Fallon
I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to be patient for a few weeks longer before we announce the local growth deal for the local enterprise partnership covering her constituency, but I am aware that that is one of the projects that the local enterprise partnership wants to prioritise.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
T6. When the Prime Minister returned from the G7, he painted a very positive picture of progress in establishing public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, but the real picture is that only half of them have started or concluded their consultations. This is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to show off his leadership skills, so what work is he doing with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to make some real progress on this issue?
Vince Cable
We will have an opportunity to discuss this in detail, because an open register of beneficial ownership will be one of the elements in the small business Bill. Britain will pioneer work in this area. Of course there are issues with our offshore territories. We are not a colonial power that can send in gunboats to solve these problems; we rely on persuasion, and that is what we will do.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What does the Secretary regard as his finest achievement in office? What is his main goal for his last year in the Department?
Vince Cable
There is a very long list of achievements that would bore the House considerably were I to dwell excessively on it, but the set of advances that we have made in giving business a long-term perspective through the industrial strategy, the collaboration with business and the associated work that we have done on access to finance, the build up of apprenticeships and the developments in innovation through the Catapult make up a considerable legacy of achievement.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Two thirds of students on disabled students allowances are dyslexic. Cuts to DSAs affect both the students and the institutions, and penalise both. Will the Secretary of State think again about reversing these cuts?
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
Let us be clear. We are consulting widely on these changes. The main change is that people should only be supported with extra services, rather than, for example, getting laptops indiscriminately, as they do at the moment. We are talking directly to the representative groups involved and students will not lose out by these changes.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Every one of the 14 letters that the Governor of the Bank of England has written to the Chancellor explaining why the inflation target has not been met has mentioned the rising input cost of resources. What are the Government doing to tackle the problems of input resource price spikes and to incentivise infrastructure in the circular economy to cope with that?
Vince Cable
I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to energy costs, which has been the main issue in the inflation of raw material inputs. My colleague the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks gave a very full answer in explaining the compensation mechanisms that we are introducing to offset them.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in tackling non-compliance by employers who fail to pay apprentices the rate they should?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)
We wrote to the Low Pay Commission on its remit for next year. One of the things we have asked it to look at is the apprenticeship rate for the national minimum wage. We are aware that there are a lot of concerns, particularly about non-compliance in paying the national minimum wage for apprentices. The system is quite complex and often employers find it difficult to navigate. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to work out how the system could be simplified to ensure better compliance by employers.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
A recent Which? investigation found that ticketing companies can add up to 37% to the face value of a ticket for music and theatre events in booking and delivery fees. Given that the market is dominated by a handful of big players, is the Minister confident that consumers are getting a good deal?
Jenny Willott
We have done a lot of work on ticketing. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we discussed this issue a number of times during the passage of the Consumer Rights Bill. The Department has been working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to look at the issue and a number of things are being done to try to tackle ticket touting, while trying to ensure that we still have a vibrant market so that individuals who buy tickets and want to resell them because they cannot attend an event are able to do so fairly and openly.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Like a number of MPs, I have taken on an apprentice, something that has been recommended by the Minister, but as a small employer this has only been made possible by the Liverpool chamber of commerce, which provides all the training, development and support for James, my apprentice. Under his proposed reforms, how does the Minister expect MPs to take on apprentices and provide the same high standard of training and support and administer training budgets? How much time does he expect us to take on this?
The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Lady has an apprentice. I now have two apprentices and the House has an apprenticeship scheme that the Clerk has been instrumental in bringing forward. Under the new system we will make sure that small businesses and small employers, including MPs, can take on apprentices, and training providers will have a role to play just as they do now in helping with bureaucracy.
Matthew Hancock
I do not expect it to take any more time than it does at the moment and I am sure that it will be just as valuable for the hon. Lady and for other MPs as it will be for small businesses across the land.
Business of the House
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 30 June—Opposition Day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate entitled “Chaos and Waste at the Department for Work and Pensions” on an Opposition motion. I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council.
Tuesday 1 July—Motion to approve a procedural resolution relating to the Finance Bill, followed by motions to approve Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day 1).
Wednesday 2 July—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 3 July—General debate on protecting children in conflict, followed by a general debate on social mobility and child poverty strategy. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee in the last Session.
Friday 4 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 7 July will include:
Monday 7 July—Estimates day (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on universal credit implementation, followed by a debate on the implementation of the common agricultural policy in England. At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates. Details will be given in the Official Report.
[The details are as follows: Universal Credit implementation: monitoring DWP’s performance in 2012-13, 5th Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, HC 1209, Session 2013-14, and the Government response published as a 2nd Special Report, HC 426, Session 2014-15; and Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in England in 2014-20, 7th report from the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee, HC 745, Session 2013-14, and the Government response published as 7th Special Report, HC 1008, 2013-14.]
Tuesday 8 July—Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Bill, followed by proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill.
Wednesday 9 July—Opposition Day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
Thursday 10 July—General debate, subject to be announced.
Friday 11 July—The House will not be sitting.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 3 July will be:
Thursday 3 July—Debate on the seventh report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the UK’s response to extremism and instability in north and west Africa, followed by a debate on the sixth report of the Communities and Local Government Committee on local government procurement.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the written statement today from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, informing the House of the publication on 17 July of the report of Lady Justice Hallett on the on-the-runs administrative scheme.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for that announcement.
Later today, we will debate the commemoration of the centenary of the first world war. We must never forget the monumental sacrifice of those who gave their lives, including Thomas Neely, a Victoria Cross recipient from Seacombe in my constituency, who died less than 50 days before the armistice.
Andy Coulson’s conviction this week has raised serious questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. He and his staff were warned that some brave journalists were writing openly about Coulson’s behaviour, but he carried on anyway and brought a criminal into the heart of No. 10. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Prime Minister was not just ignorant about Andy Coulson, but wilfully negligent? Does he support calls for uniformity of vetting for senior Downing street advisers? Will he ask the Prime Minister to return to the House to make a statement, including telling us if he was advised by any senior civil servants in No. 10 against employing Andy Coulson?
Next week, we will be discussing the Finance Bill. The Leader of the House told me last week that everything is going very well, so will he explain why the Chancellor’s plan to cut the deficit is already running four years late and why he is borrowing £190 billion more than he planned? While he is at it, will he tell us why the Chancellor boasts about unemployment rates, while a report this week shows that new job creation has slumped and 60% of those on benefits are actually in work? Is not the truth that this is the slowest recovery for 100 years and that the vast majority of people are just not feeling the benefit?
The crisis at the Department for Work and Pensions just gets worse and the lives of some of the most vulnerable in our society just get harder. On Friday, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee condemned the personal independence payment as a “fiasco”. On Monday, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions sounded increasingly deluded as he defended his calamitous universal credit programme. Yesterday, it was revealed that universal credit could cost the public purse another £750 million because the DWP has not worked out how to integrate it with free school meals.
The Work and Pensions Secretary told the House:
“Universal credit is on track to roll out against the timetable set out last year.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 9.]
However, at the current rate of progress, will it not take a staggering 1,052 years before this programme is complete?
Universal credit is in chaos. The Secretary of State has lost control of his Department. Given that the Leader of the House is such an expert on “pausing” costly and calamitous reforms, does he accept that the Government should now pause universal credit?
This Government are completely out of touch and completely unable to deliver on any of their promises. When they came to office, the vast majority of people could see a doctor within 48 hours; now one in four cannot do so within a week. They promised a bigger Army for a safer Britain, but the former Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that the Army is not in a “fit state” to deal with current threats.
It is no wonder that two parliamentary private secretaries resigned from the Government this week to spend more time with their marginal constituencies—and the Government are in such disarray that their Departments did not even notice that they had gone. The Government have a Tourism Minister who declared from Brazil that people without passports should holiday at home, they have a Health Minister who thinks it “exciting” that the Government have lost control of the national health service, and they have a Prime Minister who claimed that he had done nothing wrong, but apologised so profusely that he very nearly wrecked the high-profile criminal trial of his mates at News International.
This week, I received an invitation to the Commons versus Lords shooting competition. I hope that the Commons team does not include any Ministers, because if it does, they will end up shooting themselves in the foot—or they might even end up shooting each other.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister sent the England football team a recorded good luck message, and just over a week later, the team crashed out of the World cup. With the European Council upon us and the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker looking increasingly inevitable, may I suggest one last desperate tactic that the Prime Minister could use to stop him? Forget about the Luxembourg compromise; the Prime Minister should send him a good luck message.
When it comes to negotiating in Europe, the Prime Minister should learn a lot from the World cup. Do not let expectations get the better of you; do not underestimate the power of smaller countries; and biting—or, indeed, backbiting—is never a good idea.
Mr Lansley
As the shadow Leader of the House said, we are rightly having a debate today to commemorate the events of the great war, and I am glad that we are able to do so just two days before the centenary of the events that precipitated that calamity. I hope that, during today’s debate, we shall hear from Members who represent constituencies throughout the country whose constituents are planning a wide range of commemorations over the next four years. For my part, I remember talking to my grandfather about the second battle of Ypres. He was at Hill 60, where Lieutenant Harold Woolley was the first member of the Territorial Army to earn a Victoria Cross. I think that all of us, through our families, have recollections of those who were there—including those who were injured or, indeed, lost—and today’s debate will give us an important opportunity to commemorate that sacrifice.
I am afraid I must tell the shadow Leader of the House that, although the jacket has got brighter, the jokes have got a bit duller. It is a shame. They are better than my jokes, though.
Mr Lansley
No, please don’t. As we move to summer, it is a great step forward.
In earlier sessions of business questions, the shadow Leader of the House had a thing going. It was called “mind the gap”, and it sort of disappeared. [Interruption.] Or was it there? If so, I missed it. I was wondering whether it would put in an appearance. It seemed to me that it was probably better to mind the gap than to throw someone in front of the train, which appears to be the latest suggestion. I am not quite sure who is in charge of Labour party policy, and I am not sure that it really matters that much, but the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) seems to be suggesting that no one else needs to be thrown in front of the train, because the Leader of the Opposition is already standing in front of the train and will be the subject of the train crash when it comes. I think that is a rather sad reflection on what the hon. Lady’s colleagues feel about the position of the Leader of the Opposition.
I listened to Prime Minister’s questions yesterday; I think the Leader of the Opposition asked exactly the same question and got absolutely the right answer. If we look back at the evidence that was taken and the conclusions reached by Lord Justice Leveson, we see that he made it very clear that the Prime Minister received those assurances and acted on the basis of them at the time. If he had known then what we know now, it would have been very different. He has made it clear that he gave Andy Coulson a second chance and he regrets that he did, because it was, as it turned out, a misjudgment.
The hon. Lady asked about security clearance. Well, these are matters for the civil service, and the Leveson report is very clear, as was the evidence given by Gus O’Donnell, that it was a matter determined by civil servants, and rightly so, in relation to identifying where there is any risk.
The hon. Lady asked about the economy, which is good—I am glad she did. We are reducing the deficit we inherited from the Opposition. Their recession—Labour’s recession—cost every household in this country £3,000. We are cutting the deficit. It is down by a third already, and it will be down by a half by the end of the financial year. Two million private sector jobs have been created—[Interruption.] I am afraid that any amount of wriggling will not get out of the simple fact that jobs have been created in this country on an unprecedented basis, not least because small businesses are being created on an unprecedented scale—400,000 more small businesses and five new private sector jobs for every job lost in the public sector—as we are taking the necessary steps to reduce the waste and inefficiency that we found in the public sector under the last Government. That includes in the Department for Work and Pensions.
It was Labour who presided over the tax credit disasters, and Members all across the House in previous Parliaments will remember how many of their constituents found that the tax credit system was simply not working for them. Fraud and error were costing the welfare system £30 billion and there was no control on the welfare budget, and now, we have capped the welfare budget and Labour is in no position to criticise that. It will try on Monday and it will fail, because it cannot criticise the programme of welfare reform that is delivering on capping the costs of welfare while focusing resources on those who are most in need. That is what failed under the last Government. Costs were out of control and those often in the greatest need were not getting the greatest help.
At the Department of Health, I was only too aware of that waste, for example. In this Parliament, we will have taken £1.5 billion a year—in total in this Parliament, I think that the figure is about £5 billion—out of the administration cost of the NHS. It is because we have cut the number of administrators by 19,000 that we can increase, as we have, the number of doctors, nurses and other health professionals by 16,000, including over 1,000 more GPs than three years ago. The number of GPs per 100,000 in the population is now higher than it was at the time of the last election.
Overall, I noted that the shadow Leader of the House now no longer has some of the questions that she had last week, because we have presented this week two more of the Bills that were announced in the Queen’s Speech, so eight out of the 11 Bills announced in the Queen’s Speech are under way. She asked when we would have the first Second Reading. We are going to have the first Second Reading of one of those Bills taking place—on modern slavery—and I am looking forward to us proceeding successfully with the legislative programme set out in the Queen’s Speech.
Mr Speaker
I remind the House, notwithstanding the number of colleagues interested in catching my eye now, that there is a statement on health to follow and that the debate on the commemoration of the first world war is substantially subscribed. I am keen to try to accommodate everybody now, but if I am to have any chance of doing so, brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike is essential.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Youth unemployment in my constituency in May 2010 stood at the scandalously high figure of 430. Last month, it was reduced to 200, showing that the coalition Government had reduced youth unemployment by half. We cannot be complacent and there is still more to be done, but can we have a debate in Government time on the measures that are being taken to improve apprenticeships to provide new opportunities for work and to encourage young people to understand that opportunities are out there, rather than a life on benefits, as was delivered by the last Government?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; what he says about his constituency is welcome and a good example of what is happening across the country, with the youth claimant count down by 129,000 in a year—the largest reduction in a year since 1997. The number of 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training is at its lowest in five years. The 1.7 million apprenticeships in this Parliament thus far are one of the central things that have made a big and positive difference, as has the Youth Contract and work experience more generally.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 163, which stands in my name and those of other hon. Members?
[That this House expresses its utmost disgust with and condemnation of Global Vision College, Manchester, otherwise known as OLC and Manchester School of Economics, which has stolen £2,500 in fees from a constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, refuses to return it, has failed to answer successive letters from the right hon. Member, and is guilty of the crime of larceny; calls on the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Home Secretary and Greater Manchester Police to investigate these swindlers; and warns everyone in Manchester and more widely to have nothing to do with this disreputable organisation.]
It refers to the swindle carried out by a so-called college in Manchester that keeps changing its name and location in an effort to evade responsibility. It has stolen £2,500 in advance fees from a constituent of mine, which had been sent of behalf of relatives who were then not able to take up their places. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask those responsible, who are named in my motion, to look into the issue and respond to me, and will he consider a debate on the matter, which is quite a wide problem across the country?
Mr Lansley
I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and at the Home Office, in so far as that is also relevant, to respond to the right hon. Gentleman on the issue raised in his early-day motion. He will have noted the steps that the Government have taken to close down some 400 bogus colleges, and I am sure that he noted the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration earlier this week about the further steps being taken to ensure the integrity of our higher education system.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
In the light of the outstanding research referred to in the report by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on mitochondrial transfer, and Professor Robert Winston’s concerns at the Government’s intention to introduce those techniques before they are known to be safe—as highlighted in early-day motion 122 that stands in my name and is garnering significant support—will the Leader of the House do all he can to ensure that Members who are profoundly concerned about the safety of three-parent techniques, whether or not they oppose them in principle, will be given the option to express that view when the matter comes before the House?
[That this House notes the comments of Professor Robert Winston reported in the Independent on Sunday on 15 June 2014 on the premature introduction of mitochondrial replacement techniques; urges the Government to heed his warning that a great deal more research in as many animal models as possible ought to be undertaken prior to such techniques being approved; further notes his view that full and far-reaching assessments must be conducted as to the potential risks to children born as a result of the procedures; and calls on the Department of Health to delay bringing the relevant regulations before Parliament until the international scientific community and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority have declared the techniques safe.]
Mr Lansley
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. As she knows, mitochondrial donation techniques can give women who carry severe mitochondrial disease the opportunity to have children without passing on devastating genetic disorders. We consulted on the draft regulations that would be required to allow such treatment between February and May. We are considering the responses and will announce our plans as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will understand that such regulations would be subject to debates in both Houses of Parliament and require approval.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
My constituent, David McIntyre, served his country for more than 11 years as a soldier in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and Afghanistan. As a result of events in his service, he has post-traumatic stress, depression and been assessed as being at risk of suicide. Despite his mental state, he faces extradition to the United States next week to answer charges, which he denies, relating to a commercial matter. Earlier this week, I wrote to the Home Secretary requesting an urgent meeting to discuss this matter, but to date I have received no reply. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to respond to my request for a meeting?
Mr Lansley
I will, of course, be helpful to the hon. Lady and contact the Home Secretary. I am grateful that she has written to the Home Office, so that it has details of this case, and I will endeavour to ensure that she has an opportunity to meet the Home Secretary or the relevant Minister.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
On 9 June, I received a written answer from NHS England via the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), stating that no patients from the south-west had been sent for gamma knife treatment at University College London hospitals.
After pressing NHS England further, on Monday 23 June, I had another written answer saying exactly the opposite, admitting that it had paid for treatment of those patients. May we have a debate on the need for absolute honesty and accurate accounting from NHS England when answering Members’ questions, as I am not the only Member who has been fobbed off with inaccurate replies?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) wants to reply to the questions. I have no doubt he does, but it is my responsibility, and it is Ministers’ responsibility to ensure the accuracy of their responses to Members. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Public Administration Committee is examining the issue of the accountability of public bodies and their responses to Members’ questions. Notwithstanding all that, it is important for NHS England to ensure that it provides my hon. Friend with accurate information. I will ensure, with the Department of Health, that that is the case.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the statement about the Modern Slavery Bill. He is aware that there is substantial support on both sides of the House for the measure. Will he therefore guesstimate for us when it will complete its process here before going to the other place, even if this House tweaks it, hopefully, in a couple of important respects?
Mr Lansley
I do know how much support the Bill has and I appreciate its importance. I am grateful for the work that the right hon. Gentleman and others did during pre-legislative scrutiny to enable the Bill to come forward in the positive fashion that it has. It would probably be unwise of me to engage in speculation about the timing of the passage of legislation. It may even be regarded as presumptuous, as the House needs to consider the Bill and we need to make decisions about the timing of consideration beyond the Committee stage.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the renewal of rail franchises? The Southend to Fenchurch Street line used to be known as the misery line. It is now known as the happy line thanks to c2c, which should have its franchise renewed. That is in stark contrast with Abellio Greater Anglia, whose service is absolutely lousy and whose trains are clapped out, as its managing director will find out in two weeks when he travels on one with me.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Many years ago, when it was probably a bit more of a misery, I used to travel daily into Fenchurch Street on that line and so was familiar with it. Happily it is better, as he described. He will know that the competition for the Essex Thameside franchise is ongoing and an announcement about the award of the franchise is expected shortly. A new directly awarded franchise has been negotiated by the Government with the incumbent, Abellio Greater Anglia, for 27 months between the end of the current franchise in July and the start of the next competed franchise in October 2016. As is the case with many other franchises, worthwhile and significant benefits to passengers arise from new franchises. The competition for the next franchise will begin in spring next year, and a consultation will be carried out to inform the specification for that.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Wonga’s appalling deception and dishonesty has been laid bare. May we have a statement from the Chancellor on why that company or any of its directors should ever hold a credit licence again, or is the Government’s priority and focus the protection of Tory party friends and donors?
Mr Lansley
The latter part of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks is uncalled for and inaccurate. He knows that. Members on both sides of the House will have been shocked by what they saw and the Financial Conduct Authority has taken important action on the matter. I am not in a position to say any more than what the FCA has said so far, but I will ask my hon. Friends at the Treasury, in consultation with the FCA, whether they are in a position to offer a written statement to the House.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Last week I attended the “working together” conference organised by National Grid, EmployAbility and Round Oak school in my constituency. The aim of the conference was to share best practice in recruitment and employment practices, and to promote the widespread benefits of employing those with additional learning needs and disabilities. May we have a debate about the importance of ensuring that those with special needs are supported in their search for work?
Mr Lansley
I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to attend that conference. It reflects the fact that many of our leading employers across the country, large and small, are recognising the opportunities to support those with learning needs and disabilities in work. In July last year the Prime Minister launched the “disability confident” campaign, which has reached over 1,100 local and national employers throughout the country, increasing the confidence of employers in employing disabled people. I am very familiar with this in my own constituency over the years, through the work of the Papworth Trust. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that the point my hon. Friend made will be much shared among Members and he may find opportunities, not least with other Members, to seek a debate of that kind at some point in the future.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
In the light of Mr Justice Saunders’ comments in the Coulson trial, may we have an urgent debate to publish the legal advice given by the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister, who may have inadvertently placed himself above the law?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady will know that successive Governments have never published legal advice offered by the Attorney-General, nor commented on it. All I can say is that what the Prime Minister said the day before yesterday was not intended in any way to prejudice any aspect of the completion of the trial.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Leader of the House will know that there was insufficient time last week to consider my amendments on Sunday trading. Given that the current law is absurd and prevents land-based companies from competing with the internet, protects the interests of Tesco Express more than any other company in the country and lumps garden centres in, many of which are small businesses and should not be prevented from opening for longer hours when they are often one-man bands, can he find time for us to have a proper debate about these absurdities so the House can consider whether further amendments need to be made?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will recall the answer I gave at previous business questions about the Government’s position, which is that we feel we are currently striking the right balance in the law on Sunday trading. I know that the debate on consideration of the Consumer Rights Bill was abbreviated—it was short—but there was an opportunity for points to be made in the course of it. Of course, if my hon. Friend wishes to bring forward any proposals, he can seek an Adjournment debate to raise issues in the House.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Leader of the House will be aware that the letters to on-the-runs have aroused great anxiety in Northern Ireland and that efforts should be made to ensure that those letters cannot be allowed to let people evade justice, as appears to have been the case for one person. Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of the statement on 17 July, will the Leader of the House set aside parliamentary time if necessary to legislate on the annulment of those ministerial letters to on-the-runs?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not want to prejudice that statement and I do not think I can comment on his question at this stage. I think it is sufficient for now that the statement will be on 17 July, and separately in this House the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is undertaking its own inquiry, which I can see is detailed, into all the matters surrounding the on-the-runs.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
May we have an early debate on childhood obesity? Experts today have advised parents to cut fruit juice out of their children’s diets, after a generation of them have been told that fruit juice is healthy. This is somewhat confusing, and perhaps we should be focusing more on exercise for youngsters born with an iPhone between their hands, and stress that watching tennis at Wimbledon is fun, but getting out there and playing it is even more fun.
Mr Lansley
The House will recall that we have rightly had many opportunities to debate childhood obesity. My understanding is that the advice was that fruit juice intake should be moderated, rather than excluded from children’s diets. It is important to moderate the intake of all foods in a child’s diet to make sure it is balanced. We are looking for a proper balance between calories in and calories out, and the more we exercise, the easier it is to strike that balance. On a positive note, the latest data have shown a reduction in childhood obesity among pre-school children, and that needs to be sustained. It is only one positive step in what needs to be a long journey to reduce childhood obesity.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
Trade union officials at the Cumbernauld office of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were told yesterday that the regional post-room where 40 people are employed has been earmarked for closure in March 2015, but the decision has yet to be taken. However, they were also told that 170 new jobs are to be created there. Can we have an early debate on this issue so that the Government can clarify for the House the plans for both job losses and job creation in Cumbernauld?
Mr Lansley
I cannot promise a debate at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, not least from the answer the Prime Minister gave to a question yesterday, the HMRC is rightly trying to ensure that it is as efficient as possible in collecting tax and cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance. In the process, sometimes, changes inevitably have to be made to the structure of the business it undertakes. However, I will ask Treasury Ministers to respond to the hon. Gentleman, in so far as there is any particular information relating to Cumbernauld.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate or a statement on civil partnerships, which currently can be dissolved in only a certain number of courts? Only barristers are allowed to make representations, and for a constituent of mine, going to London adds costs. We should be looking for equality of treatment and allow such cases to be dealt with at county courts.
Mr Lansley
To be as helpful as I can, I will, if I may, ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to reply to my hon. Friend on this issue. However, other Members may also be interested in it, so I will check with him whether there is a way he can inform them about the issue she raises.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Peter Oborne, writing in today’s Telegraph, says that he warned the then future Prime Minister that he would be
“making an extremely worrying statement about the type of government he plans to lead if he allows Coulson anywhere near Downing Street”.
Given these widespread concerns expressed at the time, may we have a statement on the vetting processes used at the time and now, so that we make sure that vetting is of the highest status that can possibly be achieved?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit confused. The vetting process is a security vetting process, which is quite distinct from the choice that the Prime Minister rightly makes about whom he employs as his advisers, including in special adviser positions. Those are not the same process and should not be regarded as such. However, as the Prime Minister explained yesterday and as is reflected in the evidence to Leveson, a process of inquiry was of course undertaken when Andy Coulson was first appointed director of communications to the Conservative party. At that time and subsequently, questions were asked and assurances were received, which unfortunately led to—as we completely understand—the Prime Minister giving Mr Coulson a second chance, but it proved to be misplaced.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
In addition to the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday, can we at some point have a debate on Europe that would enable those of us who are inherently pro-European to make the point to our colleagues in Europe that, if members of the Council of Ministers are unable to make provision for and find a position for countries such as the UK that do not wish to have the euro and are never going to be part of the eurozone—if we cannot be found an honoured place in Europe, and are unable to protect the inherent national interests of the City of London—inevitably, they are starting to push this country nearer and nearer to the exit door?
Mr Lansley
We often have debates on this issue. My right hon. Friend is right, both in relation to the statement next week and subsequent debates, that it will be immensely important for us to set out clearly that we must have a reformed relationship with the European Union, one where we can be clear that this country’s interests can be protected. As one who also supports our membership of the European Union, I would say that our national interests have to be protected—the Prime Minister and this coalition Government have done that on issues such as banking union, the EU budget and the fiscal pact, where the Prime Minister exercised our veto. However, we can also promote our interests through membership of the European Union. That is equally part of this debate, and we can promote those interests by completing the single market, promoting competition, deregulation in Europe and ensuring that the EU budget is used effectively to support growth across the EU.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On top of the unfair treatment Hull receives in council funding and other funding that has been cut, this week the Chancellor forgot to mention that Hull is at the end of the HS3 route he was proposing and now we hear that the Deputy Prime Minister is talking about a golden triangle between Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield. In the light of the snubs the Government keep giving Hull, may we have a debate on this? We are doing our very best, getting the city of culture and Siemens into the city, but those are victories that are home-grown, not enabled by the Government.
Mr Lansley
That is uncharacteristically churlish on the part of the hon. Lady; the Government have been part of that, for example, being part of the negotiation with Siemens. The Chancellor talked at the beginning of this week about the vision for the future and greater east-west connectedness and, as she acknowledged, what he was talking about included Hull as part of that potential connectedness.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), may we have a debate on the consistency of official advice on nutrition—and indeed on whether we need advice on nutrition at all—given the confusion that will inevitably be caused in the minds of the public following today’s advice that we should not be drinking fruit juice and instead should be drinking water? We have always been told that drinking fruit juice and was part of our “five a day”, but now we are told that we should be drinking water. May we have an early debate about whether we need such nanny state advice?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will have heard what I said in my reply a moment ago, but the recommendations published today are in draft form. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition is inviting comments on the scientific aspects of its report, and it will consider those and finalise the report later this year or early next year. I hope that my hon. Friend and other Members will have an opportunity at some point during that process to express their views about how we can best achieve that good advice to parents about the diet they provide to their children.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Other countries do not allow their football academies to take in foreign youngsters under the age of 18. Our home nations do allow that, partly because they want to feed those players into the Premier League, but that means that a lot of our players get dismissed at 16 and 17. The foreign countries are still in the World cup, but we are not. May we have a debate about the future of youth football in this country and the investment the Football Association is putting into our academy structures?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman may be in his place next Thursday when Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be here and this may be an interesting point for him to raise with them. If he will forgive me, I will not venture too far into this area. I know that the Backbench Business Committee is considering whether to schedule a debate on non-league football. There is widespread interest in the House in football governance and football matters more generally, and perhaps this is something that may be considered on a Back-Bench basis as a priority for debate.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My constituents in Shrewton have recently drawn my attention to a tweet from the Highways Agency that showed that there were no problems with the A303 following the summer solstice at Stonehenge last weekend. When they checked the camera online themselves, the footage was unavailable. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement soon from the relevant Minister, so that my constituents can clarify whether the Highways Agency is deliberately switching off that important camera, which is a source of data that are highly relevant to decisions in Government?
Mr Lansley
This is a sensitive point on the A303, and I can see the point that my hon. Friend is making. I do not know the position, so I will, if I may, ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to him.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
This is not a criticism of the Leader of the House, but can he give us a date or clarify when the Government will honour their promise to introduce legislation to regulate the Football League? We still have an ongoing saga in Coventry, and the latest one is over Birmingham’s ownership. Is it not about time that this issue was cleared up?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he was not making a criticism of me. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the matter, and he heard what I said about questions next Thursday. None the less, my recollection is that Ministers said not that they would bring forward legislation, but that if football governance, the Football Association and other authorities did not take the necessary steps to reform governance in football, they would consider introducing legislation. They did not make a commitment to do so.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Professor Elliott’s final report on food safety and security, which was set up following the horsemeat scandal, is expected soon. It will have great implications for shorter food supply chains, traceability and labelling. Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate in Government time on these issues once the report has been adopted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?
Mr Lansley
I will, as my hon. Friend would expect, wait to see what the Elliott review has to say. No doubt my hon. Friends in DEFRA will want to tell the House how the Government propose to respond to it. I cannot promise Government time. As I have often said to the House on the allocation of time in the Chamber, the great majority of Government time has to be devoted to legislation. A significant part of the Government time that was previously available for debate has been handed over to the Backbench Business Committee, so that it can determine where Back Benchers feel the priority lies.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on timely responses to parliamentary questions? Since 4 June, I have tabled 24 parliamentary questions, the majority of which are named day questions on the issue of passports, and not one has had a substantive reply to date. Is the relevant Minister perhaps abroad?
Mr Lansley
It will not be long before I report to the House on the performance as regards parliamentary questions in the previous Session. I hope to do that before the summer recess. That may give Members an opportunity to raise points on the issue, not least here at business questions. On the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman raised with the Home Office, it sounds like the named day requirement was met with a holding answer. I will ask the Department when it can give him the substantive answer for which he is looking.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I have been a long-time advocate for elected mayors, and I was pleased to hear the Chancellor’s comments on the subject in his speech earlier this week. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how the Government intend to move forward with that proposal, which would make a significant contribution to delivering our long-term economic plan?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend and I share the view that elected mayors can make a significant and positive difference; we have seen that, not least in London. The legislation is in place to enable this to happen; the question is whether the political will and public consent are available to push it forward.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House agree that we need a debate on how Andy Coulson got access to highly sensitive material without proper security vetting? That decision was taken by civil servants who did not even bother to consult the Prime Minister. Do the public not have a right to know just how widespread that despicable practice is across Government?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he makes that sort of accusation. It is not that there was no security clearance, but that developed vetting had not taken place, which is a substantially different process. Security clearance is distinct from developed vetting.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
In the first three months of this year, car insurance premiums fell dramatically, according to the AA, due to legal reforms introduced by the Ministry of Justice to curtail organised whiplash fraud. May we have a debate on measures that the Government have introduced to help consumers and taxpayers—measures such as freezing fuel duties, raising the personal tax-free allowance, scrapping green taxes and enabling local authorities, such as mine in North West Leicestershire, to freeze council tax for a fifth consecutive year?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly goes to points that matter a great deal to people. The fall in insurance premiums has been positive, and it is positive that councils across the country have been supported to freeze council tax, which, in many areas, doubled during the life of the previous Government. Relatively low-income households who pay tax have seen £700 come off their tax bill as a consequence of the coalition Government’s commitment to increasing the personal tax allowance. Under Labour plans, fuel duty was due to increase and escalate, but fuel will now be 20p cheaper than it would have been under those plans. There are so many examples of measures that are making a positive difference to people paying their household bills.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have emergency legislation on compensation and compound interest? We should make Wonga pay out not £2.6 million compensation for unfair practice but, at its own outrageous interest rates of 5,853%, £203 trillion. Perhaps then it would understand the misery that it causes.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will recall the steps that were taken in the previous Session to put a cap on payday lending. We responded to some of the issues. It is important for the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that this perfectly legitimate business is undertaken in a legitimate fashion. When it is not, it is absolutely right that the enforcement action is tough.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Leader of the House has announced that there will be a general debate on the Floor of the House on Thursday 10 July on a topic yet to be announced. Given the recent and important developments in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel, the Palestinian Authority area and Egypt, surely the subject needs to be the middle east and north Africa. During such a debate, we could raise concerns about what it says about modern Britain that more of our citizens appear to have signed up for jihad in Syria than have applied to join the Army Reserve.
Mr Lansley
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but that business for the week after next is not only provisional but highly provisional. I will reflect on what he said and make an announcement about the future business next week.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
In September 2013 the Treasury wrote that Equitable Life policyholders would receive some repayments. My constituents are dying, sadly, and are very elderly, and they have not received a penny. Will the Leader of the House ask a Treasury Minister to come to the House and explain this wholly unacceptable delay?
Mr Lansley
I will ask my right hon. Friends at the Treasury to respond to the hon. Lady on that. I will take an interest and ensure that I see the response. If they need to correspond with Members more generally on the subject, I will ask them to consider that, too.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
There appears to be some slow movement in getting passports to the Salvi family, my surrogate family who are trapped in India. They have now been told that they may have to travel 900 miles to Delhi to the high commission for an interview, even though that is not a legal requirement. Please may we have a statement on the action that the Home Secretary is taking to get all the surrogate children home from India?
Mr Lansley
As the hon. Lady knows from exchanges that we have had here, and from when the Home Secretary and the Minister have been here, intense action is being taken by the Home Office to ensure that it meets the requirements of applicants for passports and travel documents. However, there will be no prejudice to proper rigour in the scrutiny of applications, and of course in some countries that means that people are required to travel to where the appropriate staff are to undertake that scrutiny. I shall ask my colleagues particularly to look at the case raised by the hon. Lady.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Can we have a debate on the responsibility gap faced by British Transport and Home Office police when they find an individual in emotional and mental crisis attempting suicide? They take them to A and E and are told that because the person does not have a mental illness, they will not be admitted. The individual’s life is at great risk and they have committed no crime, yet no one seems to take responsibility for giving them support and assistance during their emotional crisis. Can we look at that gap?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I shall ask the Department of Health and the Home Office to look at that. My recollection is that considerable work is being done looking carefully at the interaction between policing services and NHS services, particularly in sensitive areas relating to mental health and those suffering any kind of mental health problems—[Interruption.] No, I understand, but from the NHS point of view, with what it is presented with, it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between those who have a mental illness and those who have symptoms. It is fair for the hon. Lady, and for us, to ask the NHS to explain how it responds. Saying, “You don’t have an illness, so you are not our problem” is not the way the NHS often responds. It responds by saying, “You are experiencing symptoms”—which people may well be—“and the question is whether they are treatable.” If they are not treatable, they may be something that requires support more from the local authority than from the NHS.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
May we have a statement on the arrogance of this Government, who have a Prime Minister who dispenses with normal staff vetting procedures, a Chancellor who refuses to debate the merits of an audit of manifestos by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, a Health Secretary who deems it acceptable to make announcements on patient safety to the media and has to be dragged to the House, and a Work and Pensions Secretary who is determined to push through his welfare reforms, regardless of the mounting evidence of their chaos and the untold harm to very vulnerable people in society?
Mr Lansley
On every point that the hon. Lady mentions she is completely wrong. I shall not go through them all, but to suggest that the Prime Minister somehow dispensed with security vetting is completely wrong. The hon. Lady can read the Leveson report, which sets out very clearly that civil servants, not the Prime Minister, were responsible for that decision, so her point was completely unfair. She referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who made a written ministerial statement to the House; that is informing the House.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Further to the earlier remarks by the Leader of the House, may we have a debate on better regulation and the payday lender parasites, Wonga, whose sending of threatening letters from non-existent law firms to 45,000 customers is nothing short of a disgrace?
Mr Lansley
I agree; it was disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said to other Members about discussing with my colleagues at the Treasury how they might inform the House about the response to that situation. Of course, the case was announced only yesterday by the Financial Conduct Authority, so we will have to see what Ministers’ views are on the action that has been taken.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House should not be celebrating a 0.3% reduction in childhood obesity when one third of kids are leaving our primary schools overweight or obese. Can we have an urgent debate with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the universal credit programme, which has cost millions of pounds but has not yet reached 6,000 people?
Mr Lansley
I think the hon. Lady will have heard me say that the latest figures on childhood obesity are a small step in the right direction and, after years in which it was increasing, a very welcome one. It is one step on what needs to be a very long journey to reverse probably two decades of increasing childhood obesity. Regarding a debate on universal credit, the hon. Lady will have noted that the Liaison Committee has set down a debate on the implementation of universal credit for estimates day on Monday week.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
In my constituency, Park End medical centre, Skelton medical centre and walk-in centre, Guisborough hospital minor injuries unit, and East Cleveland hospital’s minor injuries unit are being closed. After being dragged here on Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Health responded to my question by saying that Ministers had already met me about this subject. That is not the case at all. May we have a debate about Health Ministers’ openness and transparency, so that we can discuss how they deal with Members of this House and whether the comments they make are factually correct?
Mr Lansley
Ministers at the Department of Health make immense efforts to ensure that they respond fully and accurately to Members of this House and keep the House informed. We are about to hear from the Secretary of State for Health on a very important matter. However, I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friends, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, to discuss with him the constituency issues he raises.
NHS Investigations (Jimmy Savile)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Jimmy Savile investigations.
This morning, 28 investigations into Savile were published, including two larger reports on Leeds infirmary and Broadmoor hospital and 26 smaller reports on other institutions. I know that this House and, indeed, the whole country will share a deep sense of revulsion at what they reveal: a litany of disturbing accounts of rape and sexual abuse committed by Savile on vulnerable children and adults over a period of decades.
At the time, the victims who spoke up were not believed, and it is important today that we all publicly recognise the truth of what they have said, but it is a profoundly uncomfortable truth. As a nation at that time, we held Savile in our affection as a somewhat eccentric national treasure with a strong commitment to charitable causes. Today’s reports show that, in reality, he was a sickening and prolific sexual abuser who repeatedly exploited the trust of a nation for his own vile purposes.
The report published by Leeds infirmary today reveals that Savile was a predatory porter who abused and raped patients without scruple. Sixty people reported abuse to the investigation. One of his teenage victims believed that she was pregnant as a result of his abuse. Two witnesses told the investigation Savile claimed to have had jewellery made from glass eyes taken from bodies in the mortuary. Other reported behaviour is too horrific to recount in detail to this House, but is set out in full in the reports published today.
Savile was also an opportunistic sexual predator at Broadmoor. The investigation concludes that at least five individuals, and possibly more, were sexually abused by Savile. Inexplicably, Savile was allowed to watch female patients as they stripped naked for bathing.
There were fewer incidents reported in the other 26 investigations, but there are strong indications that they were consistent with a wider pattern of offending. I have placed the reports of all the investigations in the House of Commons Library. Five investigations are ongoing and will report later this year.
Today’s reports will shake this House and our country to the core. Savile was a callous, opportunistic, wicked predator who abused and raped individuals, many of them patients and young people, who expected and had a right to expect to be safe. His actions span five decades, from the 1960s to 2010. The family favourite loved by millions courted popularity and used it to perpetrate and cover up his own evil acts.
I and, I am sure, the whole House will want to pay tribute to all the victims who came forward to talk about their experiences. It took great courage for them to relive their often extremely distressing and disturbing experiences.
The reports paint a terrible picture, as time and again victims were ignored or, if they were not, little or no action was taken. The systems in place to protect people were either too weak or were ignored. People and institutions turned a blind eye.
Today, I want to apologise on behalf of the Government and the NHS to all the victims who were abused by Savile in NHS-run institutions. We let them down badly and however long ago it may have been, many of them are still reliving the pain they went through. If we cannot undo the past, I hope that honesty and transparency about what happened can at least alleviate some of the suffering. It is the least we owe them.
Today, changes to the way that we guard against abuse would make it much harder for someone such as Savile to perpetrate these crimes for so long. The safeguarding system, as the Leeds report makes clear, has been much improved over the past 30 years. The landmark Children Act 1989 enshrined a child’s right to protection from abuse. The first child sex offenders register was established in 1997, and 1999 saw legislation to prevent sex offenders from working with children. Criminal Records Bureau checks and the Disclosure and Barring Service have provided further protection. The Children Act 2004 requires NHS bodies to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and to sit on the local safeguarding children board. NHS England published its safeguarding framework in 2013.
Savile was, however, never convicted of any offence, so this safeguarding system depends on much better awareness by professionals and the public and a much heightened vigilance against such abuse than there was in the past. Although that is reassuring to an extent, we cannot be complacent. Today, I am writing to all the system leaders in the NHS—NHS England, the NHS Trust Development Authority, Monitor and the Care Quality Commission—to ask them to ensure that they and all trusts review safeguarding arrangements in the light of the reports, and to ensure that they are confident about patient safety. For its part, the Department of Health has accepted all the specific recommendations assigned to it in the Broadmoor report.
There are some painfully obvious lessons for the system as a whole. First, we must never give people the kind of access that Savile enjoyed to wards and patients without proper checks, whoever that person may be. Secondly, if people are abusive, staff should feel supported to challenge them, whoever that person may be, and take swift action. Thirdly, where patients report abuse, they need to be listened to, whatever their age, whatever their condition, and there needs to be proper investigation of what they report. It is deeply shocking that so few people felt that they could speak up and even more shocking that no one listened to those who did speak up. That is now changing in the NHS, but we have a long way to go.
In ensuring appropriate measures, we must not hinder the extraordinary contribution of thousands of volunteers and fundraisers working in the NHS every day. They are the opposite of Savile and we need to ensure that their remarkable contribution is sustained.
In parallel with this NHS work, the Department for Education is overseeing investigations into Savile’s activity in care settings, based on the same tranche of information that led to the smaller NHS investigations. There are other ongoing investigations by the police into allegations of historic child sexual exploitation. I hope this reassures the House of the seriousness of this issue and our response to it. The Department will also work with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the National Association for People Abused in Childhood to ensure that information is swiftly passed on.
I conclude by paying tribute to Kate Lampard and her team. When patient safety is the issue, speed is vital. These investigations have swiftly and effectively brought to light vital issues that must be addressed. She will be publishing her conclusions and recommendations on this scandal later this year, as will the national group on sexual violence against children and vulnerable people. This report will bring together the Government’s wider work to eradicate violence against children and vulnerable people.
But today, above all, we should remember the victims of Savile. They were brave. They have been vindicated. He was a coward. He has been disgraced. The system failed to prevent him from abusing. It failed to act when people spoke up. We must not allow history to repeat itself. I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for notice and sight of his statement. I commend him for the way he introduced it to the House and welcome everything he said. The reports published today are truly disturbing, and as sickening as any ever presented to the House. How a celebrity DJ and predatory sex offender came to have unfettered access to vulnerable patients across the NHS, and gold-plated keys to its highest security hospital, surely ranks as one of the worst failures of patient and public protection our country has ever seen. It raises questions of the most profound kind about how victims of abuse are treated, how systems for protecting vulnerable children and adults work and the nature of celebrity and society’s relationship with it.
The Secretary of State was right to begin with an apology—I support him in making it—to the hundreds of people who were appallingly failed and whose lives have been haunted ever since. Our first thought must be with them today. They had a right to look to the NHS as a place of safety and sanctuary, but they were cruelly let down by the very institutions that were meant to offer protection. As one of Savile’s victims put it:
“It was like another insult. I’m in a top security hospital and someone has got to me again. When does it stop?”
Today’s statement will have evoked memories of the most painful kind for them, so will the Secretary of State ensure that all Savile’s victims have full and direct access to all the counselling and other support they will need?
One of the main purposes of this process of inquiry should have been to give all the victims the opportunity to be heard, but the Secretary of State might know that there are reports today in the Yorkshire Post that one person who tried to come forward was at first ignored in October 2012. Will he assure us that all reasonable steps have been taken by those preparing these reports to help victims come forward and tell their story, including those who might have been ignored when they first tried?
Many of Savile’s victims have suffered severe financial loss as a result of the challenges they have faced. I understand that claims for compensation will in the first instance draw on Jimmy Savile’s estate. Has there been an assessment of whether the estate’s funds will be sufficient to meet all claims? Given what has been revealed today and the abject failures of public bodies, should not the Government now consider allocating public funds to ensure that all the people damaged by Savile are properly compensated and supported?
Reading the report, it is not at all clear to me that a proper process has yet been put in place to hold people who failed in their public duties to account. If evidence is revealed in any of these reports that shows that any person still working in the NHS or the Department of Health knowingly facilitated these crimes, will the Secretary of State assure us that they will now face the full weight of the law and that those who were negligent in respect of their public duties will also be held fully to account?
It is incomprehensible how this could have been allowed to happen over 55 years. Although it relates to a different era, there are serious lessons that we can learn, given that abuse continues in our health and care system today. Let me turn to those. The first area of concern relates to how victims of abuse are treated, particularly young people or people in the mental health care system. Sadly, there are still far too many instances of abuse in our care system and in mental health settings, and the real figure is likely to be higher because of under-reporting. Will the Secretary of State consider what more needs to be done to give people the confidence to come forward and the reassurance that they will be listened to? Is there a case for more training for staff in dealing with allegations of abuse?
The second area of concern relates to how public bodies carry out vetting and barring arrangements, make public appointments and manage their relationship with celebrity. Hospitals across the country have increasingly sophisticated fundraising operations and links with celebrity endorsers. Will the Secretary of State accept the Broadmoor report’s recommendation that no celebrity should be appointed to an executive position or given privileged access to a hospital or its patients and that they should be fully vetted if appointed to a non-executive position? More broadly, is there now a case for a code of conduct setting out the appropriate relationship that the NHS should have with celebrity or business backers?
On vetting and barring, figures obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) show that the number of people barred from working with children as a result of committing a sexual offence against a child has dropped by 10,000, or 75%, in the past three years. These extremely worrying figures have come about as a result of changes to the vetting and barring arrangements. This raises the concern that there are people working in our health and care system now who may pose a risk to children. Will the Secretary of State look again at this issue, consult the Home Secretary, and urgently report back to the House on why these figures have dropped by so much in such a short space of time, and on whether they believe that the current child protection regime is strong enough?
The question arises of whether this process of inquiry is a sufficient response to the scale of these atrocious crimes. It is hard to draw a clear picture and consistent recommendations from 28 separate reports and all the other inquiries that are still ongoing in schools, care homes, the BBC and the police. I, too, pay tribute to the work of Kate Lampard in assuring the quality of the reports published today, and we wait for her second phase of work, but questions remain about their independence given that each hospital has, in effect, investigated itself. There is also a question of whether this needs to be more independent of Government.
The Broadmoor report raises serious questions about the conduct of civil servants and Ministers in the Department of Health in how Savile came to be appointed to the Broadmoor taskforce. In evidence to the inquiry, the then Minister describes the main objective of Savile’s appointment as follows:
“The principal question was can Government break this hold that the Prison Officers Association has on the hospital.”
She went on to say:
“This task force was dreamed up and seemed like a very good idea and step forward Jimmy Savile who knew the place backwards and was more than happy to volunteer his time to do this. And we were happy to do it.”
That paints a picture of chaos in the Department and a complete absence of due process for such a serious appointment. This is an extraordinary revelation. Although there is no suggestion that any Minister knew of any sexual misconduct, it points to the need for a further process of independent inquiry so that we all, as Ministers and former Ministers, can learn the lessons of what happened, but also draw together the threads of the multiple ongoing inquiries. It simply cannot be left for Savile’s victims to try to pull together the details of these investigations.
As the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has said, there is now a clear case for a proper, overarching, independent review led by child protection experts into why there was such large-scale institutional failure to stop these abhorrent crimes. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State gave this proposal careful consideration. I finish by assuring him of our full support in helping him to establish the full truth of why abuse on this scale was allowed to happen for so long.
Mr Hunt
I thank the shadow Health Secretary for the constructive tone of his comments. Many of the suggestions he has made are very sensible. We will take them away and look at them, but I will go through a number of them now. First, we will indeed make sure that all Savile’s victims get the counselling they need. I think that it has been made available to them, but it is absolutely right to double-check that they are getting every bit of help they need and that we are taking all reasonable steps.
I hope that what has happened today will be, in its own way, another landmark for all victims of sexual abuse in giving them the confidence that we are changing, not just as an NHS but as a society, into being much better at listening when people come forward with these very serious allegations. It hits you time and again when reading these reports how many people did not speak up at the time because they thought that no one would believe them. We are not going to change that culture overnight, but we have to be a society that listens to the small person—the person who might get forgotten and does not feel they are important in the system.
On the claims for compensation, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the first draw for those claims will come from the Savile estate. I hope I can reassure him, however, that, as we have said, the Government will underwrite this so that if there are any claims that are not able to be met by the estate we finance them from the public purse. We think it is important that we should do that, although Savile’s estate is the first place to start, for obvious reasons.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that if there is evidence that people have criminally neglected claims that were made at the time or behaved inappropriately—even if it is not a matter for the law and they behaved in a way that could make them subject to disciplinary procedures in NHS organisations—that should be addressed. We will urge all NHS organisations to look carefully at anyone who is mentioned in the reports. Of course, the police will, naturally, look at the evidence against any individuals, who of course have the right to due process, which everyone in the House would accept.
On the specific point about the behaviour of one Minister and what it suggested about the motivation for Savile’s approval for his job at Broadmoor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was Secretary of State at the time, has said that that behaviour would be indefensible now and that it would have been indefensible at the time. I agree with him. Everyone must be held accountable for the actions they took.
We are doing a great deal to make sure that all NHS staff are trained to feel more confident about speaking out. The Mid Staffs whistleblower Helene Donnelly is now working with Health Education England to see what needs to change in the training of NHS staff in order to change that culture.
On the new disclosure and barring scheme, we are already doing work to examine the reason for the drop in the number of people who are being barred from working with children. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is looking into that. I have given this a lot of thought and it is important to say that in the current environment, were we to have another Savile, it is likely that the disclosure and barring scheme would bar him from working with children and in trusts, but that is not certain because he was never convicted of a crime. The Criminal Records Bureau checks would not have stopped that, but it is possible for the disclosure and barring scheme to prevent people from working with children and vulnerable adults even if they have not committed a crime. For example, their employment track record may show that they were dismissed for doing things that raised suspicions. It is also important to make the point—I think everyone in the House will understand this—that it is not possible to legislate to stop all criminal vile activity. What we depend on for the disclosure and barring scheme to work is a culture in which the public and patients feel able to speak out and staff listen when they do so, in order that these things surface much more quickly.
Finally, the question of whether any further inquiries are necessary will, of course, be considered. The first step is to let Kate Lampard do her full report. At this stage, she has not drawn together all the different inquiries and tried to draw lessons from the system as a whole. I asked her to do two things. The first was to verify independently that the reports of NHS organisations were of the necessary quality, and I think she has done that superbly. The second stage of her work is to see what lessons can be drawn from the system as a whole. We need to hear what she has to say about that and, indeed, what the Department for Education and the BBC learn from their reports, and then we will come to a conclusion about whether any further investigations are needed.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
May I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the victims? They were not silent. What today’s reports show is that very many people witnessed—even directly condoned—some deeply inappropriate behaviour. How could it ever be acceptable for a celebrity to be able to watch female patients showering? Will the Secretary of State join me in sending a message to NHS staff that they should always raise concerns if they witness such behaviour and that they will be protected if they do so?
Mr Hunt
I am absolutely happy to do that. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. The NHS needs to move to a system where it is the norm rather than the exception to report, and where NHS staff feel comfortable that reporting any concerns is an absolutely normal part of their job. She is right to say that one of the most disturbing things in the reports is the clear evidence that some people helped Savile in what he did—for example, that people were escorted to his private room in Broadmoor—which is very shocking. That is why it is very important that everyone is vigilant. I totally agree with what she said.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The only people who emerge with any credit are the victims, and we need to support them. However, I was slightly stung by the Secretary of State’s comment about the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that the actions of the Minister—it was Edwina Currie, if I remember rightly—were inappropriate then, as they would be now, will he apologise for his stewardship of the Department at the time, or will the Secretary of State look at the Minister’s conduct and come back to the House to explain how it was possible?
Mr Hunt
I hope that I have gone some way to meet the hon. Lady’s concerns because, on behalf of the Government and the NHS, I have offered a full apology to all the victims for what happened, and I have accepted that there were failures at many levels. It is very important to say that the reports show that there was no evidence that Ministers or officials were aware of any sexual abuse by Savile. I pointed to the comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe because I wanted to make it clear that this Government are not defending actions which, as he has said, were indefensible then and would be indefensible now.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his measured statement. Indeed, I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s comments about joining our call for an overarching inquiry, because this is the tip of the iceberg. There are still ongoing inquiries to do with Savile in the NHS, 11 local authorities, care homes and others.
Specifically on the subject of victims, there is something that the Secretary of State can do to help immediately. So many victims have very bravely come forward after suffering trauma over many decades and many are still calling the ChildLine and NAPAC—the National Association for People Abused in Childhood—helplines. However, for too many, the therapeutic support that they need to help them through such a particularly difficult time is absolutely not there. Police and health professionals have come to me to say that they know such people, but cannot do anything for them. With the resources in the NHS, the Secretary of State can help now.
Mr Hunt
I commend my hon. Friend for his campaigning for vulnerable children over many years. The letter I sent to NHS England this morning asks it to make sure that all the lessons are learned from the reports, and it includes the very clear suggestion—I want the NHS to interpret my letter in this way—that it should ensure that it commissions the support needed for children in these circumstances so that they get the very support that is necessary. This is not just about encouraging people to speak out; it is about making sure that when they do, they feel listened to and supported.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for his considered response. In relation to the scale of the abuse—with ages ranging from five to 75, and involving 28 hospitals—lessons need to be learned about the systematic failure not just within the NHS, but within other institutions. Will the Health Secretary have discussions with the Cabinet Office and others to make sure that appropriate lessons are learned?
Mr Hunt
Absolutely. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking a cross-Government approach—across a range of Departments, but particularly the Department for Education and the Home Office—and that the Government as a whole will draw the lessons from this whole horrific series of episodes to make sure that we have a joined-up approach.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I agree with the Secretary of State that our first thought has to be for the victims, and that in future we must listen to the powerless and not block inquiries. If we go back to 2011—before Savile died—an American journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, was banned from coming to the UK to investigate child abuse, including by Jimmy Savile. Even more recently, she was arrested at the airport on 5 June, while coming to an inquiry. Will the Secretary of State speak to his colleague the Minister for Security and Immigration to ask why somebody in the UK Border Agency seems to be aiming to inhibit one of the inquiries?
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
Is not one of the wider problems our perceptions of how a sexual predator looks and acts? When men like Savile are arrested, the usual reaction is shock that such a nice man could abuse children, but sex predators are not men in dirty raincoats; they come from all walks of life and all professions. That perception means that children are not being heard. Will the Secretary of State make preventing as well as detecting child sexual abuse a public health priority? It is only through a better informed public, more aware of how predators such as Savile behave, that we will be able to protect children from abuse.
Mr Hunt
I completely agree, and that is one of the big lessons. The shadow Home Secretary was absolutely right to say that this issue raises serious questions about the nature of celebrity in our society. One of the reasons that totally inexcusable things happened—such as being given the keys to Broadmoor—was that somehow on the basis of Savile’s image people made wrong assumptions about him. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the things that will change as a result of this investigation is that people will be more willing to challenge those who previously were not challenged. But there is a long way to go.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
I totally agree with the Secretary of State’s belief that there should be more openness, and an increased sense of need to report concerns, but is he satisfied that, particularly with regard to NHS staff who may report concerns or whistleblowers, there is enough protection within the system to encourage more people to be more open?
Mr Hunt
No, I am not. That is why earlier this week we asked Sir Robert Francis to do a follow-up review to his public inquiry to determine what else needs to be done to create a culture of openness and transparency in the NHS. We have come a very long way as a society in terms of our understanding, but there is more work to be done. It is also very important, as I said in my statement—I know everyone would agree with this—that we do not undermine the brilliant work done by volunteers in hospitals and that we do not create a kind of bureaucratic morass that makes it impossible for that really important work to be done. However, I know we can do better than we are at the moment and important lessons need to be learned.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has been very gracious in his apology given that he was not Secretary of State at the time. Might I make one further practical suggestion? Will he speak to the Prime Minister about perhaps appointing a Minister to co-ordinate all these reports across the public institutions?
Mr Hunt
I reassure the hon. Lady that that responsibility lies with the Home Secretary, and the Home Office has a cross-governmental committee that will bring together all the lessons from all the reports. My first priority is to ensure that we are doing everything we can to make NHS patients safe, but there are much broader lessons to be learned. That is being led by the Home Office.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has happened is absolutely abhorrent and that it sends out a strong message to everyone in society that even a celebrity is not above the law of the land? May I also praise the work of Kate Lampard and her team in bringing this forward?
Mr Hunt
That is absolutely right. Celebrities have never been above the law of the land, but what is clear from the report is that even though that is the case legally, in practical terms they were above the law because they were able to get away with things for a very long time that ordinary people would not have been able to get away with. That is why this is such a big moment of reflection for us. I know that everyone in the House will want to think hard about what we need to do to change that culture.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
We know that Savile was well regarded by many politicians; by way of example, he was friends with Cyril Smith and appeared in a Liberal party political broadcast in the 1970s, and had friends in high places. Surely an overarching inquiry into child sex abuse would help us to understand the political networks to which Savile belonged.
Mr Hunt
I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned a lot on these issues. We have not ruled out anything, but we want first to draw together the lessons for the NHS and across Government as quickly as possible. One of the important benefits of the way in which we have proceeded so far is that, because it is an investigation and not a public inquiry, we can get to the truth relatively quickly. However, we will certainly look at the cross-governmental lessons.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
As a former member of the medical staff at Stoke Mandeville hospital and now as the Member representing Broadmoor hospital, I have many questions, but let me concentrate on one. In appendix 2A part V, there is a letter about Broadmoor from Jimmy Savile to the Department of Health. It is headed “National Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke Mandeville”, and it is signed “Dr Jimmy Savile”. Indeed, the content of the letter is deeply unprofessional and remarkable, and it was copied on to a series of people, including the then Secretary of State. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that each of these individuals has been investigated in respect of their response to this correspondence, as I cannot believe that people could have received it without being deeply concerned about this vile man’s involvement in a high-security hospital?
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for allowing me early advance notice of the report relating to St Catherine’s hospital in Birkenhead. Much more importantly, may I associate myself with the apology that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my constituent and others? He will know that that hospital has been bulldozed and that we now have a fine community hospital. To bulldoze these practices within the NHS, will the Secretary of State consider and come back to me later on these two issues? First, it took my constituent 48 years before she was believed and 50 years before she received an apology. What steps are we going to take to ensure that justice is provided much more quickly? Secondly, Jimmy Savile was escorted around St Cath’s Birkenhead by officials, who witnessed him jumping into bed with a young patient and who thought it funny. All the rules in the world provide some defence, but how do we get people to exercise judgment—whatever the rules say, whatever the circumstances and whoever does it—and say that this behaviour is not acceptable?
Mr Hunt
I would like to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments; I share his disbelief and shock that it has taken so long. In some ways justice will never be done, because Savile died before it could be served on him, which is one of the biggest tragedies of all. I agree: there was a major lack of judgment, some of it because of the different attitudes prevailing at those times. One of the big differences today is that we make links between what is disgusting but not illegal behaviour and potential abuse in a way that did not happen in those days. I want to share with the right hon. Gentleman what most shocked me personally in the reports, and it was the way in which Savile interfered and abused people who had just come out of operations and were recovering from them. The fact that Savile was able to do that, without being supervised, is shocking and when those people spoke up about what had happened, they were not believed. That is one of so many lessons that need to be learned; I know that everyone wants to learn them.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
It is clear from the Portsmouth report that there were incidents with no corroborative evidence of the abuse. In one local case, the complainant was unconscious at the time of the alleged incident and learned of it from a hospital cleaner who witnessed it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that “no proof” is not the same as “it did not happen”, that his welcome words of apology should apply to all those who think they may have been abused and that we need a clear process for how such unprovable complaints can be dealt with?
Mr Hunt
Absolutely right. The case that my hon. Friend mentions was a real tragedy because that person suffered very real psychological harm in subsequent years as a result of what they were told by the cleaner. There are two points. First, we cannot necessarily corroborate, but we can see a pattern. What is impressive about these investigations is the fact that the investigators say time after time that although it is not possible to prove that these things happened, they believe that they did happen because the evidence was credible. On one or two occasions, they say that they are not sure, but in the vast majority of cases, they thought that the evidence was credible. Secondly, there will continue to be times when offences are alleged, but it is not possible to prove them in a court of law. The big lesson to be learnt is that that does not mean no action should be taken. We must do what it takes to protect patients.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman’s statement. Does he agree that the fear of litigation by NHS practitioners appears to be one of the reasons why the system does not lend itself to the provision of a good listening ear, and, indeed, one of the reasons why a compassionate response to that listening is not always forthcoming? What practical steps can be taken to ensure that, at an early stage, practitioners actually listen to complaints?
Mr Hunt
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we need to change the balance in the NHS, so that the safest thing for people to do if they want to avoid litigation is to report concerns rather than sitting on them. That is an interesting lesson that has been learnt in other industries, such as the airline industry, and I hope that the follow-up review by Sir Robert Francis will help us to understand it better.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for what he has said about the reports. In his statement, he referred to the importance of the changes that have come about over the past few years, both under this Government—and there are more to come—and under the last Government. Many of those changes have derived from advice given by specialist police forces or by teams within police forces.
The Association of Chief Police Officers runs courses, and collects expertise for the purpose of those courses. Its aim is to catch the individuals concerned, to help those who have been attacked by them and to monitor those individuals after they have been put on the sex offenders list. Does the Secretary of State think that it would be useful to ask ACPO whether it could provide any more advice for the Government to consider? I know that the Metropolitan police’s Jigsaw team is currently considering changes that would help it to monitor and control sex offenders once they have been detected and put on the list.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend has made an important point. Of course we need to co-operate very closely with the police service, and the Home Secretary is doing a huge amount of work to establish what needs to be done to increase conviction rates for sexual offences. The point for the NHS to consider, however, is that the disclosure and barring scheme will only work properly if NHS organisers comply with it—as they are obliged to do—and report incidents, because that enables other NHS organisations to find out about them. I am not satisfied that the levels of compliance are as high as they should be.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I feel that our concern for victims must lead us to ask whether the actions of Ministers, or managers in the NHS, caused the pain that they suffered. That is one of the things that we can still do. Beyond compensation, there is accountability, and there must be accountability.
I must tell the Secretary of State that I do not think it was enough for him to say that behaviour was indefensible. Colleagues of his were Ministers at the time of that behaviour, and they must be brought to book for their actions. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham): we should focus on the fact that that appointment of a disc jockey to a hospital position was not appropriate. In some respects, that individual would have carried more credibility because of his appointment, and that is why I think that accountability is important.
I also think that, in future, children and vulnerable patients must be protected from certain people who have access to wards. It is not good enough to talk about bureaucracy. Volunteers, celebrity fundraisers and business backers must be subject to checks before being given access to hospitals and to wards, and they must expect to be subject to those checks. The present arrangements must change.
Mr Hunt
We do need more robust checks. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that I have apologised to all the victims and have said that if some of the reasons given in the reports for Jimmy Savile’s appointment to one position were as the reports claim, that was indefensible. Moreover, the Secretary of State who was in office at the time has said that it was indefensible. I think that that is accountability.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State has been good enough to apologise on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government and the NHS. Given that Jimmy Savile’s celebrity status was largely due to his employment by the BBC, are we not owed a big apology by the BBC, now that the report has been published?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Today’s report is about the NHS and the BBC report is ongoing, as is the report being done by the Department for Education and the work being done by other Departments. We have to wait for the BBC to make its own statement on the matter, but my priority now is NHS patients, and the reason that I wanted to go at speed on this was to make sure that any changes we need to make now, we do so.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says, quite understandably, that we cannot undo the past, but there are several people culpable in this affair who are still drawing substantial NHS pensions. Why does he not consider docking their pensions, as a consequence for their behaviour and as a clear warning to others?
Mr Hunt
I do not rule that out at all. If someone has behaved in a way that is in breach of either the law or the regulations that were in place at the hospital in which they worked, and there is a way to have legal redress such that things like pensions can be docked, I think that they should face the full consequences of that.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Child sexual abuse is always abhorrent. The victims are always innocent and nobody should be above the law. At the beginning of this month, six Members and I wrote to the Home Secretary—now we are supported by a further 104 MPs—requesting an investigation by an independent panel into at least eight cases of child sexual abuse going back over 30 years, where the evidence has been lost or destroyed by the police, by Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and by other agencies, and where the cases have therefore been stalled or abandoned altogether. To date, we have had no reply, so can I ask the Secretary of State to encourage the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary, and anyone who else who might be moved to take the matter on, to do so, and accept that such an independent investigation is essential to search out the truth and to make sure that action is taken after that?
Mr Hunt
I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that we have a Home Office committee, chaired by the Home Office Minister from her own party—the Minister for Crime Prevention, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—that is drawing together all the lessons from Savile across all Departments. It is then going to take that view as to what needs to happen next to prevent child sexual abuse, and I would like to reassure her that the Home Office and the Government as a whole have no higher priority than that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Jimmy Savile visited the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle on a number of occasions—generally, it appears, around the time of the great north run. The Newcastle hospital trust’s investigation concludes that nothing untoward happened and there was constant supervision, but it refers to an NSPCC investigation that had access to other witnesses, which suggests that unsupervised access did occur. That is obviously a matter of huge concern for everyone who put their trust in the RVI, whether as a patient or as a child. Is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) right? It is not up to them to try to draw what could be horrendous conclusions from these somewhat conflicting reports. Do we not need an overarching independent inquiry?
Mr Hunt
We are having an overarching independent inquiry—that is what Kate Lampard is doing—but on whether we need to have further inquiries, we need to wait until we get the response, which we are hoping for this autumn, because at the moment, we have published individual reports, but we have not drawn any wider lessons for the NHS system-wide. One of the things that I hope will be a consequence of today is that if there are any victims who were abused at the RVI, they will use today as some encouragement to come forward. I have given instructions and I am absolutely clear as Health Secretary that I want every single one of the concerns of anyone who comes forward to be investigated thoroughly—as thoroughly as all the ones that are tragically coming to light today.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is astonishing that this catalogue of abuse was allowed to happen and that no action was taken at the time. I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement, both for the way he has delivered it and for the content, but can he elucidate for the House what specific changes he foresees in legislation, although legislation has moved forward, and any specific changes to procedures that now need to be taken as a result of the publication today?
Mr Hunt
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not try to predict Kate Lampard’s recommendations before she makes them, but I think the obvious question to ask is whether we have the procedures in place that ensure that someone like Savile would not be given the keys to an institution in the way that he was. I do not believe that would happen today. My understanding of the way that NHS organisations work is that it would be impossible for someone to be given the freedom of a trust in the way that he was at Broadmoor, but I do not want to take that as a fact. I want Kate Lampard to look at that, so that we can be absolutely sure that it would not happen. I think the other obvious area for her to consider is the functioning of the disclosure and barring scheme, and to make sure that it really is set up in a way that would make it more likely for us to catch someone like Savile. Again, I think it is likely that he would be caught by the DBS, but I would like Kate Lampard to look at that and give me her views.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am not sure that I share the Secretary of State’s view about Jimmy Savile being caught by the procedures now in place through the DBS, but I want to ask him this: under changes introduced by this coalition, a regular volunteer at a children’s hospital—acting, for example, as a reading volunteer on the ward—will not require a Criminal Records Bureau check, and given the harm done by the revelations about Jimmy Savile, I am sure that will cause concern to millions of parents around this country, so does the Secretary of State share that concern, especially in the light of the NSPCC’s comments this week that the pendulum has swung too far towards the abuser by the changes that his Government have introduced?
Mr Hunt
I do not agree with that. The CRB checks that were introduced by the last Labour Government were a very important step forward when they started in 2002, but what is also important, as I am sure Labour recognises, is that they have limitations, because they identify whether someone has a criminal record. Jimmy Savile was never convicted of a criminal offence, so CRB checks alone would not have stopped this abuse. That is why we need a broader system, which is what the disclosure and barring scheme is intended to be. It is deliberately set up as something that is risk-profiled, so the higher the risk, the higher the standard of investigation, but that is one of the things that Kate Lampard will look at and we need to listen to what she says when she gives us her final report.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I was grateful for the opportunity early this morning to look at the thorough report of Jimmy Savile’s visits to Odstock hospital. At Odstock, although it seemed that Mr Savile visited, the report concluded that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. However, one recommendation was that the Department of Health issue national guidance on VIP policy and VIP visits. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will look at that, so that all hospitals, including the successor to Odstock, Salisbury district hospital, can have a reliable policy in place?
Mr Hunt
I think that is a very sensible suggestion. I want to wait until Kate Lampard gives her final report in September, so I do not want to pre-empt what she says, but certainly, one of the blindingly obvious things that jumps out at us from these reports is that too generous treatment was given to someone on the basis of that celebrity status, and we definitely need to learn lessons. As I am sure my hon. Friend would appreciate from his own constituents’ point of view, the fact that there is no evidence of abuse sadly does not mean that there was no abuse, and that is why it is really important for us to remember that there may well be many people who are not mentioned today who have been quietly suffering for many years. I hope today will give them encouragement to come forward.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the report from Wythenshawe hospital this morning. For me, the shocking revelation that I noted was that it was an open secret among patients, as early as 1962, that this man was doing what he was doing—and I quote:
“a dirty old man up to no good”.
If there is one good thing that can come from this for the nation, it is that we implore all institutions, both governmental and in civil society, to keep their child protection, safeguarding and recruitment selection procedures up to date and under review.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Today will be an emotional day for victims and their families as the report is published. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how victims have been supported and informed about the publication, particularly today and in the run-up to today, and how they will be kept informed as subsequent actions are carried forward? In particular, what efforts have been made to inform and support those who are most vulnerable, such as those with learning difficulties or who are severely mentally unwell, perhaps as a result of the abuse they suffered many years ago?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue, and the guidance that I have issued to NHS organisations today makes it clear that I want to give maximum protection not just to the victims identified in these reports, but to people going forward. That is the least we owe them.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State received intelligence, or does he have a suspicion, that victims of Savile were frightened to come forward because he enjoyed powerful political protection?
Mr Hunt
I do not believe there is any evidence of that in the reports, but there is a lot of evidence that people felt that they would not be believed because of Savile’s celebrity status. Part of that celebrity status was his connections in high places, and that is part of the myth that we need to puncture as a result of today’s report.
bill presented
Pension schemes
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Secretary Vince Cable and Steve Webb, presented a Bill to make provision about pension schemes, including provision designed to encourage arrangements that offer people different levels of certainty in retirement or that involve different ways of sharing or pooling risk.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 30 June, and to be printed (Bill 12) with explanatory notes (Bill 12-EN ).
First World War (Commemoration)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the programme of commemoration for the First World War.
One hundred years ago, a poor scrap of a man who was already dying of tuberculosis fired two shots into Archduke Franz Ferdinand, his wife Sophie, and their unborn child. Meanwhile back here, the following afternoon a debate on foreign affairs happened to be scheduled, although Hansard records that hon. Members were well into proceedings before anybody mentioned Sarajevo. Eventually, an obscure Liberal, Sir Joseph Walton, raised in passing reports of an assassination he had read about in the morning papers. By the time Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey got to his feet shortly before 7 o’clock, lazy summer ears appeared to be pricking at a city that then, as now, few Britons could accurately place on the map. Although next day the assassination got Asquith to the Dispatch Box, he was there to eulogise not to debate the geopolitical consequences of Gavrilo Princip’s chaotic street corner encounter with a man who, had he lived or died that day, was fated to change the course of history.
From 28 June to 4 August is 37 days. To overplay contemporary events on a similar time frame is to remind people in positions such as ours, and in significant countries such as this, of the solemn responsibility they hold. The first lesson I draw is the frightening speed with which peace, civilisation and a functioning rules-based system can descend into chaos.
I am privileged to lead our second debate on this subject. By common consent, the first debate on 7 November was of high quality, as was their lordships’ debate on this subject yesterday. From the luminaries seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to further such debate today. This debate is well timed since the 100th anniversary of the Archduke’s assassination this weekend falls on Armed Forces day, when right hon. and hon. Members will celebrate the men and women of today’s armed forces. I am delighted that this year that celebration will be centred on the great and historic city of Stirling.
I underscore “celebration” to contrast with commemoration, and let it be understood that the great war is cause for the latter, and assuredly not cause for the former. The Government pegged out the centenary in 2012 when the Prime Minister announced the UK’s approach in October that year at the Imperial War museum. The guiding lights are remembrance, youth and education, with the Government creating a framework for a national conversation about the war within which people can explore its causes, conduct and consequences for themselves. Linked to that, the public will not have an official narrative foisted on them. We should not confuse the role of historians and pedagogues with that of politicians. The job of government is to spark the national conversation, not dictate its terms. Historians have a responsibility to rigorously and dispassionately examine the facts, contest the evidence, and offer interpretation. Through open challenge and debate, the credibility of that interpretation is tested, and we glimpse the truth.
I know that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who will speak for the Opposition, agrees with that because he told me last week that he was about to speak about the great war to the well-respected Labour History Group. I took the precaution of securing a copy of his speech, and I hope I will not embarrass or disadvantage him too much by saying what a very good speech it is. He is right to say that politicians probably should not do history, but I am sure he would be the first to say that we should all have an opinion on such an important matter. The Prime Minister has an opinion, I have mine—fortunately for me, it is somewhat similar to his—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have your opinion, and each right hon. and hon. Member in this most opinionated of places will have theirs.
Perhaps I may put my cards on the table. Like most Members present, I suspect that I would have supported Herbert Asquith in the summer of 1914, but it would have been through a veil of ignorance that obscured the full horror of what was about to be unleashed, not least from Asquith himself, whose brilliant son Raymond was killed two years later on the Somme and is listed No. 7 on the Palace of Westminster’s own village war memorial at the top of Westminster Hall, between Archdale and Balfour.
In my view, Britain’s entry into the great war fulfilled the Augustinian precepts for a just war, and we should be grateful that our predecessors in uniform and on the home front ultimately triumphed against the Kaiser—a militaristic aggressor, general disturber of the peace and, in 1914, surely Europe’s public enemy No. 1. There is nothing jingoistic or triumphalist in the view that this country has a tradition of reluctant, sober and purposeful military intervention as a last resort on the part of oppressed people, particularly in continental Europe, and where the well-being and liberty of her own citizens is threatened. The men and women we will celebrate on Armed Forces day in Stirling and across the country this weekend uphold that proud tradition.
Most people’s experience of the centenary will be through broadcast and social media, and the BBC is playing a central role in that in its best Reithian tradition. I am not always the Beeb’s greatest fan, but I have been bowled over by the quality and scope of its TV and radio offerings, which constitute the biggest and most ambitious pan-BBC season ever undertaken. The corporation’s stated intention is to bring the nation together in order to create a national conversation about the great war. Well, it is hitting the spot, and has viewer figures and feedback to prove not only the success of its programming, but the sheer scale of public interest in the centenary.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Minister is making a thoughtful speech and I commend him on his work on mental health in the services, which has great relevance to this debate. Does he agree that not the least of the strengths of what the BBC has been doing is its coverage of life on the home front, and also the extraordinary outpouring of the arts, particularly music, resurrecting many of the semi-forgotten composers from the first world war?
Dr Murrison
I certainly agree. The BBC has a difficult balance to strike. In my view, it is doing that extremely well. I particularly commend its efforts to shine a light on some of the perhaps least well explored elements of the great war. We all know about the mud and the trenches. We know rather less about the home front. I hope that, as we proceed through the four-year centenary, we will have a more holistic view of what it meant to be alive between 1914 and 1918.
The UK’s commemoration will begin on Monday 4 August in Glasgow, where the JoyFest of the Commonwealth games will be replaced by the solemnity of Glasgow cathedral and remembrance in George square. In the evening, the evocative Commonwealth War Graves Commission site at St Symphorien near Mons has been chosen for an event based on reconciliation, which we know the public want and expect to see. German and Belgian representatives will join us, as will Heads of State and Government and the families of those interred, irrespective of nationality.
On the same day, the Step Short project in Folkestone will unveil its memorial arch over the road of remembrance, down which troops marched to embarkation. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on bringing that important project to maturity. It is a flagship for thousands of independent projects up and down the country that have been inspired by the centenary.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about the Step Short project. Does he agree that the debate is timely because the memorial arch is being erected today in Folkestone?
Dr Murrison
I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend’s news. I have been watching the project with much interest. I know that it will be an important part of our commemoration. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), it is important to commemorate all elements of the centenary. The magic of Folkestone is the ability to plot the course of that final trip for so many thousands of servicemen as they embarked for France. Many, of course, never returned but many did—the majority did. Folkestone in those years held a particular place in the hearts of the service community, either because it was the point of embarkation or because, more happily, it was the point of return.
At 11 o’clock, the hour at which Britain entered the war on 4 August, the day will be closed with a vigil centred on Westminster abbey, which will run in parallel with similar services at St Anne’s cathedral in Belfast, Llandaff cathedral in Cardiff and other churches and faith communities across the country. At the same time, public buildings, workplaces and homes will be encouraged to participate in Lights Out to refer to the observation by Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey on the eve of war that the lamps were going out across Europe and they would not be lit again in his time. As part of that, the Royal British Legion plans to sell a million candles to remember a million fallen, each one extinguished at 11 pm. Here is the clever bit. In the darkness, a single lamp will be left burning, since hope never dies, and it never did.
The centenary is a marathon, not a sprint. Following 4 August, we have the 2014 season of remembrance, Gallipoli in April next year, Jutland and the Somme in 2016 and Passchendaele in 2017. In 2018, Amiens to Armistice will mark the last 100 days of the war. Interspersed will be myriad anniversaries from Coronel to Cambrai marking the waypoints of war, each commemorated appropriately with international participants and national units and their successors.
Big anniversaries, with their attendant large-scale national events, are pegs on which to hang the clothes of the centenary. The richness will come from 1,000 projects, from the flagship rebirth of the Imperial War museum on 19 July, to the Woodland Trust centenary forests to be planted in each of the four nations, to the small local initiatives that I heard about a week ago in Norfolk, as the guest of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson). Many of those are funded from the £56 million already allocated by the Heritage Lottery Fund. Many are part of the First World War Centenary Partnership, which now has 3,000 member organisations in 50 countries, and many already have the active involvement of constituency MPs.
The 14-18 Now cultural programme will add granularity and texture to the centenary and bring it alive. May I pick out its letter to an unknown soldier project, a literary memorial centred on the enigmatic statue of a soldier reading a letter on platform 1 at Paddington station? The statue makes us wonder what is in the soldier’s letter. Members of the public are now invited to write that letter. All sorts of celebrities have already done so, and MPs certainly should.
I recently sent a note to all right hon. and hon. Members about the centenary poppy campaign, which is a great way for MPs to get involved locally and in the process both proliferate wild flowers and raise money to help the Royal British Legion to support today’s service community. I urge colleagues to take up the Commonwealth War Graves Commission offer to visit its sites in this country. There is most likely to be at least one such site in or close to each UK constituency. There are at least two Commonwealth War Graves Commission commissioners in the House today. I know that they will underscore that point. It is a revelation to many of us how many Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites there are in this country. They are not by any manner of means all on the western front.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend is laying out the plans for this great year. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission recently took me around several of the war graves in my constituency. I have set about visiting all 55 churchyards with Commonwealth war graves in my constituency, 209 graves in total. Whether I will achieve that, we will have to see. I am taking with me children from local primary and secondary schools that are near those graves. That may be an initiative that others want to follow.
Dr Murrison
I commend my hon. Friend’s project. Other hon. Members will wish to emulate it. Like me, he has a large number of Commonwealth war graves in his constituency. I know that primary schools in particular in my constituency are keen to honour the fallen. Several of those schools have similar projects. The centenary will be an occasion when our minds will be focused closely on the subject. I suspect that, over the four years, interest will increase, particularly in schools. I hope that MPs will be able to take the lead in promoting that, as my hon. Friend has done in his constituency. It is important that parliamentarians apply leadership in such matters. I am confident, given the interest among colleagues, that they will do precisely that.
It is important also to ensure that our war memorials are in a fit state. A centenary is surely an opportunity to ensure that we revisit those extraordinary monuments that lie at the heart of most of our communities. I am pleased to say that over £5 million has been made available from Government to ensure that local war memorials are in good order. For details of that and the extensive work being done by Government Departments and agencies, I recommend the Government centenary webpage.
My hope is that the centenary of the first world war will provoke a wider interest in history and that it will enrich the teaching and study of the discipline more generally. It is not just about educating young people. I learnt about the wars of the 20th century from my parents and grandparents, who were contemporary witnesses. Young children these days do not have that advantage. In a curious reversal, to our surprise and delight, we have found that children participating in the £5.3 million battlefields project have been inculcating awareness of the great war among their parents, so it is bottom-up replacing top-down.
The Government intend to continue to work with the 60 or so countries worldwide who have a direct interest in the centenary. In Ireland the great war centenary falls within a decade of commemoration. It is an opportunity for reflection and conversation facilitated by the Queen’s historic visit in 2011, and it is set to mature further and strengthen one of the most important relationships for both countries.
This year a Commonwealth War Graves Commission cross of sacrifice is being erected in Dublin’s incredibly important Glasnevin cemetery, which I had the great privilege of visiting recently. Given the history, the significance of such a monument in the shadow of Daniel O’Connell’s tomb is very clear. History is often complex and nuanced, but no good is served by finessing its inconveniences.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the Commonwealth, I was privileged last night to entertain Corporal Mark Donaldson VC from Australia, and is this not an appropriate moment to remember just how much this country owes our cousins in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the troops who came from India and all over what was then the Empire and is now the Commonwealth, without whom we probably could not have seen through either of the world wars in the way that we did?
Dr Murrison
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have been working very closely with the Governments of all the countries he has cited and more, as he would expect. The high commissioners, particularly in London, have been very keen to engage. Indeed, several of those high commissioners serve as trustees of the Imperial War museum, which is absolutely front and centre, and appropriately so, of our centenary commemoration.
This is an opportunity to bring us closer together. It is, however, important to understand that there are very often complexities in the relationship, and we need to be prepared to address them without prevarication. My hon. Friend knows that in Australia in particular the “lions led by donkeys” mythology is prevalent in some quarters, and it is important to be able to address those concerns without attempting to avoid or sidestep them, because in so doing we come to a better understanding and much closer to the truth. We will be working particularly closely with our Anzac cousins, as my hon. Friend would expect, as our history runs long and deep. This centenary is a wonderful opportunity to make sure we are not seen to be taking that relationship for granted, but that we broaden and deepen it, and I am very confident, having visited Gallipoli this year, that that is on not only our agenda, but the agendas particularly of our Australian and New Zealand friends.
I have to say that the complexities I have cited in our relationships with other countries have not all been in predictable places. In the main they really have not been with Germany, Austria and Turkey; they have been in some unhappy corners of relationships with allies. We have discussed already where some of those may lie, but we must in particular respect and acknowledge attitudes of the sort that are prevalent in South Africa to events that are deeply troubling, such as the sinking of the troopship Mendi in 1917 and the treatment of non-European participants in the war effort. All of this has to be part of our centenary commemoration, and we must do nothing to avoid it, airbrush it or finesse it.
On the very cusp of the centenary of the war to end all war, our first duty has to be remembrance, but the measure of our success will be the extent to which we lift our understanding of the conflicts, causes, conduct and consequences, and the advancement of relations with today’s close friends and partners from both sides of the great war’s great divide.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I am proud to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I know that Members on both sides of the House are grateful for this opportunity to mark this important year of remembrance.
Let me begin by paying tribute to the Minister. He and I have been discussing these commemorations for over three years, and I commend him on both the way he has opened this debate and his diligent and genuinely cross-party approach to leading these commemorations.
There are few moments in modern society when we come together as a country to reflect on our shared history, and as we approach Armed Forces day and the 100th anniversary of the shooting of Archduke Franz Ferdinand this weekend, and the other centenary anniversaries later this year, many people around the country will pause and think, perhaps for the first time, about the first world war and what relevance those events of a century ago have to our lives today. I know the Minister and I are agreed that these moments of reflection are not only rare but precious, and that is why our commemorations must be inclusive, engaging and, above all, respectful. Let us be clear—we are all agreed on this—that this is a commemoration, not a celebration.
On Armistice day 1918, the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, came to this House and announced the end of what he described as the war to end all wars. Today we know that it was not that, but it was the war that changed life in this country for ever. The first world war touched every family, affected every community and fundamentally altered our country’s place in the world. It took the lives of 16 million soldiers and civilians across the globe, including around 900,000 servicemen from Britain and the Commonwealth. It was a conflict that transformed society, bringing about profound social, political and economic changes that we can still feel today. The centenary commemorations provide us with a unique opportunity to reflect on that, to pay tribute to those who served and sacrificed for us 100 years ago, and to pass those memories on to future generations. The Minister outlined some of the ways in which the commemorations programme will help to enable that over the next four years.
The programme has our full support, and I would like to put on record our thanks to the thousands of organisations, community groups and dedicated volunteers who are making this happen across the country. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the following: the First World War Centenary Partnership, led by the Imperial War museums, which has brought together nearly 3,000 member organisations from 49 countries and is delivering more than 2,000 events; the 14-18 NOW programme, which is bringing the centenary to life with 50 artistic creations and exhibitions across the country; the Woodland Trust, which is planting four new centenary woods across the United Kingdom as a lasting memorial to the fallen; the BBC, which will deliver 2,500 hours of programming on the subject over the next four years; and the Royal British Legion, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the Heritage Lottery Fund and many, many others. There are more than I could ever hope to have time to mention, but we applaud all of these groups for what they are doing. Each of them is helping to retell our national story. By bringing people together to revisit our shared history, they are making an important contribution.
I would like to say a particular word about the battlefield tours programme for schools, which is being delivered by the Institute of Education. There are few better ways to connect our young people with those who made the ultimate sacrifice on the western front than by taking them to walk the battlefields where so many fought and died. Anyone who has visited those cemeteries will know what a moving and powerful experience that is. There were 16,000 towns and villages across Britain in 1914, but only 40 of them—40 thankful parishes—would reach 1918 without having lost someone in the conflict, so every visiting school will be able to follow in the footsteps of soldiers from their own community.
Last month, I travelled to Serre in northern France to retrace the route taken by the Barnsley Pals battalions from my constituency. These were the men who responded to Lord Kitchener’s famous recruitment poster in 1914. They included miners, glassworkers, clerks, stonemasons and clerics, many of them friends and neighbours. They joined up together; they trained together; they went to war together; and ultimately, many of them died together. I walked the ground over which the Barnsley Pals fought at the battle of the Somme, and I stood in front of their graves in the pouring rain. Looking out from those trench positions that still scar the French countryside, I imagined what it must have been like. It was hard not be overcome by the emotion of what happened there. Later that day, we visited the memorial to the missing at Thiepval. As I read the names inscribed on the memorial, I suddenly saw my own name, “D. Jarvis”, staring back at me. It was a sobering moment that brought home the scale of the sacrifice, and an experience that so many visitors to the battlefield will have had.
Our country’s deployments over the past 13 years in Afghanistan and Iraq have now lasted over three times longer than the first world war; 632 servicemen and women have lost their lives, and we have felt the pain of each and every one of them, so it is hard to imagine now what it must have been like to live through a conflict that took the lives of six times that many soldiers every week, or to appreciate how much the country was wounded by the first day of the battle of the Somme, when 20,000 men were cut down on a single beautiful summer’s day on 1 July 1916.
Mr Brazier
I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way during his really excellent speech. Is not the most remarkable testimony to the spirit of the nation at the time encapsulated in the words of a famous general from his own regiment, General Anthony Farrar-Hockley, who observed that on the eve of this, the largest military undertaking in British history up to that point, not one single soldier was listed as absent without leave?
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am not entirely certain which General Farrar-Hockley he is referring to—there were two in my regiment. [Interruption.] The elder. But whichever one it was, the words he recalls are an absolutely fitting tribute to the steel with which young men from across our country faced adversity. He is absolutely right to take the opportunity to make that point.
Mr Marsden
My hon. and gallant Friend is making an excellent and poignant speech. Tomorrow, I will visit our mini-arboretum in Blackpool, where not only a whole range of war veterans are recognised, but there are particular plantings for those from Blackpool and the Fylde coast who died in Afghanistan and Iraq; indeed, their names have been added to the war memorial in Blackpool. Does he agree that it is really important that we make a special effort in this centenary year to ensure that those who lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq are commemorated on local war memorials?
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful for that intervention, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this commemoration provides a very important opportunity to reflect on the service and sacrifice of not just those who served us 100 years ago, but those who more recently served our country in very difficult circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq. This commemoration provides a very important opportunity to make sure that we continue to pay tribute to those who served, and who continue to serve, our country.
I was reflecting on the impact that the loss of 20,000 young men must have had on our country in July 1916. Naturally, it is right and understandable that there are strong and differing opinions about that war, which took the lives of so many young men. That was certainly true 100 years ago, and it is true today. Some will say that those young men died in a conflict that, though appalling, was necessary and needed to be fought. Others argue that their sacrifice was futile, in a war that achieved nothing and could and should have been avoided. It is a debate that has engaged historians and many others for many years and I am sure will continue to do so, but I believe that these commemorations should not be about Government and politicians sitting in judgment on events that took place 100 years ago. They should be about creating an environment in which we can all reflect on these events in an open and democratic way that is respectful of opinions that did, and do, differ.
As well as the silent tributes we will pay, there will also be room for lively debate and discussion. We should not shy away from talking about the anti-war movement, about the protest that took place against the war, and about those who refused to fight as a matter of conscience. As well as remembering the brave sacrifice of those on the front line, it is very important that we take the opportunity to include in this discussion the heroes who served our country on the home front, because we know that the first world war reached far beyond the poppy fields of Flanders. These commemorations should also tell the story of the people who kept this country going: the miners; the factory and railway workers; and those who worked the land and cared for the wounded.
This particularly struck me last week when I visited the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, a beautiful place that honours with fitting dignity and grace all those who have served our country in conflict. I was joined by a number of other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who is doing so much in his role—as is my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—to support these commemorations and help make them a great success for the whole country. Together, we paid our respects at memorials to those who fell in the first world war and other conflicts since. We also visited memorials to those who served on the home front during the second world war, which underlined for me the fact that, although groups such as the Bevin boys have rightly become imprinted on our national consciousness, the story of the home front in the first world war is less well known.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent and intelligent speech. The first world war was also a period of enormous political and social change; there were the rent strikes in Glasgow, in which tens of thousands of people participated. They led directly to the first rent restriction legislation in the whole of the Europe, which was passed in record time, in recognition of the work, led by women, for change in their own society.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful for that intervention. I think my hon. Friend is referring to Mrs Barbour and “Mrs Barbour’s Army”.
Dan Jarvis
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that this commemoration provides a unique opportunity to reflect on the very important social change that took place, and I will say more about that in a moment.
As I was saying, the story of the home front during the first world war is less well known. In my own Yorkshire region, hundreds of coal miners would die serving our country underground between 1914 and 1918. One personal hope that I therefore have for these centenary commemorations is that one day, there will be a fitting national memorial to recognise the debt we owe to everyone who contributed during the first world war here at home.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Some 30,000 miners were on the front line during the first world war. They were tunnellers, and a lot of them lost their lives.
Dan Jarvis
Again, I am grateful for that intervention. It is incredibly important that we take the opportunity to commemorate the sacrifice of those who served on the front line and those who served on the home front. As a Member representing a Barnsley constituency, I know how important people consider it to be that we do not lose sight of the difficult conditions that thousands and thousands of men worked under, not only underground in this country, but supporting our armed forces on the western front.
I was about to say that one personal hope I have for these centenary commemorations is that we have a fitting national memorial for those who contributed on the home front during the first world war, not just because of the importance of their service, but because it is also part of the story of how our country changed. The war led to more working women than ever before, taking on roles that had previously been the preserve only of men. An estimated 2 million women entered the work force, including 1 million women employed by the Ministry of Munitions alone. More than 250,000 joined the women’s Land Army and helped Britain fight off the peril of starvation caused by German U-boats. They joined countless individual heroines who showed us how bravery can come in many different forms, including amazing women such as the nurse Edith Cavell and the doctor Elsie Inglis. Together, those women left millions of cracks in what had previously been a pretty immaculate glass ceiling. Not one woman and hardly any working men had the vote when the war broke out.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend also acknowledge the women who were called up to into a profession that previously had been seen as being way beyond their capability—the police force? Those women walked the streets at night on their own, keeping them safe, as well doing the unique little job of calling on women whose husbands were at the front to check that they were not up to any shenanigans.
Dan Jarvis
I am always grateful for my hon. Friend’s interventions and she makes an important point. I say again that this commemoration provides us with a unique opportunity to reflect on the role that women played and still play in our society, and it is important that we take the opportunity to reflect that in these commemorations.
As I was saying, not one woman and hardly any working men had the vote when war broke out, but by 1918, 8.4 million women were finally enfranchised by the Representation of the People Act 1918. Our democracy expanded, society became less deferential, the trade union movement grew, the role of the state changed and our politics would never be the same. The strains of war also contributed to unrest in Ireland and helped change the shape of the United Kingdom. Britain’s place in the world shifted, and men who had never been before to Britain would come here to fight for it. Millions of people from across the Commonwealth served in the British war effort—more than 1 million came from the Indian subcontinent alone—fighting side by side with British troops on land, at sea and in the air. When the British Expeditionary Force was on the brink in late September 1914, 28,000 troops from the Indian army, the first ever to fight on European soil, came to Britain’s aid and played a crucial role in holding the line on the western front. They would, of course, be joined by soldiers from many other countries, including volunteers from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the West Indies and parts of Africa; 175 of those servicemen from overseas would be awarded the Victoria Cross for their courage and gallantry, and we must never forget that.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an outstanding speech. On Monday, I attended the world war one commemoration event at Hounslow civic centre, in my constituency. It was also attended by the Gurkhas and so many others, including people of Indian origin, who share great pride in the role that they have also played. Does he agree that it is incredibly important that during this year of commemoration we recognise the diversity of those who have been involved in our forces and the importance of diversity in Britain today? I am talking not just about what we share today, but about our common bonds from our histories.
Dan Jarvis
I completely agree with that; there is a strength that comes from our diversity. As the Minister also said, it is incredibly important that we take this opportunity to commemorate the service and sacrifice of those people who had never come to Britain before but came here to support our efforts. We have a huge debt of gratitude to pay to them, and we will miss an opportunity if we do not reflect on that in these commemorations.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned Ireland and the troubles it was experiencing during the first world war. None the less, the Irish came across to support us, from north and south, in huge numbers. He also mentioned the Victoria Cross, so I would like to place on the record the fact that it has been won by more Irishmen than Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen put together.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for that intervention as I did not know that. I am sure that the House will be extremely grateful for that contribution and I suspect that many of us will have learned something from it.
In that same spirit, I wish to reflect briefly for a moment on the significance of people such as Walter Tull, the first black officer in the British Army; that was just one small step on the road to affording ethnic minorities the recognition and respect they deserve.
We should also take the opportunity to reflect on the fact that the war left its mark on this place where we gather today. Of all the countries that went to war in 1914, Britain’s was the only Parliament to debate entry into the conflict. When the lamps went out that night on 4 August, it left more than just a shadow over this place; 251 existing and future MPs would serve in the first world war, and 19 from the Parliament of 1914 would not come back. Their shields mark this Chamber and watch over us today, and they were joined by 24 Members of the other place, as well as 20 parliamentary staff—clerks, waiters and cleaners—who were also killed in action.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the marvellous memorial in the offices of the Select Committee on Defence to the secretariat and people from that defence Department who lost their lives in the great war?
Dan Jarvis
I was not aware of that, so, again I am grateful for that intervention, from which I have learned something.
I was reflecting on the impact that the war had on this House and speaking about those Members of Parliament who went to serve, but we should be mindful of the fact that the war would not just be experienced by those on the front line. When the Lochnagar mine was detonated at 7.28 am on 1 July 1916 by the Royal Engineers at the start of the battle of the Somme, the noise was heard in Downing street. That same year, all three party leaders would lose a son in the war in the space of six months. In December 1917, the Speaker at the time was forced to adjourn a debate so that hon. Members could, as Hansard records it, “'retreat to the cellars” during a German air raid.
These commemorations, as well as looking back, should also be about looking forward, because if we get this right and if we dedicate ourselves to these commemorations in the right way, they should also be relevant to the lives we live today. We should be mindful of the fact that 100 years ago, on 22 May 1914, suffragettes were being arrested at the gates of Buckingham palace, petitioning for the right to vote, whereas on 22 May 2014 nearly two thirds of a country with universal suffrage decided they were better off staying at home on election day. One hundred years ago the debate was about whether women should be allowed in the polling booth and whether they could do jobs that only men had done before. Today, the debate needs to be about getting more women on to ballot papers and into boardrooms at the top of our work force.
One hundred years ago, nobody had ever heard of shellshock or post-traumatic stress disorder. Today, the issue is not just what more we can do for our veterans returning from action, but how we prioritise the mental health of everyone. One hundred years ago, people from all over the world fought and died to protect this country. Today we need to remember the debt that we owe to people who were not born here, but who helped make this country what it is. One hundred years ago, the first world war changed the role of the state. Government took action on food, rents and wages, and that links to one of the central arguments in our public life today: what Government should and should not do in the 21st century.
I began by reflecting on a quote of David Lloyd George on Armistice day. Let me finish with some words from a week later. On 18 November 1918, this House gathered again to debate an address to the King on a victorious peace. These are the words spoken that day by Herbert Asquith, who began the war as Prime Minister and ended it as Leader of the Opposition. This was his reflection:
“When history comes to tell the tale of these four years, it will recount a story the like of which is not to be found in any epic in any literature. It is and will remain by itself as a record of everything humanity can dare or endure--of the extremes of possible heroism and of possible baseness…The old world has been laid waste…All things have become new.”—[Official Report, 18 November 1918; Vol. 110, c. 3237.]
Nearly a century on, those words have lost none of their power or their resonance, and they reflect what should be our guiding light in these commemorations. We should remember that sacrifice that was laid to dust and reflect on what changed and what became new. If someone is to look back in 50 or 100 years to what was said when this House and this country marked the centenary of the first world war, let us hope that it will be said that we kept true to that—that we kept the memory of those who served burning brightly, not wearied by the passage of time, and that we took this important opportunity to reflect on how we became the country we are today and on all those who made it possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. As there are important and relevant speeches to be made, may I suggest to all Members that they aim to speak for about 10 minutes each? That will give everyone a fair chance to make their speech and to raise their constituency issues.
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
It is a great privilege to participate in the second debate in this Chamber on the centenary of the first world war. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on two excellent speeches, outlining not only the programme but many of the issues that we are here to debate. I will touch on two areas, but first, let me declare an interest as somebody who, as a military historian, has written about this subject in the past. I am a parliamentary commissioner on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, along with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and joint chairman of the advisory board on Parliament and the first world war.
We should not shy away from the fact that this centenary is controversial. It is not up to the Government to lay down views on every aspect of it, but we should recognise that it is controversial—that history is alive today. The Minister mentioned the fact that in two days’ time it will be the centenary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo. That anniversary is controversial for Serbs, Bosnians, Croats and the successors of the old Austro-Hungarian empire, because it is about symbols as much as anything else.
As we speak, the leaders of the European Union are gathering in the Belgian town of Ypres. The Immortal Salient is something that resonates very strongly with the British empire and Commonwealth forces. As much as the Somme, it is a symbol of the first world war. This evening, those leaders will gather at the Menin Gate, the great memorial to some 57,000 men who have no known grave and who died in the salient. That figure only goes up to August 1917. They could not get on all the names; the rest of the names are at the Tyne Cot cemetery.
Friends and foes will gather tonight and thoughts will be going through their minds. The event is important for us because the old British Army died at Ypres in 1914. It is important because some of the first Indian troops were being deployed in late 1914 to 1915. It is also important for the Belgians and the French. Sometimes we tend to erase them from the folk memory of the first world war. Yes, they should be grateful that the British empire came to their assistance, but it is as much about their memories of the first world war. After all, Ypres was almost totally destroyed by 1918. Indeed, in 1919, Churchill, as the Secretary of State for War and Air, suggested that Ypres should remain a ruin to immortalise the sacrifice of the British and Commonwealth armies, not taking into account that the Belgians had a different view on all of that.
Tonight is also important for the Germans. Chancellor Merkel will be there. Just north of Ypres—some Members will have been there—there is the German cemetery at Langemark, which commemorates about 40,000 German soldiers, most of whom died in 1914. One man who had a narrow escape was an Austrian serving in a reserve Bavarian regiment; he was Grenadier Adolf Hitler. If only some old British soldier had taken him out, things might have been different.
Those leaders who are gathering tonight will discuss controversies such as the future of the EU. A number of my colleagues become enraged at the idea of linking the EU with the centenary of the first world war. I want to do not that, but to remember the fact that one of the reasons why the French, Germans and Belgians came together after the second world war was to prevent another major clash between the French and Germans. After all, they did it in 1870-71, 1914-18 and then 1940-45. We should be sensitive to that. It does not mean that we have to agree with everything, but we should realise that, for the French and the Germans, Verdun is probably a bigger symbol than what will happen at Ypres.
I propose to Ministers—I hope that this will find support among colleagues across the House—to add one other specific commemoration on the Government’s national commemoration list. On 21 May 2017, we should commemorate the centenary of the establishment of what was then called the Imperial War Graves Commission. I am parti pris to this because I am a commissioner, but most people recognise that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is the biggest deliverer of much of the commemoration of the first world war. The Imperial War museum, the BBC and the Heritage Lottery Fund are very important, but the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is something that most people at some stage have come across or are going to come across, and it was not predetermined.
Many colleagues recognise the fact that before the first world war, when men in the Army died serving in Europe, they were usually thrown into a pit. Occasionally, officers got a separate burial or, just occasionally, they were brought home. We should not forget the fact that the overwhelming majority of men who served in the Royal Navy or the merchant navy have no known grave. Nelson was rare; he was brought home in a keg of rum, most of which was drunk at Gibraltar before he was put in a proper coffin. There is nothing like the old chief petty officers for getting to the heart of the matter.
The point is that in 1914 nobody thought that the casualties would be on such a scale, and it was by chance that a 48-year-old ex-Plymouth Brethren, former member of Lord Milner’s young people in South Africa, and former editor of the Morning Post, who was in charge of a Red Cross ambulance column, began to worry about what was going to happen to the dead—where they would be buried and so on. That man was Fabian Ware. As much as anything else, it was his determination, political nous and knowledge of French that enabled the setting up of what we know today as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
To give hon. Members some context, the War Office did not really want to know about war graves, but within three months the British Army had suffered 80,000 casualties in France. His Grace the Duke of Wellington’s Army suffered 3,500 at the battle of Waterloo. The sheer scale of the losses was enormous. Parents, wives and husbands were worried about this. Ware achieved in December 1915 an agreement with the French Government that they would allow a series of dedicated areas to be consecrated as proper war cemeteries, where British dead could be brought during the war and afterwards. It was logistically important but also perhaps emotionally important that Ware decided not to allow tens of thousands of people to bring their husbands and sons home.
So the Commonwealth War Graves Commission deserves to be part of the recognition of the centenary. It meets all the criteria that hon. Members are looking for. It is about more than Great Britain. It is about equality in death, which was a rare thing that Ware demanded. There would be no distinction in rank or background; the gravestone would be the same. It would be laid out in a way that British empire people would recognise as representing what Britain stood for. He brought in some of the best architects such as Lutyens and Blomfield, who designed the Menin Gate, and of course the great wordsmith Rudyard Kipling. Kipling pulled every string to get his under-age son into the Irish Guards and then had the tragedy, like so many parents, of learning that he was killed and missing. The irony was that, long after Kipling and his wife had died, we were able to identify a body that was his son. Kipling came up with most of the terminology that we know today.
I hope that, apart from debating the history and sometimes the controversial nature of the first world war, we will be able collectively to persuade Ministers to celebrate the centenary of the establishment of the Imperial War Graves Commission—its patent, if you like—with the national centenary. It meets every criteria, not least in educating young people about the first world war.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
I begin by commending the Government both for finding time for this important debate and for the measured way in which these centenary commemorations are being prepared. The way in which we describe the events of 1914-18 as the first world war, the great war or the war to end all wars reflects its global nature, the extent of the fighting and the fact that this was the first total war of the modern age. I am struck that the commemorations so far have been very personal to my constituents and many people I meet. It is as though everyone has a story to tell or everyone is searching for a story to tell, so I want to begin with an example that is not extraordinary in any way; it is just one story among millions.
The story is that of Sergeant Matthew Brown, who served in the 12th Battalion of the Durham Light Infantry. He was born in Consett in county Durham. He was one of seven children. He became a stonemason. He never married. He had no children. He was killed during the later stages of the battle of the Somme in October 1916. He was just 27 years old, which is less than half my age. He was blown to pieces near the village of Le Sars, along the Albert-Bapaume road, and his body was never recovered. His name, with those of thousands of his comrades, is inscribed on the great and moving memorial to the missing at Thiepval. I do not know what went through Matthew Brown’s mind when he enlisted or in the hours and days before he died, but I doubt very strongly that he would ever have imagined in a million years, let alone a hundred years, that his name would be mentioned in this great House of Commons, let alone by his great nephew, but I am proud to do so.
The commemorations are not just about those individuals, of course. They bring together local communities. Less than two weeks ago, I stood with veterans and local residents in Cullercoats in my constituency at a service to rededicate a plaque with the names of local men who died in the first world war. The plaque stands on the east side of St George’s church and was rededicated at exactly the same time on exactly the same date as the original plaque was dedicated 93 years earlier. Students at Marden high school took part in the event, and they will now research further the effects of the war on what was then a small fishing community.
One issue that emerged, and I am sure is emerging in many other places, is that some of the names on the plaque were of men who had no link with that community. Many of the men who died in the community are not on that plaque. Yet of course, it is a listed monument so, apart from one small correction of a spelling mistake, and that after a great deal of deliberation, no changes can be made. That is frustrating for families sometimes.
The plaque includes the names of Major and Captain Knott. Their father Sir James Knott was distraught at the deaths of his only two sons and set up a trust that continues to do good work today, including the building of Knotts flats to improve the provision of municipal housing in what was then a declining fishing and mining port.
The Tynemouth world war one project is based at the Linskill centre and funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund. More than 70 volunteers, under the inspirational leadership of Alan Fidler and Dan Jackson, are mapping the stories of men and women from just one borough—Tynemouth. They have already identified 2,000 men who lost their lives as a result of world war one. Most of them are from the town where I live, North Shields.
Any of us who have studied or taught the history of the 19th century and looked at industrial cities will be familiar with the maps that show where people died in cholera and typhus epidemics. The map that has been produced by the project is remarkably similar, yet this was a man-made epidemic.
Lectures at Northumbria university have been well attended and there have been less formal ones at the Low Lights Tavern. The project aims to mark with a plaque as many houses as can be found of those who fell. It is important for local people to know. Local newspapers such as the News Guardian and Evening Chronicle have given not only support but excellent coverage of what the project is doing. This Saturday the database will go live and on 3 August there will be a parade and service in Northumerland square. The project’s aims were to be informative, accessible and inspirational, and it is all those things and more.
The north-east paid a particularly high price in the war. It was said that working in the coal mines and shipyards gave local men the aptitude and stamina for trench warfare. Northumberland raised 55 battalions of fusiliers—more than any other county in the country. The Durham Light Infantry raised 43 battalions. Their histories record them as being where the action was heaviest. There were eight battalions of Tyneside Scottish and Tyneside Irish, showing where men had come from to work on the great northern coalfield. The Tyneside Scottish alone lost all four of its lieutenant-colonels on the first day of the battle of the Somme.
Scholars and historians will go on debating the first world war, its causes, its course and its effects, and so they should, but what is not debatable is the sacrifice made by individual soldiers, sailors and airmen, or the munitions workers, miners and shipyard workers— 60,000 of them along the banks of the river Tyne—who worked tirelessly to support the war effort. As the son of a Bevin boy, I support very much the idea that there should be a lasting memorial to them. Millions of men and women were prepared to defend their country—our country—and the values that they believed their country stood for. For the millions who gave their lives, in the famous words of Laurence Binyon, I say, “We will remember them.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
We are now going to hear a maiden speech. I call Robert Jenrick.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you, Members in all parts of the House and the staff of the House for the warm welcome I have received since I arrived here. It is an honour to make my first modest contribution during this debate. As the Prime Minister said last year, commemorations say something about who we are as a people, and we in this country have a tradition of striking the right tone on such occasions. It is right that the House and the Government have given this such thoughtful consideration. Before I do so, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Patrick Mercer, and say a few words about the constituency that I am incredibly proud to represent.
Patrick Mercer came to politics after 25 years as a soldier in a Nottinghamshire regiment, the Sherwood Foresters, and his strongly held views, particularly on defence and national security, were rooted in his own experience of military service. He knew what it was like to write to the mother or wife of a fallen soldier. He himself had fought with a courage and bravery we all wish we could display in our own lives. I know that Patrick worked hard for the people in Newark, particularly in his care and support for those returning to Nottinghamshire from Iraq and Afghanistan. I know he was, and remains, deeply attached to this beautiful constituency.
The town of Bingham was represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) for some 40 years prior to 2010, and it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to him, too. There remains great affection for Ken around Bingham and, indeed, across Nottinghamshire. I understand that there is even talk of a statue, but opinion divides as to whether it should face the local cricket pitch, his favourite hostelry or the local Chinese restaurant where the young Mr Clarke is said to have held his early surgeries. I also walk in the footsteps of Gladstone, who did not stay long as a Newark Conservative, losing the confidence of the Duke of Newcastle, upon whom much depended in those days, and perhaps recognising that, as in the recent by-election, the Liberal vote in these parts can be quite limited.
It is almost unnecessary for me to tell the House about my constituency because many right hon. and hon. Members are already surprisingly familiar with it. Indeed, it has been said that Newark has not seen so many parliamentarians since the end of the civil war. As one sage trader in Newark market said to me at the weekend, the town has become such a popular destination for MPs that it is surely time that we, too, established an all-party parliamentary group.
I enter the House following a by-election, the result of which was historic—the first such victory for our party in government since that of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. After 25 years and 16 consecutive defeats, my right hon. Friend was, I suspect, only too glad to see his record broken. One journalist described us as the Fred Perry and Andy Murray of the Conservative party. The people of Newark have had to endure four by-elections in the last 100 years, and a further one was narrowly averted. It is my ambition to ensure that Newark now enters a period of electoral stability.
Newark is rich in history and blessed with some of England’s lesser known but most attractive towns, villages and countryside. It stretches from the shadow of Belvoir castle in the south to the tidal Trent villages of Bassetlaw in the north, and includes Southwell—or Southall—dominated by its Norman minster, Tuxford and Bingham, the latter recently voted England’s best place to bring up a family. The eastern border is Nottinghamshire’s county boundary, and includes villages of great beauty and historic connections, such as Elston, home of the Darwin family, and Norton Disney, the ancestral seat of Walt Disney. To the west the seat stretches from Lowdham and Epperstone, close to the city of Nottingham, through Caunton, Laxton, Wellow and Egmonton into Robin Hood country—the old Nottinghamshire dukeries whose occupants once dominated its politics and the Nottinghamshire coalfields once a major part of our economy. There are almost 100 villages set in undulating, largely arable agricultural land, watered and too often flooded by becks and tributaries of the River Trent.
Newark has been a meeting point for almost 1,000 years. The Romans built a motorway through it, the Fosse way, and later the Great North road. We have to put up with the A1. The Normans built a castle, later replaced by Bishop Alexander of Lincoln’s summer palace, or at least that is what he told the King when asking permission to build it. That castle was slighted by Cromwell after Newark surrendered following its third siege in the civil war. No town stood alone longer. No people proved more resilient. Its fall was the last order of Charles I, the price of his own surrender to the Scots at Kelham, having arrived at the Saracen’s Head in Southwell late the night before from Oxford, disguised as a priest.
During the recent by-election, the same inn played host to the leader of the United Kingdom Independence party, who arrived from Malta, not in disguise as far as I know, but also heading to Kelham, in this case for the election count—although he too has not always enjoyed being at the mercy of the Scots. Newark will soon boast the first national civil war museum. Having experience of the arts business, supporting our heritage sector, particularly in the regions, where funding has been limited, I intend to contribute on the subject.
Newark’s economy has at various times relied on wool, beer, grain, sugar, cream cakes, transport and antiques. The economy is growing, with 8,000 new jobs created since 2010. Newark has a high proportion of small and medium-sized businesses. My parents set up their own manufacturing business at our kitchen table and I will seek to support many Newark constituents taking personal risks, working hard and pursuing enterprising lives by defending low and simple taxation and light and flexible regulation.
An area whose virtue has long been location, location, location urgently needs investment in its creaking infrastructure, whether that is a southern relief road for Newark, increased services on the Lincoln-Newark-Nottingham railway and east coast main line or broadband for our underserved rural communities. A growing population requires appropriate public services, particularly health care, whether that be ensuring the long-term future of Newark’s cherished hospital or ensuring that our ambulance service is fit for purpose. There is a sentiment that Newark has not been front of mind for decision makers. Being a hidden gem is all well and good, but this one now requires some attention.
I am also conscious of how this little corner of England can prosper on a wider, global stage. I join this House having spent the last four years managing a British business expanding by entering new markets, accepting wholeheartedly the challenge and reward of globalisation. Newark businesses are succeeding in the global race. Our architects, Benoy, have grown from designing the local cowsheds to designing the shopping malls of China. I want to see more such businesses in my constituency.
This is in many ways one of the greatest times to be alive, when much of what we thought we knew is wrong, with the shift in power from west to east, the financial markets turned upside down and the internet upending old industries. But our success depends greatly on whether we can deliver the best schools and skills to young people, preparing them for the jobs of the future. My constituency is blessed with some outstanding schools—the Minster, Toot Hill and Tuxford—and a growing number of quality apprenticeships. I will make it my priority to raise educational standards in Newark—a town that, for all its many virtues, suffers areas of deprivation where we must do all we can to increase opportunity for all. The challenge as we emerge from the great recession is not only to finish the job—there are, after all, no final victories in politics; all achievements, however hard won, can be and are undone—but to position towns like Newark and, indeed, the country as a dynamic and optimistic place, living and trading courageously, face turned to the world.
In times of great change, a sense of anxiety can prevail, which brings me back to the subject of today’s debate, the importance of remembering our past and doing so in a manner that reflects and enriches our values. On 10 August this year in Newark, young and old together will recreate the rally and great march from our market square to Radcliffe-on-Trent undertaken on the same day in 1914, six days after war was declared, by hundreds of young men, who went on to training and ultimately to the trenches. Fewer than half of those men returned. Proportionally, Newark was one of the most affected towns in the UK. On 24 August, Newark football club will recreate the peace or truce match in Ypres, playing a German side from our twinned town, inspired by William Setchfield, the Newark lad widely credited with sparking the famous match 100 years ago this Christmas.
Southwell minster has hosted an evocative collection of local memories that I enjoyed taking a primary school to visit, entitled “No Greater Love”. Love is, I think, the key: to those who served our country, we offer belatedly our love by remembering and better understanding what they experienced, placing young people and education front and centre, and displaying the British virtue of being thoughtful and compassionate, able to look outward and to the future without neglecting our past.
It is an honour to serve as Member of Parliament for Newark. In doing so, I will act with the hopes, dreams and aspirations of Newark as my guide.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
With other Members of the House, I welcome the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to his place. I knew his predecessor well and often heard his views on defence. We did not always agree, but more often than not, we did. I should apologise, because family commitments meant that I am one of the Members who has not visited his constituency lately. I therefore found it particularly interesting to hear his description, which may explain why so many Members flocked there. I recognise his hope that there will be no more by-elections for Newark and that we will now enter a period of stability.
If the hon. Gentleman is right and the view he takes in this House is one of “investment, investment, investment”, particularly in services, I think he will get a great deal of support from across the House. Investment in schools, educational standards and skills for young people is something that many Members agree on.
Today is a difficult day on which to make a maiden speech, because we have already heard some stunning speeches from Members on both sides of the House. It is interesting to see the hon. Gentleman at the heart of parliamentary unity, surrounded by Conservative Members. I hope that he continues to occupy such a harmonious place with members of his party.
I must admit to some shenanigans on my part. On Sunday, I attended a church service in Kenfig Hill, celebrating a week of community activities in Kenfig Hill alongside a commemoration of the first world war. In the service, the address was led by the Venerable Philip Morris, archdeacon of Margam and priest in charge at the parish of Ewenny and St Brides Major. When we came out of the church, I sidled up to the archdeacon and said, “Great sermon! Can I borrow it?” As a result, much that the House will hear today the archdeacon helped me write.
It is only appropriate that I commemorate the archdeacon’s part in this speech, because I too wanted to talk about how people in our local communities and the surrounding area played a part in the British war effort, in the trenches and at home. Many of the youngsters who went to war came from farm labouring jobs and had a very limited understanding of the wider world. For most of them, going as far as the large town of Bridgend would have been a huge achievement; to get as far as Cardiff would have been beyond their belief; and crossing the Severn into England would have been viewed with dread. Yet many joined the Glamorgan Yeomanry, headquartered in Bridgend, and on 9 August boarded a troopship—the SS Arcadian, which sailed from Devonport—for the front.
Instead of arriving at “the front”, the Glamorgan Yeomanry, knowing only the wet and the cold of the Welsh countryside, arrived in Alexandria in Egypt. We need to remember that the front was not just in France and Belgium. Instead of wet and rainy, the place they arrived at was hot and dusty. On the first day in camp, there was a sandstorm in which many of their tents were blown away, never to be recovered. They fought the Germans in Libya and Egypt, and the Turks in Palestine, and eventually they were taken to Marseilles to participate in the last big push in France. Four hundred and fifty-three officers and 7,661 other ranks of the Glamorgan Yeomanry were killed or wounded.
For many children, the war years are remembered in the lines of Dylan Thomas, whose 100th anniversary is also this year. He wrote of his childhood in the “ugly, lovely town” of Swansea,
“This sea town was my world…and…beyond that...a country called ‘The Front’ from which many of our neighbours never came back. At the beginning, the only ‘front’ I knew was the little lobby before our front door; I could not understand how so many people never returned from there”.
That would have echoed with many children in the Britain of 1914-18, though many were deeply involved in the war effort. Boy scouts were used to watch for invasion along the coast; they helped farmers on the land, because farm workers were going to the front. They helped during harvest; they acted as messengers for Government Departments and as orderlies in hospitals, helping those who had been injured at the front and brought home to hospitals in the country. Girl guides worked on vegetable patches and, like the scouts, on farms, digging and weeding, and they harvested fruit. Scouts and guides carried important messages and delivered milk. They parcelled up clothing such as knitwear to be sent to soldiers, and they learned first aid so that they could help the injured.
There is a great story, in what others have remarked is the wonderful BBC coverage, about how the scouts contributed to the war effort by helping to collect conkers. The collection was described as
“invaluable war work and…very urgent. Please encourage it.”
The scouts and children were never told exactly why the Government needed conkers, but they collected them with energy. So successful were their efforts that more conkers were collected than could be transported, and piles rotted at railway stations, but 3,000 tonnes of conkers made it to their destination, the Synthetic Products Company of King’s Lynn, where they were used to produce acetone, needed for the manufacture of cordite, which was the propellant for shells and bullets.
The scheme had been created by the Ministry of Munitions, run by that great Welshman, David Lloyd George. The programme was kept secret until after the war for fear that the Germans would learn of the idea. The wartime Government refused to disclose the purpose of the collection of conkers and, rather oddly, the Ministry of Defence, when questioned, was not clear in its answer, stating only that the conkers were needed for “certain purposes”. That sounds like the sort of answer we get even today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) said he thought his great-uncle would have been proud to know that 100 years later my right hon. Friend would be a Member of the House. My grandfather, Driver A.E. Ironside, 17785, would have been amazed that women had the vote, and even more amazed that we were allowed into this House. He was called up at the start of the war and left on a troopship on 14 August from Limerick. His first nine days at the front were peaceful, if rather damp, but from 23 August he and his compatriots were under constant fire, often running to abandoned positions and seeing many wounded, as he saw action at the battles of Le Cateau and Mons.
My grandfather’s diary for 5 September records:
“We arrived in Monthyon stayed here for the night properly knocked out both horses and men. We found this place upside down with people. The houses its terrible to see the poor people on the road in a large cart and they don’t know where to go for safety, its heart breaking.”
One of the places such people went was Porthcawl in my constituency. The hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) said that we should remember the Belgians. Well, in Porthcawl we do remember the Belgians, because in my local museum, where we are commemorating Porthcawl’s engagement in the first world war, there is a large display about the Belgians—about how 4,500 who came to Wales found a welcoming place, and how people in Porthcawl took them in and helped them find their feet.
According to the local paper, Porthcawl had
“done better than any place in the country, having regard to population and other circumstances.”
The same paper, the Porthcawl News, ran a Flemish glossary and a Belgian column in order to aid the interaction between the Welsh people and the Belgians. The Porthcawl Belgian refugee committee, run by councillors and citizens, organised the assimilation of the refugees into the community, managed donations to the refugee fund, found accommodation and employment for the refugees and placed Belgian children in local schools. Although the majority of the Belgians returned home after the war, in 1921 Britain had double the Belgian population. We must remember the efforts of those Welsh men, women and children at home, who opposed the Germans peacefully while the military gave their lives.
I urge Members not to go to by-elections but instead to come to Porthcawl, where there is not going to be a by-election, on 2 and 3 August to see and hear illustrated 30-minute talks about Porthcawl during the war. They can join the Glamorgan Family History Society, which will help them to find members of their family who took part in the great war. There will be a recruiting sergeant, period street events, and a Lions club vintage fair, and the Rotary club will have a vintage car display. We will end, appropriately, with a service of reflection at All Saints church, just as we will all be reflecting throughout today.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I congratulate the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), on two excellent speeches setting the tone of the debate. As has been said, this is the second debate that we have had on the subject, and we have not yet started the four years of commemoration of the great war. I suspect there will be more debates to come. I, too, pay tribute to everybody who has been involved in preparing the ground, notably the Imperial War museum and the BBC. Both those organisations are keen, as are the Government and Members across the House, that those should be commemorations, not celebrations, and that wherever possible they should be local commemorations.
I am delighted to say that in Colchester, local military historian Jess Jephcott has set up a Facebook page for this purpose with just one line: “Colchester Remembers 1914-1918”. On other webpages he kindly mentions a public meeting that I convened in March this year
“to explore ways in which Colchester could commemorate the centenary of the First World War. Those persons who attended gave a positive response and comprised members from the armed forces, the Royal British Legion, youth organisations and private individuals. It was agreed that a vigil should be held on the evening of the centenary of the first day of war being declared”,
so at 7 pm on 4 August, just a few hours before the midnight deadline in Berlin was reached, we will gather for a few minutes for a silent vigil—no banners, no great speeches, just a silent vigil—because, of course, it was all going to be over by Christmas.
We anticipate that there will be further commemorative events over the next four years, culminating in a celebration to mark the end of hostilities on 7 November 1918. There are those who believe that the war ended in 1919, as I mentioned in the previous debate; some communities believe that the war ended with the treaty of Versailles in 1919, which is the date one sometimes sees on war memorials. The aim of the Colchester group is to welcome others to join them in creating appropriate events to commemorate the various happenings, and to link up with others who are planning similar events within the town and the local community. The idea is not to have a formal committee or a big group, but to bring in individuals and groups such as the scouts, the guides or the Royal British Legion to organise their own events, using a central webpage in the hope of avoiding clashes. The opening page concludes:
“Does your locality’s war memorial need sprucing up? Has anybody done a transcription of your war memorial? Do you have pictures of these men and women who served during WW1 and stories to go with them?”
In the summer of 2001, I had the great honour of visiting the battlefields when I accompanied the Colchester sea cadet band, which played at the great ceremony that takes place every night at dusk at the Menin Gate. The next day at Tyne Cot cemetery, I made a point of going to look at the names of the fallen of the 1st Battalion the Essex Regiment, to see whether there were any with the name of Russell. There was Private J. Russell. A few months earlier, my first grandson, Joseph Russell, had been born. Following on from what the shadow Minister said, it was a poignant moment to see on a war memorial the name of my first grandson. Joseph Russell, who will shortly be 13, will go later this year to the fields where so much loss of life occurred, on a battlefields tour for students.
It is important that we bring to today’s generation what happened 100 years ago. I am delighted that the women of the war are to be featured. The poppy fields is an excellent addition, which I hope will be featured. We had a bombing raid in Colchester in the great war, which needs to be recognised and remembered. There are photographs showing the damage.
On 5 and 6 July, the Colchester military festival will take place, in aid of ABF The Soldiers Charity—formerly the Army Benevolent Fund. Although the aim is to show how important our armed forces are in the 21st century, particularly in the garrison town of Colchester, I think that it will set the scene for what happens from 4 August onwards. In the autumn, Colchester Military Wives Choir will sing in the town’s Mercury theatre. Again, that is not a direct first world war commemoration, but there is clearly a link.
It is also worth mentioning that on 19 July the transformed Imperial War museum in London will reopen to the public, revealing its brand-new first world war galleries, which will be free to the public. They will allow audiences young and old to explore what the first world war was like, and to learn how terrible it was for the hundreds of thousands of young men who came from around the world to fight. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) mentioned some of the countries that sent their young people to fight. One of them was Canada. The Imperial War museum features an exhibit on the Canadian expeditionary force.
We are talking today about a war that commenced 100 years ago; 100 years ago, it was the 100th anniversary of another war—one that has been airbrushed out of this nation’s history. Those Members who have read yesterday’s Hansard will have seen that yesterday I had a debate in Westminster Hall—it begins at column 88—on “History Curriculum: North American War, 1812-14”. Had the Americans won that war—we won it—Canada would not have existed, and there would have been no Canadian expeditionary force in 1914, because the United States did not join the war until 1917. Who knows whether the war would still have been raging in 1917 had it not been for the Canadians and others from the empire who took part?
I welcome this debate. It is important that we remember the history of 100 years ago, but we must also remember history prior to that.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I rise to speak not only as a Member of this House, but as chair of the Northern Ireland First World War Centenary Committee. I also have the pleasure of representing Northern Ireland on the national advisory board for the commemorations.
I thank the Minister for the excellent work that he and his colleagues have undertaken in providing leadership for the centenary commemorations, which is very much appreciated in Northern Ireland. The help and assistance that we have received from the Department in Whitehall has not gone unnoticed. I also want to thank my colleagues on the committee in Northern Ireland, who represent all the key stakeholders involved in the commemorations, for the excellent work they are undertaking. I will say a little more later about the programme being developed in Northern Ireland for the centenary period.
Mention has already been made of the worldwide significance of the war. It helped to shape the history of Europe in the 20th century, and its impact on the island of Ireland was particularly significant. Indeed, arguably the events of that period continue to shape the history of Ireland today. Many of the men who fought in the ranks of the 10th and 16th Irish Divisions and in regiments such as the Royal Irish Regiment, the Connaught Rangers, the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, the Munsters, the Leinsters and the South Irish Horse were Irish volunteers committed to securing independence. Equally, the men of the 36th Ulster Division, who filled the ranks of the Royal Irish Rifles, the Royal Irish Fusiliers, the Inniskillings and the North Irish Horse, were Ulster volunteers who believed passionately in maintaining the Union with Britain. The future of Ireland was shaped not on the streets of Dublin in 1916, but on the muddy, blood-soaked battlefields of the western front, where Irishmen from every province of the island fought side by side in common cause.
The first Member of this House to lose his life in the war was an Ulsterman, Captain Arthur Edward Bruce O’Neill, who was the Member for Mid-Antrim, which is now represented, at least in part, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). Captain O’Neill was killed in action while serving with the 2nd Life Guards at Klein Zillebeke ridge on 6 November 1914 at the age of 38. He was the father of Captain Terence O’Neill, who became Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Captain O’Neill served with valour. In November this year, with Mr Speaker’s permission, we hope to hold a small act of remembrance at the war memorial in Westminster Hall in memory of the honourable Captain Arthur Edward Bruce O’Neill MP.
Another Member of this House to die in action during the great war while representing an Irish constituency was Major Willie Redmond. He was killed in action while serving with the 6th Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment at Messines ridge on 7 June 1917 at the age of 56. He was a committed Irish nationalist, and brother of the leader of the Irish parliamentary party in this House. In the winter of 1916, months before his death and in the aftermath of the slaughter at the Somme, Willie Redmond wrote these words to Arthur Conan Doyle:
“It would be a fine memorial to the men who have died so splendidly if we could, over their graves, build up a bridge between North and South.”
After the war, the lines were drawn across Ireland and the bridges were broken down. We all know the history of the decades that followed that war. Today, in the 21st century, those bridges that Willie Redmond spoke of are being built. They are bridges of co-operation between the two parts of the island, based on mutual respect—the kind of respect that was in the hearts of the men of the 10th and 16th Irish Divisions and the 36th Ulster Division who fought side by side at Messines in 1917. It is particularly poignant that Willie Redmond was carried off the battlefield by men from the 36th Ulster Division, including Private John Meeke of the 11th Inniskillings.
In honour of men such as Captain Arthur O’Neill MP and Major Willie Redmond MP and the ideals they upheld, we have chosen remembrance and reconciliation as the twin themes for the centenary commemorations in Northern Ireland. Our programme reflects that. On 4 August, as we mark the outbreak of the war, there will be a special service at St Anne’s cathedral in Belfast representing all traditions on the island of Ireland, current and past. We will then have a candlelight vigil at the cenotaph at Belfast city hall, where representatives of the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland will come together in an act of remembrance. We hope to have, for the first time in Northern Ireland, the pipes and drums of the Royal Irish Regiment play alongside those of the Irish army band.
We are planning other events as we look forward. I acknowledge, as the Minister has reported to the House, the excellent work being undertaken at Glasnevin cemetery. Not only have the war graves been restored to an excellent condition, but the erection there of the cross of sacrifice is particularly symbolic and significant. As he pointed out, the cross not only sits in the shadow of Daniel O’Connell’s monument, the round tower, but alongside Gladstone’s grave. Sorry. I do not mean Gladstone, who would not have been buried in Ireland—some people on my side of the House might have wanted to bury him in Ireland. I of course meant Parnell, who was leader of the Irish nationalists. De Valera is buried there too. Alongside their graves we have that fitting memorial to the men—56,000 of them—who left the island of Ireland and gave their lives in defence of our freedom.
Looking ahead, in 2015 we will join others from across the Commonwealth at Gallipoli, where the Irish made a significant contribution at the battle there. In 2016, the centenary of the battle of Jutland, there will be a particular focus on HMS Caroline, which is based in Belfast harbour and currently being restored by the National Museum of the Royal Navy. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for helping us to secure not only the retention of HMS Caroline in Belfast but the funding that will now see her restored to her former glory and right at the heart of the commemoration of the battle of Jutland.
In 2016, it is the centenary of the battle of the Somme, which is seared into the collective memory of the people of Ulster. The men of the 36th Ulster Division were at the forefront of the battle of the Somme. On that fateful morning of 1 July, thousands of those men lost their lives or went missing in action as a result of their heroic efforts. Indeed, a number of them won the Victoria Cross. We are participating in the national project across the United Kingdom to mark the memories of the men who won the Victoria Cross during the first world war with the placing of a stone in their town of birth. This will be done not only in Northern Ireland but in the Republic of Ireland, where the Irish Government have consented to receive the stones to mark these men. We very much welcome the fact that they will have their memories commemorated in that way.
In 2017 we mark the centenary of the battle of Messines, when the Irish Divisions fought alongside the Ulster Division. We intend to mark that particularly poignant occasion in a number of ways, bringing together people from across the island of Ireland. Finally, of course, we move towards the centenary of the armistice in 2018. We are considering a major project that will leave a lasting legacy of the centenary of the first world war in Northern Ireland.
I want to conclude my remarks with two quotations. At this time, it is the people who served and those who were left behind at home that we remember most. Captain Wilfred Spender served with the 36th (Ulster) Division at the battle of the Somme. After the battle, as he reflected on the heroics of the men who had gone out to fight that morning, he wrote these words:
“I am not an Ulsterman but yesterday, the 1st. July, as I followed their amazing attack, I felt that I would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world.”
A number of those men won the Victoria Cross that morning. The sacrifice was enormous.
The Minister mentioned the cultural side of the centenary, with the war poetry and the music, and all that is very important. I want to quote one verse from a poem written by Susan Adams from Pipers Hill in Lisburn in my constituency. It is a tribute to her son, Private Ralph Adams of the 13th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles, who was killed in action on 1 July 1916. She wrote this:
“In afar distant land though his body now rests.
Far from his home and the ones he loved best,
Still deep in our hearts his memory we’ll keep,
Sweet is the place where he now lies asleep.”
Those words remind us that whether in the far-off fields of France or in the graveyards across this United Kingdom, it is the men and women who fought and died whom this centenary is most about.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who made a very poignant point about how Ireland fought together in the first world war. I am sure that that spirit will mean that all people can live together in Ireland in future. I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their great contributions to this debate, which is a very poignant moment for us to remember the war. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on an excellent maiden speech. We look forward to many great speeches from him. The people of Newark are very well represented in this place.
As we stand here some 100 years on from the start of the first world war, we take so much for granted—our freedom of speech and our ability to vote in democratic elections. We must remember the 887,000 soldiers from the United Kingdom and the British empire and the more than 1.6 million in total who were killed in that conflict. We must remember that at that time there were significantly lower populations in this country and across the world, so a huge percentage of young men were cut down. Perhaps some will dispute this, but—dare I say it—it was such a pointless, needless war: a war of imperial powers muscling up to each other to see who was the greatest. Such a waste of life is quite unbelievable. Of course, even today, conflicts go on across the world, but, thank goodness, we do not see them in our own country or across much of Europe. That is very much to be welcomed.
I congratulate the Government and all the political parties on the events that will take place throughout this memorial year, because it is right that we remember. For many of us, perhaps, this is history, and when we see things about battles on television and in films, it brings home to us what happened. As the generations of young people go by, they need to be reminded of it, not in a bloodthirsty way but in a way that shows them the loss of life that took place and what happens in war, so that we can try to bring about a situation where there is far less war in future.
I very much welcome the centenary apprenticeship scheme that the Government have launched, which encourages 100 companies that existed 100 years ago, at the start of the first world war, to offer apprenticeships. That is a very good scheme.
I have strongly supported Devon county council in its commemorative project, Devon Remembers. We have to make sure that the memorials in all our villages are remembered, maintained, and brought up to a reasonable standard.
The Woodland Trust is planting four woods across the country, and that is a very good idea. With my farming background and my great belief in growing things, I think there is nothing better than a tree as a living thing that represents bringing things to life again after such a terrible war.
In Beer, a small village in my constituency on the coast of south Devon, men who were called up to the Royal Naval Reserve marched along the streets to a band as they went off to war. That will be commemorated on 3 August, 100 years on, when the same thing will happen again.
Even politicians were not immune. The hon. William Walrond was Member of Parliament for Tiverton from 1906—a little while before me. He died in 1915 while serving as a lieutenant with the Royal Army Service Corps during the first world war. His name is listed on the memorial to the dead in Westminster Hall and is on one of the 42 heraldic shields in the House of Commons Chamber commemorating each of the MPs killed during both world wars.
It is not possible for me to attend the Remembrance day services in all the villages and towns in my constituency, because they are so spread out, but I attend services in Honiton, Tiverton, Axminster and Seaton on an alternate basis. On reading the list of names, I find it poignant that the number of those killed in the first world war is probably two to three times the number of those killed in the second world war, and many of the family names of those who lost loved ones in the first world war are repeated on the list of those who died in the second world war. That is what brings it home to me. We need to remember that and create a memorial that is about not which country was right and which was wrong, but bringing those countries together. It is good that we now remember alongside not only France and Belgium, but Germany.
My mother is 89 and our family were fortunate, because five of her uncles went to war from farms in Somerset, with their horses, and all five of them returned. That was, of course, very unusual, and we were blessed that so many of our family returned. The relatives of many of my constituents did not return, so it is very good that we are holding this, not celebration, but memorial to what happened in the first world war. The treaty of Versailles led very much to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis and all that followed. Let us in the 21st century remember what happened in the 20th century and pray to God that we do not let it happen again.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), particularly given his comments about the four proposed woods. Many of us will be able to picture photographs and Paul Nash’s paintings of the destroyed trees and their stumps. The proposal is an appropriate part of the commemoration process.
It is always a privilege to listen to a good maiden speech: we certainly heard one today, and I welcome the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to his place.
I am sure that most of us have listened to many excellent BBC programmes and heard many moving accounts from the men who served. I want to add to those accounts. No account is more poignant to me than the diary entry I am going to read now. It is dated 17 August 1914 and is from the diary of my great-uncle Lieutenant George Ward of the Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry, who was killed in action on 24 August 1916. His cousin, Gordon Clarke, wrote to his brother—my grandfather—who was recovering from serious wounds received earlier in the battle of the Somme, that he had seen George a couple of days earlier and he was in good spirits. The date of that letter was 24 August, the day he was actually killed. There are so many stories like that, and Gordon was killed four days later.
My great-uncle wrote:
“Europe is plunged into an awful war, what the issue will be no one can say. What waste of human life.”
He also expressed concerns about the problems of the slums in Britain and the need for money to be spent there, and questioned whether the war would be just and sensible. For a very young man, he was prescient in his concern about the size and scale of what was about to happen. Nevertheless, even with his misgivings and concern for the poor in Britain, he felt that it was his duty to serve. He had been a member of the Congregational Church and the Boys Brigade and had been involved in adult school evening classes.
My great-uncle also wrote to his parents to tell them of the great conflict in his soul about joining up. He felt that he should be away with his fellow countrymen fighting a noble cause, which was difficult because his parents were staunch pacifists. In fact, my great-uncle George’s name is not on the local war memorial because his father would not allow it to appear. That is a cause of enormous sadness to me, but it was very strongly felt and that is why his name does not appear.
In my great-uncle’s letter to his parents, he said:
“Could we have reasonably remained neutral without prejudice to our national honour? I think not!”
That was the view of an ordinary man at the start of the conflict. Clearly he had his fears and he queried the jingoistic comments in some newspapers. He wrote about not wanting
“to crush that beautiful Germany of Beethoven, Schubert, Martin Luther and Schiller but we do have to smash the military caste.”
That was his view at the time and it is an interesting observation.
My great-uncle is buried near Albert, in the Peronne road cemetery, which I will visit this summer to pay my respects. I add my thanks to all those involved in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the work they do. I think that the speech of the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) will stand the test of time: people should read and take note of it, because it was fascinating on many levels.
My grandfather was blown up on the Somme on 12 July. He came back very badly injured and could never get life insurance as a result. These were the days when post-traumatic stress disorder was not recognised. How did he cope with what he had done and what he had seen? It is very interesting and it is only as I grew older and when I was an adult that I understood some of his behaviour. He used to take himself off to his allotment to be by himself. When family were present and people were chatting, he would not involve himself in the conversation. He would go off and play the piano in a very solitary way. He never, ever talked about his experience. I think that was the only way in which he could manage and deal with the horrors he had seen. Everyone present probably has a similar family story. We also need to remember those on the home front, including the women who worked in the munitions factories, and the terrible risks they faced at the time.
Today we talk of urgent operational requirements, but the speed with which the Government moved following the outbreak of war and the way in which cities such as Plymouth responded was astonishing. We should remember that in those days, they sent telegrams rather than text messages. Local historian Derek Tait notes that by 9 August the Government had already taken over control of the railways and all regular schedules were suspended.
Five of the 14 Plymouth-based ships were sunk during the battle of Jutland, including HMS Indefatigable. She had seen action in the Dardanelles, but was sunk after her magazine exploded following two or three direct hits. Only two of her 1,019 crew members survived. When we think about the losses experienced in the trenches, let us also not forget the huge loss of life at sea or, indeed, the short life expectancy of pilots flying for the Royal Flying Corps in those early planes that seemed to be held together with nothing more than string. Flying boats also took off from Mount Batten. Plymouth is a very rare thing indeed—a place where all three forces have been based simultaneously. The city of Plymouth will, of course, be holding many commemorations. The city museum is running a series of exhibitions that I hope people will go along to.
HMS Warspite was launched in 1913 from Devonport, where she began her distinguished career as the most decorated ship in the Royal Navy. Plymouth was one of the most important ports and that remains the case today. Of course, our merchant navy also went in and out of Plymouth, Portsmouth and elsewhere. We should take time to consider the losses that it incurred and the bravery of those men who sailed and kept this country supplied.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the excellent speech she is making. Has she visited, as I have, the fantastic memorial to the merchant navy by the Tower of London? It is very moving—it lists the ships sunk and the loss of life on each of them—and does she agree that it is a very special memorial for a nation that has always depended on the sea?
Alison Seabeck
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I urge people who come to London and visit the tower to go to see the memorial, particularly this year or during the coming four years.
Interestingly, the war coincided with the amalgamation of three towns—Plymouth, Devonport and Stonehouse—into what we now know as the city of Plymouth. It was as Plymouth that citizens rallied around to support the troops and to care for the injured. Some 120,000 soldiers mobilised out of Plymouth in just four days between 5 and 9 August. Like many other cities, we had Pals regiments.
I again thank the Plymouth Herald and local historians for drawing my attention to the Plymouth Argyle players who enlisted. Jack Cock earned the military medal for bravery in the field. At one stage, he was pronounced missing presumed dead, but, fortunately for his family and for the club, that was not the case. He went on to score 72 league goals, as well as to play for England. I am sure that the current Green Army are very proud of their club’s players, and of their bravery and sacrifice.
Many schools in the city were converted for a range of uses, including as hospitals, and the city saw the return of injured Australians from the dreadful battle of Gallipoli, as well as the opening of a hospital specifically for US servicemen. Troops from across the empire—from Canada, India and New Zealand—set off from Plymouth, and we should remember the sacrifices of those men alongside those of other allies.
Such a wealth of information on which to draw gives us a very varied picture of what happened and of how individuals responded to the dreadful challenges they faced and the sights they witnessed. I was therefore a little surprised to read an article sent by my great-uncle, Lieutenant Ward that was printed in the Romford Recorder, because he gave it very much warts and all; there was no censorship. He described feeling happy to be alive but went on in graphic detail to describe the shelling of his trench and wrote about a private
“wild-eyed, white and haggard looking, plastered with mud asking for urgent help for the ‘Durhams’ who have got it.”
He also talked about the bravery and calmness of the stretcher bearers, and particularly about a Corporal Swain, a man from Cornwall. It is therefore interesting that when I was on a walk along the cliffs at Pentire point in Cornwall, I came across a plaque which reads:
“For the Fallen
Composed on these cliffs, 1914”.
The words by Laurence Binyon have already been mentioned, but they are worth repeating:
“They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.”
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who made a very personal speech. It is also a pleasure to speak in this debate, not least because it allows me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on an excellent maiden speech. It could not have been improved, even—I am sure that we all agree—with the insertion of the words “long-term economic plan”. He will have the pleasure of knowing that no hon. Member will ever have to look up his constituency when they want to refer to him in a debate.
I want to start by paying tribute to the fallen, of whom 6,000 were from my city of Portsmouth, and to the wounded, of whom 18,000 were from my city. It is right that we remember their sacrifice and commemorate them, but I wish to focus my remarks on those from my city who—today—have been of immense service in enabling us to do just that.
Mr Charles Haskell has given time, artefacts, money and effort to build the World War One Remembrance Centre at Fort Widley, which opened last year. I believe that it is the only world war one museum in the south of England, with the exception of the Imperial War museum. As well as a record of events and personal stories, it has artefacts donated by local people displayed there. Volunteers have recreated a trench experience, which has been a real draw with schoolchildren from across the region. It is a real labour of love, and I commend the work of Mr Haskell and his volunteers on their remarkable achievement.
I pay tribute to the vision of Bob Beech, Portsmouth football club and the researcher Alan Laishley, who have documented the stories and sacrifice of the Pompey Pals—my city’s response to the initiative of General Sir Henry Rawlinson. In August 1914, the Portsmouth citizens patriotic recruiting committee called on the men of the city not already occupied in essential war work to form Portsmouth’s own battalion. It was not long before the city—including the surrounding areas of Gosport, Havant, Waterlooville and Petersfield—had raised two battalions, which were formally known as the 14th and 15th Portsmouth Battalions, the Hampshire Regiment. Like the other Pals battalions, which formed a major part of Kitchener’s new Army, they served on the western front from the middle years of the war and faced a baptism of fire on the killing grounds of the Somme. By the end of the war, 1,400 of the Pompey Pals had made the ultimate sacrifice. In August, a memorial to them will be unveiled at Fratton Park, which will ensure that their sacrifices are remembered often.
I am very grateful to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has given my city’s museum a grant of £97,000 to support the Lest We Forget project. It has gathered volunteers from across Portsmouth to record and gather stories and to run community events to enable us all to remember. The whole city has responded to that and other initiatives. Churches, community groups, the creative industries and other organisations are all taking the opportunity to discover their local history and the stories of the time, as well as to ensure that future generations can do the same. I wish to pay tribute to all the work that is going on, which is largely being done by volunteers.
I pay tribute to the work of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), as well as of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), on whose committee on this House’s commemorations it has been my privilege to serve. It is right that so much effort is being made for this centenary, and I thank them not only for putting on national events, but for the opportunities and support that have assisted my constituents in creating some wonderful and lasting projects on this occasion—for the benefit of us all—to remember so many.
Lastly, we have quite rightly focused on world war one graves over the past few months and in this debate, and on second world war graves through the 70th anniversary of D-day and other such events, but by comparison with those white stones, the wooden crosses of those who died in service between the wars often form a stark and tatty contrast. I hope that we can create a similar effort to ensure that their last resting places are also cared for and maintained. They deserve no less.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on his maiden speech, which I thought was excellent. I, too, welcome him to the House.
The first world war affected virtually every town and village in Britain. In every community there stands a memorial to those who lost their lives fighting for their country. In my constituency of Sedgefield, it is no different. From Hurworth on the River Tees in the south to the former colliery village of Thornley in the north, those who served and died are honoured and remembered.
At least 1,500 men from the constituency were killed in the war to end all wars. In the town of Ferryhill, more than 130 gave their lives; in the village of Chilton, more than 100; in the village of Thornley, 134; in Wingate, 147; and in Wheatley Hill, 96. All those communities had something in common, which was that they were all colliery villages, and many men volunteered for the armed forces rather than go down the pit. In the Army, they were sure to be fed and clothed, and they would be able to stand up straight. They of course believed that the war would be over in a few weeks.
I want to mention at this point two specific members of the armed forces from my constituency who fought in that war. The first is 2nd Lieutenant Jack Youll, a miner from Thornley who won the VC on June 15 1918 but was killed on 27 October at the battle of Vittorio Veneto in Italy. He did not survive the war. Thomas Kenny, a private in the 13th battalion of the Durham Light Infantry from Wheatley Hill received his VC from the King and went on to survive the war, spending the rest of his life working down the pits of Wheatley hill and Wingate.
I believe that the number of soldiers around the constituency commemorated on memorials to be an underestimate in many cases. The war dead of the Trimdons prove the case. In 1914 over 2,000 miners worked down the local pits, and the memorial on the wall of St Albans church in Trimdon Grange tells us that 450 from the Trimdons served in the war. The memorial also lists the names of 94 who did not return. There is also a memorial in Trimdon colliery that shares some of the same names. Research by Adam Luke, an Oxford university student from Trimdon village, has revealed that 199 men from the Trimdons were killed, the equivalent of 45% of all those who served. This is a staggeringly tragic statistic. The research details the regiment in which the men served and when they were killed. During the war years, there were just under 1,000 households in the Trimdons. Every household would have been affected in some way by the catastrophe of the European battlefield.
At the battle of the Somme, 11 sons from the Trimdons were killed on that first day of July. By the end of the Somme campaign, 39 families had lost a son, husband, brother or father, half of them with no known graves. For example, on 1 July, Private Martin Durkin served with the 26th Tyneside Irish Battalion, the Northumberland Fusiliers. His battalion set off across no man's land, marching, according to a war diary
“as if on parade under heavy machine gun and shell fire”.
Private Durkin did not return to Trimdon Grange, has no known grave and was one of his battalion's 489 casualties that day. Private Barnes, of the 1st Battalion, the Border Regiment, was from Lower Hogg street, Trimdon Grange. Private Barnes was one of the many, as the regiment's war diary records, who was
“wiped out by machine gun fire in our own wires.”
The battalion suffered 619 casualties, and Private Barnes rests at Mailly Wood cemetery in France. On the same day, Private Frederick Hunter of the Royal Fusiliers was one of his battalion's 227 casualties who were involved in fierce hand to hand combat. Mr and Mrs Hunter of Trimdon lost a son that day.
The horror of the Somme went on until mid-November. Private Fred Shorthouse was killed at the Somme on 8 November 1916, just days before the end of the campaign. Fred was the second son of Mr and Mrs Shorthouse of 7 Pringle street in Trimdon Colliery to be killed in the space of six months. His brother had been wounded at Gallipoli and died earlier that year on 29 May. Private Fred Shorthouse was also married. He lived with his wife Mary at Lawson street, Trimdon Colliery. Their son Arthur, was born on 4 April, 1914. Fred joined the 1st Battalion DLI in 1915. Shortly after, he wrote home to his mam and dad. He wrote:
“I was out to tea and supper on Saturday and was at a concert at the Chapel...and last night again at a lecture so you see mother I am not wasting my time... the battalion is going foreign in a week or two...but it is not to fight we are for garrison duty abroad...we have not to fight so you see everything works together for good...The only thing that will trouble me will be leaving the old homestead and the faces I love because you have been a good mother to me. I will never forget you but we just have to hope for better days to come”.
Private Fred Shorthouse has no known grave.
Many of the streets and terraces of the first world war Trimdons are no longer there, but it can still be recorded that Front street, Trimdon Grange, lost four men to the war. Railway row, Deaf Hill lost three. Cross street, Trimdon Foundry, lost three. Kelloe Winning lost four. Coffee Pott row, Trimdon Colliery, lost four. The Plantations, Trimdon Grange, lost five. The list goes on.
The research undertaken by Adam Luke will be placed in a roll of honour and will detail not just those from Trimdon who were killed during the first world war, but those killed in all the wars since. The Trimdons have given up 269 of their own in conflicts since 1914. I commend the work Adam has done to ensure that all those who have lost their lives from the Trimdons will be remembered.
At 10.30 pm on Monday 4 August, in St Mary Magdalene's Church in Trimdon Village—like in many other places of worship up and down the land—a candlelit vigil will take place to remember the 199 Trimdon men killed during the war to end all wars. The Trimdons’ loss was not unique, but it serves as a sobering reminder of the suffering our communities embraced between 1914 and 1918.
The horizons of the men from the Trimdons during those years were limited to going down the pit or going to war. All that lay on the horizon for the women of the Trimdons during those years was inevitably to live in a pit village and marry a pitman. In 2014, all the pits have closed and there is no world war. The horizon for the young people of Trimdon is broad and, for many, is lit with optimism. Adam Luke is the grandson of a bus driver and is now at Oxford university, something that could never have been dreamed of during Fred Shorthouse’s short life. The aspirations of our young people in the second decade of the 21st century are many and varied. It is down to us to ensure those aspirations are fulfilled in a world where neither death by coalfield disasters nor world wars will ever happen again.
I want to end my speech by returning to Private Fred Shorthouse and some words by his wife Mary. She could not afford a sturdy memorial to sustain his memory over the decades. Mary had instead a Remembrance card printed. It read:
“In loving memory of Private F Shorthouse, Beloved husband of Mary Shorthouse of Trimdon Colliery, Who fell in action, November 8th, 1916 aged 27 years. Deeply mourned by his loving wife and child. Gone, but not forgotten.
I hope someday my eyes shall see,
The face I loved so well,
I hope someday my hands shall clasp.
And never say farewell.”
We must ensure that our nation never says farewell to those who served and died for their country. We must never forget. That is why this debate and the commemorations to come are so important.
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
It is an honour to follow so many colleagues on both sides who have spoken so movingly, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) and the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), with whom I sparred gently over the years before I was retired out of the service. It is fitting that in this place, to which we all come from different walks of life and different parts of the country, our memories of our constituents or our families reflect exactly what happened 100 years ago, where so many people fought and died while disregarding their status in society. That is reflected here today.
May I also say what an honour it was to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)? I have to say that that was a marvellous speech. As someone who came to the House in a by-election I can say that it is all downhill from now on. The Whips will have taken note of a speech like that and will mark my hon. Friend down for plenty of statutory instrument and delegated legislation committees because that is what it is all about.
Just after my 18th birthday—
Sir John Randall
It was indeed a long time ago and I can just about remember it. Just after my 18th birthday, I was standing, literally, in the footprints in the pavement in Sarajevo, by the river Miljacka, where Gavrilo Princip stood and fired those fateful shots that sparked the conflagration we are discussing today. At the time, it was chilling to think what had happened and what the consequences were. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and others have said, the causes of the war and who was to blame are matters for historians to discuss at great length. I have noticed that a certain amount of revisionism is going on in certain quarters, but I will leave that aside. Little did I realise then, of course, that Sarajevo, having been the trigger point for such conflict would in a few decades again become the very centre of more conflict and killing in Europe in our own era.
I am afraid to say that the folly of us all as human beings is that we never seem to learn the lesson of history. That is why these commemorations have to be held and why we have to educate generation after generation in the hope that somehow those mistakes will eventually be realised. We must remember, too, how easy it is to fall into violent conflict.
I congratulate the Government and the country as a whole on the way in which they are embarking on this anniversary. There will be many commemorations throughout the country—some grand, some major civic ones, some local, some individual ones. In my own small parish church, St Laurence in Cowley near Uxbridge, they are researching the names—not a great number—of those on the war memorial. We are still trying to track down the one lady whose name is on there—Olive Latham. We have not yet found out about her history, who she was and why she is on the memorial.
I am proud to say that when a memorial was built and consecrated in Uxbridge after the first world war, we called it a “peace memorial”. I grew up thinking that it might have been done in the ’70s—in a decade of awakening in which we felt that we should not be talking about war—but I found that that was the original name for our memorial. That is fitting, given that Uxbridge was, and to some extent still is, a centre of non-conformism. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) talked about her forebears in the congregational church, and that applies to me, too. For many of the local people, at heart, there was a degree of pacifism but perhaps there was a need for people to answer a stronger calling to serve their country.
As we have heard movingly from many Members, every family will have memories from those days that have been told down the generations. Both my grandfathers were in the forces. My maternal grandfather was in the Royal Flying Corps, principally because he was a woodwork teacher and the aeroplanes were made out of wood. He ended up doing important work mending the planes, so he did not have to serve on the front line. My paternal grandfather, Bert Randall, joined the Royal Horse Artillery and kept a diary. As a good Randalls, as I hope I have been, we always obey the rules. He wrote his diary every day, but it ceased as soon as he went overseas, when keeping a diary was not allowed.
It is fascinating to read what my grandfather had for breakfast, lunch, dinner and many other things from day to day, but it does not provide the sort of insightful, deep and philosophical thoughts of which we have heard from other diaries. I noticed from the diary that he started off with a boyish enthusiasm, joining up with his mates going off to war. While he was training, first in Reading and then in Norfolk, it is possible to see that enthusiasm being tempered, as he realised that some of his comrades were being sent off to France to fill the gaps as a result of all the casualties. The realisation that this was not a game was dawning on him.
One of the most poignant pieces of memorabilia pertaining to my grandfather is provided by a little note he sent. He was on the front line in France, manning a gun limber, and the horse was blown up underneath him, wounding him quite severely. He came home on a hospital train and I have the very note he scribbled out in pencil, which he gave to someone to deliver to his mother in Uxbridge, saying “I’m all right, I’m safe”. He said he did not know why he was being sent to Nottingham when he was only a few miles away from her, but he told her, “Don’t worry, Mum, I’m okay”. I find that incredibly moving, because these stories are all about people. I am sure that many of us here are parents and we can hardly begin to imagine the horror of seeing one’s children going off to war.
My grandfather never wanted to talk about the war—it could be an example of that non-conformism. On Remembrance Sundays, my father who had served in the second world war was very happy to wear a poppy, but my grandfather was not. I think it was the horrors he had seen. He never really wanted to talk about it. That stays with me.
Thankfully, both those grandparents returned home, but not everybody in Uxbridge was so lucky. Lord Hillingdon was one whose son, the honourable Charles Mills, died in action. He was killed in 1915 when Lord Hillingdon was the sitting Member of Parliament for Uxbridge. Everybody is affected and, as I said earlier, we have to educate every generation about what happened.
We have talked about some of the excellent schemes that have been put in place—that of the Institute of Education, for example—and there has been a concentration on the western front. It is quite easy to send schoolchildren across to France and Belgium to see the moving war cemeteries, the Menin Gate and so forth. We have to remember, however, that the war was fought on many fronts and that many people lost their lives throughout the world. In my own borough of Hillingdon, there is an obvious link with the wider world where graves of Australian and New Zealand servicemen can be found at Harefield church, which has an annual Anzac day service at which local school- children put a little Australian or New Zealand flag on the graves. Harefield is one of the smallest villages in Middlesex—it is still there, still a village and still in Middlesex—but it was home to two Victoria Cross recipients in the first world war.
Returning to my theme of remembering what happened elsewhere, I shall talk briefly about the conflict on the Salonika front. I shall do so not only because I studied the history and languages of the Balkans at university, but because I discovered recently the story of British women, particularly Scots but some English women, who served on that front. Although they are much feted in Serbia and elsewhere, we know very little about them over here—something we should try to rectify.
Those women mostly went out as nurses. One particular woman, not in the first flush of youth, had been rather snubbed over here. She wanted to join up and do nursing, but they did not think she had enough qualifications, so she joined the Red Cross and went over to Serbia, where along with various others who had volunteered, she was thrown into the middle of an horrendous typhus epidemic. In the early days of the war, more soldiers were dying there from typhus than they were from battle wounds. Many of the nurses and doctors succumbed to the disease, but these women gallantly turned some of these hospitals round.
Then, as the Serbian army pushed back, something began to happen in 1915. I hope that we shall take part in some of the commemorations of it next year, because the British were involved, although not as much as some. The Serbian nation—I say “nation” because this included the Parliament, the King, bishops, the army and many civilians—retreated across the Albanian mountains along to the Adriatic coast, and thence to the island of Corfu. It was a terrible retreat, during which hundreds of thousands of people died. It is interesting to note that the Albanian people allowed the Serbian army to pass freely. Some of the rivalries about which we hear today may not be as long-lasting as we probably assume.
At the time of the retreat, a nurse, Flora Sandes, decided to enlist in the Serbian army. She did not see why she, as a woman, should not be able, or allowed, to do what a man could do. The Serbian army personnel were a little bit sceptical, but they needed every person they could get. They thought that somehow having one of their allies—a British person—alongside them would be a morale-booster, and so it proved to be. Flora joined up as a private, and she did not get many special favours. She was on that terrible retreat, and she went to Corfu. After the French and the British had enabled those on the retreat to convalesce and re-equip themselves, they arrived at the Salonika front. Flora Sandes was very seriously injured.
As I have said, I do not think that we in this country have fully recognised that, at a time when women did not have the vote and it was very rare for them to be doctors, women such as Flora Sandes not only wanted to do such work, but were given an opportunity to do it in a place that was not their own. There is an excellent book on the life of Flora Sandes and others, and I have to say that the more I read such stories, the more of a feminist I become. That may seem unlikely, but it is true.
The Scots did not only send nurses. They, as well as the French, took some of the young people from Serbia who had gone on that terrible retreat—many of them had been orphaned—into their homes, where they were looked after. I think that some connections still exist. Scotland took a very proud part in those events, and is remembered very fondly in the Balkans as a result.
We know that we must engage in these commemorations for the reasons that I have already given, but I also remember an experience that I had a few years ago, just before we had to vote on the war in Iraq. I took two of my children—it was half term—to the site of the battle of Waterloo, and also to the cemeteries and trenches of the first world war. I am not a great military historian like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland, but I think it important for people to know about their history.
When I saw, face to face, the reality—the enormity—of what armed conflict means in terms of human life, it became very difficult for me to say that I had the right to send people to their deaths. There are times when we have to do it, and I recognise that: I am not a pacifist by nature. However, it makes us all have to think, because making such decisions is not an easy matter. For that reason, I am thankful that I had the opportunity to make that visit.
Let us go forward into these commemorations. Let us try to ensure, for the sake of those men and women who gave their lives—and those men and women whose lives were ruined for ever because of all the trauma, which might have been gassing or might have been just what they saw, and were never really mended afterwards—that those lives were not given in vain. We must do everything we can to try to avoid the follies that we end up going into.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I want to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid by Members in all parts of the House to the millions of people, of all nationalities, who lost their lives during the first world war. I must admit, however, that I have been somewhat uncomfortable with the way in which debates surrounding the commemorations of the “great war” have been framed in recent months.
At the end of October 2012, my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and I tabled an early-day motion criticising the Government’s decision to spend £50 million on plans to commemorate the centenary of the beginning of the war, in an attempt, as the Prime Minister put it, to replicate the national “spirit” that marked the Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations. We argued then that, in view of the fact that an estimated 10 million soldiers and 7 million civilians had lost their lives and 20 million had been seriously wounded, any attempt to observe the centenary in a jubilant manner would be deeply insensitive. With that in mind, I have been greatly heartened by the themes that have featured in today’s debate.
This should not be, as some have argued, an opportunity to celebrate the “best of British” spirit. It should not be used as an excuse to redraft the national curriculum so that schoolchildren, in England at least, are taught a skewed, victorious version of history. The first world war should rather be remembered as the unnecessary massacre that it was. It was, after all, the first industrialised war of its kind, and marked the first occasion on which chemical gas, machine guns and tanks had been used on such a scale.
Men and boys rushed to enlist, thinking that it would “all be over by Christmas”. The military leaders who led them into battle were utterly unprepared for how long the conflict would last, and for the horrors that trench warfare would bring about. The fate that awaited them, as Wilfred Owen had it, was that they would “die as cattle”. The sheer numbers of the dead meant that the Army was forced to review the way in which dead soldiers were buried. Rather than there being mass burials and unmarked graves, each soldier’s name was recorded and then engraved on one of the war memorials that are to be found in villages and towns throughout Europe.
In another of Owen’s celebrated poems, “Dulce et Decorum Est”, the poet exposes “the old lie” that it is sweet and noble to die for one’s country. However, quite apart from the horrendous ways in which the young men died—which was, of course, what the poet was referring to in his closing couplet—this was not a war that sprung from noble causes. On the contrary, it was inspired by competing imperial foreign policies. Speaking at an event in Bosnia and Herzegovina earlier this month, the Nobel peace prize winner Mairead Maguire argued that
“The shot fired in Sarajevo a century ago set off, like a starting pistol, a race for power, two global wars, a Cold War, a century of immense, rapid explosion of death and destruction.”
The worst lie of all was the claim that this would be the war to end all wars. In hindsight, we see that the end of the conflict in 1918 only marked the prelude to mass unemployment, depression and, eventually, a second world war.
During a period of convalescence in July 1917, the soldier and poet Siegfried Sassoon wrote a letter to his commanding officer renouncing the war effort. Copies of the letter were printed in newspapers under the title “Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration”, and Sassoon’s words were quoted during a debate in this place by Hastings Lees-Smith, MP. In his letter, Sassoon lamented the fact that the war
“on which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest.”
He further added:
“I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.”
He only escaped a court martial by being diagnosed with shell shock and declared unfit for service.
A year later, the Army officer Charles Carrington said:
“England was beastly in 1918…Envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness, fear and cruelty born of fear seemed the dominant passions of the leaders of nations in those days.”
A recent editorial in The Irish Times summarises the political capital of the debate rather well. The piece, published on 18 June this year, points out that commemorations of the first world war have
“been a battle for the control of memory as much as it has been about remembering those who were killed.”
It also argues:
“Today, the fight to control history continues, since the war is seen though the prism of the growing debate about the need to define and assert ‘British values’ in a changing cultural landscape.”
That is perhaps what Jeremy Paxman had in mind when he commented recently:
“The events now are so built upon by writers and attitudinisers and propaganda that the actual events seem submerged.”
It is fitting, of course, that part of the commemorations will include the reopening of the Imperial War museum. The museum fulfils a highly important role in educating generations about the realities of war, and it should be commended on the work that it does, but we should not forget that when the museum first opened on 9 June 1920, its chairman, the right hon. Sir Alfred Mond MP, said:
“The museum was not conceived as a monument to military glory, but rather as a record of toil and sacrifice.”
Those in public life today would do well to keep that in mind.
During debates on the Imperial War Museum Act 1920, Lieutenant Commander Joseph Kenworthy MP said:
“We should forbid our children to have anything to do with the pomp and glamour and the bestiality of the late War, which has led to the death of millions of men. I refuse to vote a penny of public money to commemorate such suicidal madness of civilisation as that which was shown in the late War.”—[Official Report, 12 April 1920; Vol. 127, c. 1465.]
A distinction should be made, of course, between celebrating the pomp, glamour and bestiality of war, and commemorating those who died. I am a firm supporter of the campaign to erect a Welsh memorial in Flanders, which has already raised over £100,000 of its £150,000 target. I understand that the Welsh Government have also pledged money to the project.
The memorial, which will be made from stone donated by Craig yr Hesg quarry in Pontypridd, will be unveiled during a ceremony on 16 August this year. In May, my colleague and right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) hosted a reception in this place to raise awareness of the campaign in Parliament. I was glad to lend my support then and do so again now, because it is only right that a memorial of this kind should be in place. Tens of thousands of Welshmen died during the war, and every village in Wales was left in mourning. Over 4,000 Welshmen died in Mametz wood alone in July 1916, most from Monmouthshire and Breconshire. Indeed, it is bitterly ironic that some of those killed had survived the mining disaster in Senghennydd in 1913. Owen Sheers has written a poem about Mametz, which is now on the GCSE curriculum, and his play, “Mametz”, is being staged by National Theatre Wales this week in Usk.
It is pertinent, though, that the new memorial will be in Flanders, where the majority of Welshmen lost their lives—including our celebrated poet, Hedd Wyn. That was the pen name of Ellis Humphrey Evans, who was awarded the prestigious chair prize in the Eisteddfod of 1917 for his winning awdl, “Yr Arwr”, or “The Hero”. Evans was killed during the battle of Pilckem ridge on 31 July 1917. During the chairing ceremony the following September, when his poem was declared the winner, it was also announced that he had died in battle, and the chair was draped in a black cloak. Ever since, Evans has been referred to as “Bardd y Gadair Ddu”—the bard of the black chair. In a moving poem of that name, R. Williams Parry imagines that the arms of the chair itself are reaching
“mewn hedd hir am un ni ddaw”,
which translates as
“in everlasting peace, for one who will never come”.
I should note that the English meaning of “Hedd Wyn” is white, or blessed, peace.
I would, of course, wish to associate myself with the tributes made to those who died, and I believe that it is only right that their sacrifice should be commemorated, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon and I argued in our early-day motion, it would surely be more appropriate to commemorate the end of the war in 2018, rather than its beginning.
In “Goodbye to All That” in 1929, Robert Graves said of the Armistice:
“The news sent me out walking alone along the dyke above the marshes of Rhuddlan…cursing and sobbing and thinking of the dead.”
Even peace, for some, served only to emphasise the futility of the war and the senselessness of so many dead.
This year’s commemorations should provide an opportunity for sombre reflection, for pausing and for remembering those who died, but we should not forget the pity of war and the pointlessness of the conflict that began in 1914. As history has shown, it was far from being the war to end all wars.
I would like to end by quoting an englyn by William Ambrose:
“Celfyddyd o hyd mewn hedd—aed yn uwch
O dan nawdd tangnefedd;
Segurdod yw clod y cledd,
A’i rwd yw ei anrhydedd.”
The closing couplet translates as:
“Idleness is the glory of the sword
And rust is its distinction”.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on a passionate speech, although I disagree that the Government have struck the wrong balance. As we have heard from those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches, a careful balance has been struck in these commemorations.
I join in the tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for his excellent maiden speech. I met him some time before he became a candidate in Newark, so I looked forward to him coming to Parliament. He struck a good tone in his comments, and I must admit to a twinge of jealously, not at the warm reception that he received in Parliament, but because he was talking about fighting to improve his rail services, and his are more than twice the distance from London than mine in Worcester, although the journey takes about half the time. I look forward to working with him to promote the interests of business and fight for fairer funding for schools in both our counties.
It is truly an honour to speak in a debate on such a significant commemoration, and on an event that has been variously described as a catastrophe, the great war, and, for some years, the war to end all wars; as so many people have said, that sadly turned out not to be the case. The commemorations of the centenary will cover a sequence of events that profoundly changed our nation, each of our constituencies, and the world. As constituency MPs, almost all of us will take part in Remembrance Sunday services, and for me, it is one of the proudest but most humbling moments to take my place each year in Worcester cathedral for the moving service of remembrance. In recent years, those services have attracted ever larger crowds, and those at the Cenotaph service outside the cathedral now dwarf the packed congregation inside. Later I will touch on some of the local aspects of commemoration that will take place in Worcester, and my recent visit to Commonwealth war graves in Worcester.
First, however, I will focus on one of the most positive aspects of commemoration, which is the way it can bring communities together, heal the wounds of the past, and remind us of the things that unite us, rather than those that divide us. The Minister touched on the importance of the commemorations to Ireland, both Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) made an excellent speech on those issues. As Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Northern Ireland Office and someone who attended my first British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly earlier this year, that point has been impressed on me very clearly.
It is truly remarkable that last year the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stood alongside the First Minister and the Taoiseach for a service of remembrance at Enniskillen, and the Minister of State joined Ministers of the Republic of Ireland in laying wreaths at both Glasnevin and Islandbridge. It is perhaps more remarkable still that last year’s Remembrance Sunday service in Belfast was attended by the Sinn Fein Lord Mayor of that city—the first time in which that party has formally taken part in the event.
Those steps toward reconciliation are welcome, and I commend not only the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, but his work in bringing the exhibition “Fields of Battle—Lands of Peace” to Parliament; it echoes the theme of reconciliation through remembrance.
It was good to see Her Majesty the Queen on her visit this week to Northern Ireland laying a wreath at Coleraine and launching the programme for the Royal British Legion’s commemorations in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. I am glad that that programme also includes the service at St Anne’s cathedral in Belfast and the Woodland Trust work in County Londonderry. It is especially appropriate that the programme of commemorations has funded the extensive restoration of HMS Caroline, which, as Lord Trimble said yesterday, is the last surviving veteran of the battle of Jutland.
It is welcome that the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly is planning on holding its next plenary in Ashford, so that Members from the Dáil, this Parliament, and all the other Parliaments represented in that body can travel to the first world war battlefields, pay tribute at the Island of Ireland peace park, and read the pledge inscribed on a pillar in that park. If the House will excuse me, I think it is worth while reading into the record the wording of that pledge:
“From the crest of this ridge, which was the scene of terrific carnage in the First World War on which we have built a peace park and Round Tower to commemorate the thousands of young men from all parts of Ireland who fought a common enemy, defended democracy and the rights of all nations, whose graves are in shockingly uncountable numbers and those who have no graves, we condemn war and the futility of war. We repudiate and denounce violence, aggression, intimidation, threats and unfriendly behaviour.
As Protestants and Catholics, we apologise for the terrible deeds we have done to each other and ask forgiveness. From this sacred shrine of remembrance, where soldiers of all nationalities, creeds and political allegiances were united in death, we appeal to all people in Ireland to help build a peaceful and tolerant society. Let us remember the solidarity and trust that developed between Protestant and Catholic soldiers when they served together in these trenches.
As we jointly thank the Armistice of 11 November 1918, when the guns fell silent along this western front—we affirm that a fitting tribute to the principles for which men and women from the Island of Ireland died in both World Wars would be permanent peace.”
Amen to that.
I would like to return to matters closer to home, and in particular to my constituency of Worcester. Alongside the privilege of attending each year’s Remembrance Sunday service, I have also been honoured to go each year as MP to the city’s Gheluvelt park and attend the commemorations that take place there of a battle that may sound unfamiliar to many in this House, but which is firmly inscribed in the honours list of the Worcestershire Regiment.
On 31 October we will mark the 100th anniversary of the battle of Gheluvelt, part of the first battle of Ypres in 1914, in which the 2nd Battalion the Worcestershire Regiment advanced against overwhelming odds and, despite other forces retreating all around them, stopped the Germans’ advance and thwarted their attempt to break through the lines. That intervention was crucial. The cost of the attack was terrible: in a single day, the battalion lost 187 men, including three officers. Field Marshal Sir Claud Jacob said of the action:
“Let it never be forgotten that the true glory of the fight at Gheluvelt lies not in the success achieved but in the courage which urged our solitary battalion to advance undaunted amid all the evidence of retreat and disaster to meet great odds in a battle apparently lost”.
To this day, one of the finest parks in Worcester commemorates that action. I will be there this October, along with the Royal British Legion, Worcestershire’s regimental association, the Mercian Regiment and other units that fought alongside it. The commemorations of the bravery of the Worcesters on that day will rightly be balanced with remembrance of the tragic loss of life.
Growing up in a small village in rural Worcestershire, I was struck by the fact that the only names on our little war memorial in Abbots Morton were not from big battles such as Ypres or the Somme, but from somewhere that, as a child, I would have found difficult to find on a map—Mesopotamia. It is worth remembering, as so much focus is on the western front, the wider scope of the great war, and the fact that thousands of British and imperial soldiers and sailors fought, suffered and died in far off places such as Iraq, Gallipoli, Salonika—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) pointed out—Tanzania and the south Atlantic.
For much of the great war, the Worcestershire Yeomanry were deployed, as were the Glamorgan Yeomanry, which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned, in what we now call the middle east, fighting the Ottoman empire. For all that most people of my generation have seen “Lawrence of Arabia”, it is important that we should not allow the further-flung elements of the war to be forgotten. I am pleased that the Worcestershire regimental museum contains displays about the war in the desert. In these days when we closely follow such worrying news from that part of the world, we should remember the role that Britain played in shaping the modern middle east, understand that interventions did not start in 2003, and bring a greater historical appreciation to our understanding of the region. We should also remember that alongside the more recent sacrifices that our armed forces have made in Iraq there were previous generations who fought, sweated, suffered and died in that land.
One Worcestershire hero who fought the Ottomans was Private Fred Dancox, who went on to become the city’s one and only Victoria Cross winner. Little is known about his life before the war, but he fought at Gallipoli and, having survived the horrors of that brutal battle, he earned eternal fame by his actions back on the western front at the third battle of Ypres, better known as Passchendaele. His citation for the Victoria Cross reads:
“For most conspicuous bravery and devotion to duty in attack…this man entered the ‘Pillbox’ from the rear, threatening the garrison with a Mills bomb. Shortly afterwards he reappeared with a machine gun under his arm, followed by about 40 enemy. The machine gun was brought back to our position by Private Dancox, and he kept it in action all day. By his resolution, absolute disregard of danger and cheerful disposition, the morale of his comrades was maintained at a very high standard under extremely trying circumstances.”
That citation was published in the London Gazette on 23 November 1917. At that time, Private Dancox had been granted leave to return home to Worcester. A civic reception was prepared, and the story goes that the mayor and council were even waiting at the station to meet him. Tragically, he was never to arrive. On 30 November 1917, Private Dancox VC was killed in action. A few years ago, I attended the unveiling of a plaque to the memory of Fred Dancox, and it is appropriate that our new TA centre in Worcester has been named in his honour.
The programme of commemorations in Worcester will include the 150th anniversary of our Territorial Army unit, 214 Battery Royal Artillery, based at Dancox house, which also played its part in the great war, and on 16 August Worcester will witness a military parade to celebrate that milestone. We will also celebrate the life and achievements of one of the city’s most famous sons, the Reverend Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy, better known as Woodbine Willie. This pastor served with distinction as a forces chaplain and brought comfort to the troops over a number of years, doling out cigarettes in a way that may be frowned on today but was clearly much appreciated by the soldiers of the day. Although he joined up with conviction to serve his country, his experiences at the front convinced him of the futility of war, and in its aftermath he became a passionate pacifist and Christian socialist. His legacy is well remembered in Worcester, and it is right that the programme includes exhibitions on his life and work, as well as a service at our cathedral in his memory.
Another Worcester character who will be remembered is Vesta Tilley, who became known as “Britain’s best recruiting sergeant”. This locally born music hall actress used her controversial performances, dressed as a soldier or sailor and singing songs such as “The Army of Today’s All Right” and “Jolly Good Luck to the Girl Who Loves a Soldier”, to drum up recruits, and sometimes enrolled volunteers during her performances. I was recently very moved to hear, as part of the BBC’s excellent commemorative work, a recording of a war widow whose husband was recruited from under her nose at one of these performances. An exhibition about Vesta Tilley’s life and work starts this month and will run into September at the Commandery.
Today at the Commandery, which hosted Charles I’s headquarters at the battle of Worcester, the door is being opened to the Worcester public so that they can bring their war stories, photographs and memorabilia, in order to make sure that they are included in the county’s major project, Worcestershire World War One Hundred, one of the most significant Heritage Lottery Fund programmes outside London.
The vibrant arts and cultural scene in Worcester is also playing its part. Last Friday at our Guildhall, under Woodbine Willie’s portrait, I attended the launch of the Worcestershire literary festival and heard excellent poems on the theme of “a prelude to war”. This year’s Three Choirs festival will host a performance of Britten’s “War Requiem”, talks on how the war influenced Edward Elgar, and a specially commissioned piece by the German composer Torsten Rasch that is to be called “A foreign field”. Our museums will be hosting special exhibitions, and our schools will be running projects to research local history related to the great war.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) in congratulating the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on the work it is doing to promote understanding and visits to the war graves in our city.
My generation is perhaps the last that will have had any living contact with the generation that remembered the great war. I recall my grandmother on my father’s side telling me what it felt like to be bombed by a zeppelin in east London, and my mother talking about how, in the 1960s, her grandfather still felt the effects of having been gassed. The passing of the years and the generations should not stand in the way of our understanding or our remembering the heroism and the sacrifice, the triumphs and the tragedies, and the long-term consequences of the first world war. I congratulate the Minister and the shadow Front Benchers on setting out such a fitting and appropriate programme of commemorations, and I am proud that Worcester will be playing its part.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
This has been an excellent debate, with speeches of knowledge, poignancy and passion from all Members. I do, however, want to single out the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). I, too, came into this House after a long-run by-election, so I know what he has gone through. I wish my maiden speech had been as good as his; it marked him out as somebody from whom we will look forward to hearing more. I think he will have a long and strong period of time in this House and I wish him all the very best.
I am proud that in my maiden speech I mentioned the bombardment of the Hartlepools, and I want to return to that today, because 16 December this year will mark the centenary of that event. At 10 minutes past 8 on the morning of 16 December 1914, three German battle-cruisers started firing shells off the coast of the north-east towards Hartlepool and West Hartlepool. A total of 1,150 shells were fired over a 40-minute period, and 118 people, including 37 children, were killed in the bombardment and many hundreds were injured.
I believe it is right for this House and the country to commemorate that event, because I believe it had profound and historic implications at local, national and international level. Certainly, at the local level my constituency experienced the horror and the carnage. The scene that morning in hundreds of Hartlepool homes will have been replayed countless times before and since: a mad rush to get children to school on time—children who were probably thinking about the imminent arrival of Christmas a mere nine days later. What is not so usual, thankfully, is the confusion and terror that must have arisen after the shells started raining down.
As I said earlier, 118 people in Hartlepool and West Hartlepool were killed, including 37 children. Belk street, which is still standing and is still inhabited, was particularly badly affected. That is where the youngest victim, Benjamin Lofthouse, died; he was just seven months old. Families were torn apart. The Cornforths lost three generations to the bombardment on that day. Peter Whitecross, aged eight, and his brother John, aged six, were killed together. Sarah and Hannah Jobling were aged just six and four. William and Andrew Peart were aged just five and two. The Dixon family lost three children that day: George, aged 14; Margaret, aged eight; and Albert, aged seven.
I hope those names and ages make clear to the House the big scar that the bombardment left on my constituency. Many of the streets where the shells landed are still in existence and still lived in. The families who suffered in the bombardment still live in the town. The list of people who died in the attack—the Cornforths, the Dixons, the Horselys, the Hunters—are strong Hartlepool families with long lineages. They are very familiar to me as long-standing Hartlepool families whose direct descendants are still my constituents. Although the bombardment of the Hartlepools was a century ago, in my constituency it seems much more recent.
The bombardment also has national importance. It was the first attack on the mainland in the first world war. It also saw the first soldier to be killed on British soil since the battle of Culloden in 1746. Private Theo Jones was a local lad who lived in Ashgrove avenue. He enlisted in the Durham Light Infantry, and was one of six members of 18th Battalion DLI to be killed on duty that day. Private Jones was 29 years old. He had left Hartlepool to become a teacher in Leicestershire but had returned home to west Hartlepool to serve in his local regiment. He had been one of the first to volunteer in those heady summer days of August 1914. His pupils had given him a prayer book on his leaving, and a shard of the shell that had hit Private Jones in the chest was found lodged in the prayer book he was carrying in his breast pocket. That prayer book will be included in a programme of events to be organised by the museum of Hartlepool and located at the Heugh gun battery, on the actual spot where British troops, including Private Jones, repelled the German attack. That has been made possible through an Arts Council grant, for which I am very grateful.
The bombardment also has implications beyond local or even national considerations, however. The first world war was four months old at the time of the bombardment, which changed warfare and military tactics massively, arguably for ever. Following the bombardment, the enemy realised the panic and disruption, loss of support for Government and sapping of public morale that direct attacks on civilian populations could unleash. Changing technology meant that warfare was not confined merely to the armed forces in somewhat distant trenches on a foreign field; the full horrors of war could be experienced by innocent men, women and children on civvy street. The bombardment of the Hartlepools was in this regard the unwanted architect of the blitz of the second world war and the terrorist atrocities of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
It is for those reasons that the bombardment merits national coverage and strong recognition through first world war commemorations. I very much hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate and reflect on the bombardment of the Hartlepools on the centenary, 16 December. Each year at 10 past 8 on that day, my constituency holds a ceremony, organised by the Heugh Gun Battery Trust, to mark the occasion of the bombardment. This year, as the House will appreciate, it should be very special. I hope that, at the very least, the Secretary of State for Defence will attend, along with other Members; they will be made very welcome. I also hope that the Government will mark the centenary in a respectful and appropriate manner. In this way, the bombardment of the Hartlepools will be given the national recognition and commemoration that the attack, but most of all the lives lost in my constituency almost 100 years ago, fully deserve.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who reminded us in his excellent speech that the losses of the first world war occurred not just in Gallipoli or in the trenches, but at home as well. The raid on the Hartlepools was a terrible story that is well remembered now and had a huge impact on people at the time. In Folkestone in 1917, more than 60 people were killed in a single air raid. German planes that were looking for London dropped their bombs on the way back to the continent, killing innocent women and children—including children who were only a few months old—in the process. That was a tragic and terrible incident, and we should remember that there were important losses at home, as well as those on the western front. One important thing we will find during this centenary period is that we have forgotten lots of things about the war. I am talking about stories of individual heroism and of the way communities worked together, which were not part of the big narrative and are not found in the history books, but which are very important local, community stories. During these centenary years we will have the chance to tell them again.
My main focus as the MP for Folkestone and Hythe—I also declare my interest as chairman of Step Short, the first world war centenary charity in Folkestone—has been to mark the role that Folkestone played in the war effort as the main port of embarkation from these islands to the western front. There were more than 10 million movements of service personnel through Folkestone port during the war; those were people from all around the world, as well as from all corners of these islands. During this centenary we should remember that more than 1 million men from the Indian subcontinent, as well as people from China and south America, fought in the allied war effort and cause during the war. As part of Folkestone’s commemorations, we are certainly remembering those people, too.
We should also remember that we not only sent people out to fight, but gave comfort to people seeking refuge. Folkestone received tens of thousands of refugees from Belgium in the first weeks of the war; these people were fleeing for their lives, fleeing persecution and fleeing the advance of the enemy troops through their country— through their homeland. They came to this country and we gave them a home. These people went all across the UK, but tens of thousands of them stayed in Folkestone during the war. A great painting, painted in 1915, commemorating the arrival of the Belgian refugees sits in the town hall in Folkestone, and they are a very important part of our community’s story about the work people did during the war.
The main community effort we have supported to mark the centenary has been the building of a memorial arch that will stand over the route that those millions of soldiers marched to the ships waiting in the harbour to take them on their journey to France. The walk down the Slope road, as it was known then—after the war it was renamed the Road of Remembrance—to the harbour was for many the final journey leaving this country. Wilfred Owen spent his last night in England at the Grand hotel in Folkestone, billeted there before making that journey. So we wanted to do something that marked that route and that journey, and we are building a memorial arch over the route they took. As I mentioned earlier, this debate is particularly timely because that arch is being assembled today and will be in place by the end of the evening. On 4 August, His Royal Highness Prince Harry will be coming to Folkestone to dedicate the arch as part of the centenary commemorations and that centenary day itself.
I remember going on a battlefield tour when I was at school, 25 years ago, with my history teacher Mr Fitzgerald, who is still head of history at St Mary’s Roman Catholic high school in Herefordshire. He has been running exactly the same battlefield tour for 25 years, taking schoolboys and schoolgirls to Tyne Cot and Vimy ridge to see things for themselves and walk in the footsteps of the soldiers. That trip had a profound impact on me; one has to stand on the site and experience it. Our school always went in the autumn. Typically for that part of Europe, it is often blowy, cold and wet. Visitors get the tiniest insight into and glimpse of what it might have been like to have been standing there during the war. We could never truly know what it was like; we cannot imagine, in our lives today, what it must have been like to fight in that war. There is something sacred about these places, which is why it is right that the Government are supporting schools and encouraging them to take such trips, in order to get more schools to go to the battlefields to see them for themselves.
That is why we in Folkestone also wanted to dedicate a space that was relevant to the war and the experience of the soldiers—the place they marched down. They marched down the Road of Remembrance, they could see the ships in the harbour waiting to take them; they could see France, where they were going; and, in the distance, they were probably able to hear the guns at the front, which were only 100 miles away. They were not looking with wonder across the channel at the boats crossing; they were looking across a frontier to a very hostile place they were journeying to.
Throughout this debate we have heard stories of people who won great awards for their gallantry—Victoria Crosses and other military medals. Many of them were not servicemen before the war. They were not professional, trained soldiers. They gave up their lives at home, their families and their livelihoods, and they sacrificed themselves. They demonstrated incredible bravery, fighting for themselves, their communities and their families to defend their homeland. They demonstrated the incredible depths of resilience and bravery that probably everyone has. When we consider this first world war centenary period, we must ask ourselves whether we could make those sacrifices today. Could we do as people did 100 years ago? Are we too cynical? I think the answer is absolutely not. What the first world war demonstrated was the incredible resilience of people and the sacrifices that they were prepared to make in a good cause. The same is true of the 9/11 attacks in New York. Did those firemen wake up that morning thinking that they would have to run into a collapsing building while people were running out of it? They did their job out of duty and at the moment in time they were called to do it. People did the same in the first world war, and that is one of the things that we remember.
Another important reason for remembering the first world war is the message that emerged, which was that we were all in it together. It was a war fought not just by armies but by societies and nations. We relied on everyone’s efforts. There was mass conscription into the armed forces. We had a field army of more than a million people, all of whom were trained and fit. They had a diet and an education that enabled them to take part in the war effort. The people who could not fight in the war worked in the munitions factories and in the fields. Everyone was part of the war effort. The ability to put an army in the field and to win such a war required the participation of the entire population. It also required people of genius, inspiration and ingenuity to design new weapons, new techniques and new technologies that would make winning that war possible. To fight and win such a conflict required the resources of the entire population, and the entire country had to be strong.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an impressive speech. Will he join me in saluting the work of the charity Never Such Innocence, which is marking the massive contribution made by the Dominions, as they then were, towards the great war? It is ably led by Edward Wild and Lady Lucy French, whose great-great grandfather was Field Marshall Sir John French.
Damian Collins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was about to mention Never Such Innocence. The charity, which has been working closely with Australia house, has done a fantastic project of work this year, and I hope that it continues. I know that, like me, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) is also a supporter of the charity. I am grateful that the charity made a contribution to the Step Short project in Folkestone, and that it provided support to military charities such as Combat Stress.
It is interesting to note that Combat Stress marks its own centenary in 2019. It was formed to deal with the unique challenges, injuries and needs of people coming back from the war. It was only after the first world war that we really understood the nature of stress—mental stress from the battlefield—and the fact that it required special treatment. Combat Stress is a very relevant and important charity in its own right, and it is significant that it should be linked to the good work of Never Such Innocence.
I also want to underline the role of the Commonwealth in the war effort, especially that of the Anzac troops. Anzac day is marked now in increasingly growing numbers in this country as well as around the world and is of huge significance and importance to the history of the Commonwealth as well as to Australia and New Zealand.
I want to come back to the point about how there was this sense during the war of us all being in it together. The lesson of the war was that we need a strong society, and that to function properly there should be rewards and benefits for the whole of society coming out of that war. We also learned that the ability of a nation to fight wars in the future would depend on the strength not just of the armed forces, but of the whole country, and that our duties and responsibilities lie beyond our shores. We should fight not just wars of defence but wars to uphold the values of democracy and freedom that we have in our country. We went to war not just to defend ourselves but to liberate other people from oppression. There can be no nobler cause than that.
The first world war changed the whole of this country; it changed society. Anyone who had lived in the 20 years before the war would not have seen a huge amount of change before 1914. If they had come back to this country 20 years after the war had ended, they would have noticed that society had changed for ever. That is why these centenaries are so important. It is to remember that period of change.
Finally, I thank the Minister and the Government for the support they have given to the Step Short project. I also thank the Ministry of Defence, which is providing parading soldiers and the band of the Brigade of Gurkhas for the commemorations in Folkestone on 4 August. Soldiers will march through the memorial arch in the steps of the soldiers who went to war. It is right that the armed forces should be involved in the commemoration of the war. We are in no way seeking to make this a military occasion or to glorify war; we just want to remember that it is the servicemen who made the sacrifice and got on the ships to go and fight, and they did so in the service of their country and in the service of others. It is right that they should be involved in the commemorations that day.
I am also grateful for the support of Shepway district council and Kent county council, who provided financial support for the project. More than half of the money that has been raised by Step Short has been given as private donations. Private organisations have raised money. It is right that local authorities should support heritage projects in their areas, but also that we should seek broader support. It is right to recognise that the greater part of the support that we have received has come from other sources.
I thank the property company Lend Lease, which has provided its services for free to build the memorial arch in Folkestone. They have given a dedicated team to project manage it. That is an enormous contribution on its part. The company exemplifies the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) that this is a Commonwealth effort. Lend Lease is based in Australia, but it is giving its resources to support the project in Folkestone. It has also led on the work to restore the Imperial War museum.
I would also like to thank—this is a bit of an Oscar thank you speech, but I would like to get it on the record—the large number of organisations that have helped us with our centenary project in Folkestone. The National Army museum has brought an exhibition to Folkestone that tells the story from enlistment to embarkation. Parts of their collections have been brought to Folkestone and the museum has worked with local historians and history groups to put on the exhibition, which opened on Tuesday this week and will run for 10 months. It provides an excellent educational resource telling the story of going to war. I hope that the people who come to Folkestone to see the memorial arch will also take a look at that exhibition and that it will complement the exhibition that will be put on in the Sassoon room in Folkestone library shortly, which tells the story of the Folkestone community during the war in pictures.
I also urge all my Kent colleagues to look at the excellent online resource called Kent in World War One. We are asking people to share their data and information, pictures and stories. Such local projects and the online work of the Imperial War museum are merging official data—war records, service records and medal records and charts—with personal data such as diaries, letters, stories and photographs. That will create a wonderful resource, bringing those stories together.
It is fantastic not just to hear a citation for bravery and read someone’s war record but to hear a personal story. The Kent in World War One project maps that on local streets so that people can see what people who lived in the road where they live now did in the war, bringing the stories alive in the community. It is an excellent way of marking the centenary of the first world war.
I am sure that 4 August will be a day of moving, fitting and appropriate commemorations right across the United Kingdom, but in many ways it will be the start of a process. We will see more and more such commemorations on the important anniversaries that fall throughout the four and a half years up to the centenary of Armistice day in 2018. It is a programme that we should all celebrate and be proud of.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, and I join colleagues who have welcomed the tone in which it was introduced by the Minister and my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I also compliment right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to a powerful debate this afternoon. It has also been a pleasure to participate in a debate in which the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) gave his maiden speech, and I look forward to hearing many more such articulate contributions from him in the months to come.
Last Saturday, I visited Imperial War Museum North, which is located in my constituency, and saw its exhibition “From Street to Trench”. The IWM North is at the heart of the world war one anniversary commemorations, with a programme of outreach and collaboration, which has enabled others across the region and beyond to mark and appreciate the significance of the anniversary. Some beautiful, moving and innovative projects are being sponsored under the auspices of the museum. There has been a creative response to the anniversary through Reactions 14, involving the English National Ballet, the BBC, local, national and international artists such as Bill Fontana, Mark Anstee and Jennifer Vickers, the Royal Northern College of Music, the BBC Philharmonic, the Lowry theatre, other museums across Greater Manchester, local councils across Greater Manchester and local libraries and archives. We are looking forward to “Honour” at the beginning of August, to the Asian art triennial in September and, of course, to “Lights Out” on 4 August.
It is important to note that the Imperial War Museum North is also at the heart of an important programme of educational outreach and engagement with young people. We have learning boxes, filled with world war one replica items for use in schools, particularly where children cannot come to visit the museum, and we have “Finding our first world war”. Of course, we hope that as many of our young people as possible from across the region and beyond will visit the museum, as I did last week.
“From Street to Trench” is a remarkable exhibition showing how world war one affected families from all walks of life across our region, and I encourage right hon. and hon. Members who are in the north to visit it. It includes footage of soldiers serving on the different battlefields and of workers in munitions factories as well as those dealing with foodstuffs, cotton and other textiles. As has been noted by other hon. Members, many of those factory workers were women, who filled the vacancies left by men serving at the front. It is possible to listen to recordings of the voices of veterans recounting their experiences first hand and to look at photographs, medals, uniforms and equipment. One can read letters, which other hon. Members have mentioned, including those from service personnel writing home to their families, which are very touching. There is a letter from Clement Attlee to his great-nephew, which I was particularly pleased to take a look at.
There are also, of course, poems—poems written from the heart by ordinary service people and their families, but also early versions of poems by some of our greatest war poets, including one of Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est”, a poem that I first read, as I am sure many colleagues did, at school and which some 40 years later still has the power to move and, I have to say, chill me with its words.
If I may say so, and I hope that I will not offend anyone in this House or outside it when I say this, what struck me most in the exhibition was how little happiness there was in the images that I saw. Faces were exhausted, demoralised and bleak. I do not say that for one moment to denigrate the courage, the comradeship and the pride that people clearly took in the work that they were doing in the factories and the fields, but what came across to me is that war is hell, and not just on the front line.
The day before I went to the exhibition, I was at Stretford high school in my constituency, and I was asked by one 15-year-old student why the UK is involved in so many wars. We discussed the significance of our imperial history and our notions of international justice and obligation to our neighbours in other countries. We talked about notions of power and economic self-interest and our international alliances and friendships and, in particular, how that had led to the domino effect of country after country collapsing into conflict that characterised the start of world war one. It was clear in the discussions with the young people in that class that they did not want that to happen in their generation. They see fighting as failure, and of course it is their lives—the lives of our young people—that are the first to be sacrificed. I wonder, as we consider the international challenges and tests that face us today, and the conflicts around us and the way in which we decide that we will or will not be drawn into them, whether we do enough to hear the voices and views of young people—the generation that we would, after all, send to fight.
I am very proud of our record in the north-west in the first world war and in other wars. Our region continues to contribute to this day; for example, through the volunteer 207 field hospital located in Old Trafford in my constituency, whose volunteers—reservists all of them—have recently returned from Afghanistan. I am also proud of our industrial contribution. Trafford Park was and remains the largest industrial estate in Europe, and much of the production and industry that went to support world war one and other wars took place there. That of course made it a magnet for enemy attack, including air attack, during those wars.
I am proud of our record of dissent in the north-west. “From Street to Trench” carries some testimony from conscientious objectors, some who contributed in other ways to the war effort, some who refused altogether and were imprisoned for their beliefs. It has testimony from religious dissenters and from political dissenters and, of course, as has been mentioned, it acknowledges the debate that began the first world war, continued through it and was, to a degree, starting to be concluded after it on the role of women and women’s suffrage. Perhaps this is the moment to put on record how pleased I am that Parliament is to commemorate women’s suffrage and the arrival of women here in this House through the work of Parliament’s artist in residence, Mary Branson. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other colleagues look forward to being closely involved in that work.
The final point I want to put on the record is that dissenting, resisting war, not being prepared necessarily to adopt the prevailing wisdom, takes great courage and bravery and is a form of contribution, too. Negotiating first and last, putting our efforts into diplomacy and building relationships, internationally through our membership of the European Union and other European bodies, and here at home in our diverse multicultural communities, where we must reach out to each community and hear their views—that is where I want us to use this anniversary period to concentrate our energies, because for me it is a tragedy that 100 years after the war that was described as the war to end all wars, we still cannot say with confidence, “Never again.”
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is a huge honour to speak in this important debate. Many Members have said that, and I think that when we reflect on the way the debate was introduced by both Front-Bench teams, we have to salute that fact. I commend the Front Benchers for what they have done.
As Members walk into this House, they are witness to a memorial to the first world war—the great war—as they walk past plaques in memory of the many gallant Members who have laid down their lives. Two are particularly significant: one for Captain O’Neill and one for Major Willie Redmond—two Irishmen, one an Irish Unionist and one an Irish nationalist, both of whom fought for king and country and both of whom made the ultimate sacrifice for king and country. They were able to set aside their other divisions and associations and to unite behind a greater cause: to fight for liberty and freedom for all their people. Those two plaques on either side stand as pillars in this House. We pass them each day, probably rarely paying attention to them, but today we have the opportunity to reflect on how those pillars unite two very different ideologies and viewpoints on what should happen on my island. That is significant; it is poignant; and it is important.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said this was the war that was supposed to end all wars and to change all wars. Of course, it also united our peoples in a solemn way. It united us in bravery and in grief, and we should reflect on that. I, of course, as an Ulster Unionist, am proud of the people of my country and want to reflect on the sacrifice that I believe was beyond the call of duty made by many an Ulsterman and Ulsterwoman.
The number of Victoria Crosses won by Irishmen in the first world war has already been commented on in the House today. One of those men was from my own constituency, from the village of Bushmills. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, these were not professional soldiers, but ordinary men and women. Private Quigg was a gamekeeper on the Macnaghten estate in Bushmills and it is appropriate that his gallantry is put on the record of the House. He was awarded the Victoria Cross for “most conspicuous bravery” at the battle of the Somme on 1 July 1916.
Prior to a major offensive, Quigg’s unit had been placed in the French village of Hamel. On 1 July the Mid-Antrim Volunteers were ordered to advance through the defences towards the heavily defended German lines. During the advance, they encountered fierce resistance from heavy machinegun and shell fire. Quiggs’s platoon made three advances during that day, only to be beaten back on each occasion by German fire. The final evening assault left many hundreds of the 12th Battalion lying dead and wounded in no man’s land.
In the early hours of the next morning it was reported that Lieutenant Harry Macnaghten, also from Bushmills, the platoon commander, was missing. Robert Quigg immediately volunteered to go out into no man’s land to try to locate him. He went out seven times to search for the missing officer, each time without success. On each occasion, he came under heavy machinegun fire, but he managed to return with a wounded colleague on every occasion. It was reported that on one of his forays he crawled within yards of a German position to rescue a wounded soldier, whom he dragged back on a waterproof groundsheet. After seven hours of trying and wrestling through that mudbath and bloodbath to try to find his platoon commander, he gave up in exhaustion. Robert’s efforts to find the body of Lieutenant Harry Macnaghten were in vain, as his body was never recovered.
On 8 January 1917, Quigg received the Victoria Cross from King George V at York cottage, Sandringham. Queen Mary was also present. Later the Russians recognised his bravery and presented him with the medal of the Order of St George, fourth-class division. This is the highest award the Russian empire could give to any individual who was not a Russian citizen. That says something about the remarkable efforts that that Ulsterman made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) earlier read on to the record Captain W. B. Spender’s comment that he was not an Ulsterman, but that the previous day, 1 July 1916, he wished he had been. Captain Spender went on to say:
“The Ulster Volunteer Force, from which the Division was made, has won a name which equals any in history. Their devotion deserves the gratitude of the British Empire.”
King George V said:
“I recall the deeds of the 36th (Ulster) Division, which have more than fulfilled the high opinion formed by me on inspecting that force on the eve of its departure for the front. Throughout the long years of struggle, which have now so gloriously ended, the men of Ulster have proved how nobly they fight and die.”
Winston Churchill wrote of the 36th Ulster Division and his pride in them. He said that
“they acquired a reputation for conduct and devotion deathless in military history of the United Kingdom, and repeatedly signalised in the despatches of the Commander-in-Chief.”
That says something of the devotion of Ulsterman in the battles of the first world war, and of Irishmen who volunteered to fight for king and country. The level of sacrifice reminds us that we as a nation must now resource that memory and encourage our schools, colleges and education boards to grasp that memory and ensure that it is not lost in time. That would be a great travesty.
I believe that we have a duty to remember our glorious dead. Some 140,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight in the great war. According to the records, 50,000 men from Irish divisions were casualties. Indeed, 5,500 from the 36th Ulster Division were killed or wounded in one day on the Somme, between 1 and 2 July 1916. In September, another 4,500 were recorded as wounded or missing from the 16th Irish Division at Guillemont. The 16th Irish Division suffered more than 28,000 casualties during the war. The fact that they came from so small a nation amplifies their sacrifice all the more.
As other Members have mentioned, the sacrifice was not only from these islands; a major sacrifice was made by the Dominions and other nations. The British empire in 1914 covered 9 million square miles and represented 348 million people. Canada sent 458,000 men to the war; Australia sent 332,000; New Zealand sent 112,000; South Africa sent 136,000—the list goes on. The sacrifice of each of those nations was immense, but also terrible and troubling, given what they had to do.
As we remember our glorious dead and the glorious memory that they have rightly earned and paid for in their blood across Flanders fields, and as we tell the story and try to commit these things to memory, we must also look forward and recognise that some good has to come from all that. Her Majesty the Queen, on her gracious visit to the Republic of Ireland, visited the memorial to the Irish soldiers who fought in the first world war. That act was not only very important and significant, but a recognition of the fact that Irishmen now want to remember that they made a major contribution to the battles that were fought, and that is very significant. Indeed, it is encouraging, because although there are things that divide us, there are things that have united us that are far, far stronger.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I congratulate both Front Benchers on setting an exemplary tone for the debate and all hon. Members on both sides of the House on contributing so well. In particular, I congratulate the newest Member, the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), on making his maiden speech. If I may give him some advice, it is to listen to everybody in the House and then make up his own mind and do his own thing.
I want to reflect on some of the excellent work that is being done for the commemorations by many of the local families who can trace their history back, as many can, within our communities, and also by the local history societies, which remind us of the personal, local and human face of war and what it means for their communities in this long trail of history that reaches us here today in this Chamber.
Many of the people in the valleys I represent, such as Ogmore, Garw, Llynfi and Gilfach, left their work in the pits, even though they were protected jobs and they could have chosen to stay, to enlist and go overseas into areas that they had no knowledge of. They certainly did not foresee the horror that awaited them. They were people such as Corporal James Llewellyn Davies of Nant-y-moel row, who was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery in Pilkem ridge in 1917.
Another such individual was Horace Rees, one of the first men in the Ogmore valley to answer the call in 1914, or at least to try to, because he tried 14 times and was rejected each time—he has a cleft palate and a speech impediment that made him unfit to enlist. He succeeded on the 15th attempt, although there are rumours that he first had to bribe the recruitment sergeant. Horace Rees was indeed a persistent man, but his gallantry and fighting spirit were also exemplary. He was recommended for the Victoria Cross for his bravery at the battle of Festubert in May 1915. The recommendation fell on deaf ears, but it was recognised in the very next battle, as he was awarded the Military Medal on 25 September 1915 at the battle of Loos for rescuing the wounded under fire.
Another such individual was Chief Petty Officer George Prowse. He was born in Brynsion terrace in Gilfach Goch and worked as a collier in Swansea before enlisting. He was the only survivor of a small group of men who successfully captured an enemy strongpoint, including 23 prisoners and five machine guns, at Pronville in France on 2 September 1918. Very shortly afterwards, on 27 September he was killed in action at Anneux in France.
Then there is Hiram Davies DCM, a Welsh-speaking miner from Maesteg who enlisted in the 10th Welsh Regiment on 11 November 1914 with his brother Illtyd, who was killed in action in May 1917, and other fellow miners from Garth colliery. It was quite typical that pals from collieries would enlist and go together. He fought in Mametz Wood, Passchendaele, and was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for single-handedly taking out three machine gun posts during the battle for Delville Wood in August 1918, saving countless numbers of lives.
Men from all across the valleys went and fought, displaying great bravery in the face of unimaginable horror and carnage. Their families and communities are right to be immensely proud of them.
Huw Irranca-Davies
If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, he will understand if I do not give way on this occasion, because other people are waiting to speak.
It was not all to do with the stories on the front; it was also about what was happening back home. It is interesting that the local papers such as the Glamorgan Gazette would occasionally print letters from front-line troops. On 11 February 1916, the Glamorgan Gazette published a Blaengarw soldier’s lament in which he says:
“Sir,
May I, through the columns of your newspaper put forward a complaint? I am a native of Blaengarw, at present on active service in France, doing a little bit for the old country.”
He went on to complain about the use of the Prince of Wales fund and the committee that was stopping his wife’s allowance so that she could not now pay the rent. He concludes:
“Maybe if a few of the committee-men were out here doing their bit, and their wives and families were pinched a bit at home, they would take a different view of things.”
Signed Tommy Atkins.”
We have no way of tracing the writer or his family. We cannot know whether they survived the war or, indeed, the peace that came afterwards.
Then there are the Garw officers who wrote back home. Thanks to the local Garw history society, we have this undated letter, which says:
“Christmas Eve, and we are in the trenches again. We came in last night, and we will be here for some time. It is fearfully wet here. Last night I got simply soaked through from head to foot; it was awful, and the rats were mighty. I am about 100 yds behind the front trenches, and the noise is fearful. Our battalion may be out on Monday, then 4 days rest billets, about 5 miles behind the lines, then in again for 8 days, I think. I nearly got hit as we went out of the trenches on Wednesday night. I was with the Commanding Officer and another, a Colonel. Going out we had to duck and jump into a dug-out, as there was a sniper on. We lost a Captain on our first day, killed by shrapnel. I hope you have a happy Christmas. I wish I was with you, but this is my place, and I hope we shall be alright.”
Private Francis George Ricketts wrote back to his parents, saying in the middle of his letter:
“During our eight days of rest we were billeted in barns, and slept on straw, but although it was wanting in home comforts, we were glad to be in such, and we were happy and contented. It was in these billets that we spent our Christmas ‘holidays’. Although we were within the sound of the guns, we all went to church services on Christmas morning, and all of us joined in singing the old well known carol ‘Peace on Earth.’ And how beautiful were the strains of ‘Aberystwyth’ and ‘Mae hen wlad fy nhadau,’ as over a thousand Welsh throats sang them in our own native tongue. Although we were far away from the ‘Land of Song’ our hearts were there amongst our old folks at home.”
Then there is the story of Francis Banks and his brother Jack, who both joined up. Jack ended up being captured very early on and spent most of the time as a prisoner of war, but Francey fought in France and Belgium with the Royal Irish Regiment. He was Irish but lived in Maesteg in the Llynfi valley. He was company runner and, in the words of his captain, H. J. O’Reilly,
“consequently my right hand man, whether in action or out of it”.
On 16 August 1917, Francey was bringing a message back to camp and to his captain. When he was just 12 yards away, he was shot by a German sniper. He struggled on and died in the arms of his captain, who says in a letter he sent home:
“A more gallant or finer soldier never drew breath but there is this great consolation back to you and me, that no soldier could have wished to die a better or a more glorious death.”
I thank again all those families and historical societies that have pulled together this material in order to show today’s children exactly what this means and how poignant it is. Private Morgan Llewellyn of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who had been reported missing believed killed in Serbia in 1915, wrote home from Salonika in December 1916:
“When I was in Serbia last winter, I met many Garw, Ogmore and Maesteg boys, and I won’t forget that retreat in a hurry”.
He went on:
“There are a good few Maesteg boys in this Division and also a few from Tondu. A batch of Maesteg and Garw boys have just arrived, and the first word I got the other day from a Pontycymmer lad was ‘Hello, good old Mog; You’re still alive! They mourned you as dead once in Pontycymmer.’ When I get hold of a Gazette out here, it always means a few hours of interesting reading for me. It is sent out to me here regularly by a friend in Pontycymmer. I was more than pleased to read the news of Pte W.J. Ridgeway, R.A.M.C., winning the M.M. in France. I was greatly interested too in his letter in the Gazette, and I hope he and I and all the Garw lads will be spared to land once again in dear old Blighty.”
The stories reach out to us down the years and remind us of the human faces of war and how we should strive at all costs to avoid it wherever possible. They are also a poignant lesson not only for politicians, but for today’s children and our communities, which gave and lost so much in the great war—the war that was supposed to end all wars.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, to which there have been many stunning contributions, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who made an excellent maiden speech of which he will be rightly proud. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) also made a very moving and excellent speech on war graves. There are two Commonwealth war graves just 100 yards from my house, and they are a constant reminder to us of military action.
I have already been to one commemoration event in Laxfield, which is in my neighbouring constituency, but the parishes of Cratfield, Ubbeston, Huntingfield and Heveningham were also involved. I was moved by a churchyard that is not in my constituency, but in Shotley in South Suffolk. HMS Ganges is where a lot of orphan boys went to train to be midshipmen and they have very special graves—distinctive crosses with black plaques—in that churchyard. If Members go to Suffolk, I would recommend that they visit that very peaceful churchyard. Perhaps unusually, a zeppelin was shot down in Theberton in 1917. Most of the crew were killed and they are buried in Theberton churchyard. As has been said, people died on both sides.
We have heard from many Members representing constituencies across the United Kingdom, which reflects the fact that nearly every village was affected in a devastating way. I think that the number of thankful villages to which everyone came back was only 53. I am sure we all notice during our Remembrance day services that many more names are read out from world war one and, in particular, that the same surnames are often repeated, so there was a devastating effect on the families left behind.
There are going to be several commemoration events across my constituency and I will refer to some of the towns involved later. I congratulate Melton on its extensive work on involving people of all ages in its commemorations. I also pay tribute to the Royal British Legion, which is leading much of the activity, as well as the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has provided a lot of money towards it.
The Suffolk Regiment raised 14 battalions, was awarded two unit Victoria Crosses and lost many men in Belgium and France. The very first casualty on our own shores happened just off the coast of Felixstowe on 6 August 1914, when HMS Amphion, returning to the port of Harwich, hit mines and 150 men died. Six weeks later three more ships were sunk by a U boat off the coast of Suffolk. It was then that the Royal Naval Air Service seaplane base, which had been established the previous year in Felixstowe, started its main role of patrolling the sea for U boats. By the end of the war, RNAS Felixstowe had become one of the largest bases in the world.
I was pleased to open an exhibition in Felixstowe museum, and I pay tribute to Pam Cole, Sue Tod and their team for putting together a fascinating, compelling and moving exhibition that I hope many children and adults in Felixstowe will visit. It is not the only museum along the coast, but I certainly learned a lot there. It is based around Landguard fort, which had seen action in other wars. I had never realised that this happened in this country, but Felixstowe was declared a martial town, meaning that people had to have papers to go in and out of it. I am learning new things all the time about my constituency in Suffolk.
Slightly further along the coast is the very interesting site of Orford Ness, where experimental things happened. It was, and still is, rather remote. I am visiting it tomorrow, thanks to the National Trust. Aeroplanes had been invented only a few years earlier, but it was tasked with creating bombs and depth charges, and with how to mount machine guns on to planes. Essentially, it was a key part of trying to turn around some of the initial issues that arose in the war. Indeed, many of the scientists who were there during world war one went on to help with the effort during world war two. One of the more peculiar things they did was with parachutes—world war one pilots were not allowed to have them, because they were considered too dangerous—about which they did a lot of research. Basically, pigeons were put in wicker crates and then dropped with parachutes over the continent. Some interesting things happened there, as well as some very sad ones.
Many aeroplanes and other pieces of machinery were built in the Garrett lorry shop further along the coast at Leiston. Women worked in such factories. Indeed, they played a big role in Suffolk not only in such work, but in hospitals and convalescent homes. It was often said that someone injured in Flanders on a Monday would be being cared for by Suffolk women by the Thursday.
I have already referred to the special village of Theberton, where the Zeppelin was shot down in 1917. Lieutenant Colonel Charles Doughty-Wylie—better known as Dick Doughty-Wylie—of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, was awarded the VC. He had served as the military British attaché in Turkey, so when the world war started he was attached to a unit in Gallipoli. After the commanders had been killed, he gathered some men and led a successful attack in parts of Gallipoli, but he was shot dead. He was buried where he fell, which means that he is the only British, or indeed Commonwealth, soldier to be buried on the Gallipoli peninsula. We will commemorate Lieutenant Colonel Doughty-Wylie next year with one of the very special paving slabs that have been issued to villages around the country.
To finish very briefly, I could not let this debate go by— Actually, I will skip that bit of my speech, or else I will break down in tears, Madam Deputy Speaker. Bravery untold, never forgotten.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). I will come on to mention my family’s connections with Suffolk, which are very much related to the history of world war one.
Like many other hon. Members, I have read many excellent pieces of literature about the world war one period. One book that touched me as a young person was “The Wars” by Timothy Findley, an excellent Canadian author. It recounts tales of those from the Commonwealth and the dominions who lived through those tragic and terrible times. This passage has always stayed with me:
“Someone once said to Clive: do you think we will ever be forgiven for what we’ve done? They meant their generation and the war and what the war had done to civilization. Clive said something I’ve never forgotten. He said: I doubt we’ll ever be forgiven. All I hope is—they’ll remember we were human beings.”
That very much reminds us of the individual human lives, from our or our constituents’ families, that were irrevocably changed by the war and its consequences, as well as by service in the armed forces in general.
I have looked into my family history, as other hon. Members have done. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady because my great-grandfather Ernest Hubbard lived in the village of Euston in Suffolk. His family, and many of my relatives, were in service to the Duke and Duchess of Grafton at Euston hall. They were farm labourers, servants, cooks and cleaners there. Uniquely, as servants, they were remembered on the family’s roll of honour in the church on the estate at Euston hall. My great-grandfather, his cousins and brothers, others who fell and those who returned are all memorialised there. I was privileged to go and see that myself a number of years ago.
On the other side of the family, my great-grandfather Peter Marsh served with the King’s Own Scottish Borderers. I never knew Peter but my mum remembers meeting him as a child. He was still suffering the effects, many years later, of being gassed in the trenches. The King’s Own Scottish Borderers was an old and historic regiment formed in 1689 in Edinburgh following the Glorious Revolution. Numerous battalions were raised at the start of the war and a number of new battalions were created. The KOSB served and fought at Gallipoli, the Somme, Ypres, Vimy ridge, the battle of Gaza and many others. The 6th battalion in particular suffered heavy casualties at the battle of Loos in September 1915 and later fought at the Somme. The 7th lost two thirds of its men and the 8th battalion lost over a third. That shows the scale of the losses.
It was particularly emotional for me to discover in the national archives one medal records card that matches my great-grandfather, Peter Marsh. It has the medals he was awarded throughout the first world war, but at the end there is a line though the card, and the phrase, “Forfeited by desertion in 1919.” He survived and was not one of those who were tragically shot at dawn. We do not know the full story in the family. We know that he was terribly scarred by his experience, both physically and mentally, for the rest of his life. We do not know if he was traumatised, if he was sent somewhere else and wanted to be demobilised and was not, or whether he simply could not cope any more. His story is similar to those of many who returned and saw their lives irrevocably changed.
These were two stories from my family but, like many Members, I have been looking into those of my constituents. I am pleased to say that St Augustine’s church in Penarth—one of the most historic churches in the area—has undertaken a project to restore its roll of honour from the first world war. It is a fantastic piece of art and remembrance in the church. The project has been generously funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and the War Memorial Trust, and there has been a significant amount of local fundraising to remember all those from Penarth and the district who fell.
The roll of honour was designed by John Batten and carved by Joseph Armitage, who, interestingly, also designed the oak leaf symbol of the National Trust. Unfortunately, the memorial has degraded over the years. Some of the names have been lost but fantastically, thanks to this project, the roll is being restored. An online archive has also been created to detail the lives of many of those who appear on the roll, and of their families. I very much look forward to attending the re-dedication of that shortly.
Many members have spoken about the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I had the privilege of meeting Andy Knowlson from the commission last Friday. He took me on a fascinating and emotional tour round a number of war graves that I had absolutely no idea were in Penarth cemetery and St Augustine’s church. I am also hoping to go to see some of those in the Cardiff area. As we have heard, the CWGC looks after many thousands of graves in 153 countries. I was staggered by the scale of its work, and the absolute dedication and care with which it memorialises the heavy price paid by many constituents, including Gunner Bendon of the Royal Field Artillery, whose grave I saw; he died in 1917 at the age of just 32, which is younger than I am.
Thinking a lot about first world war memorials has made me think carefully about how we memorialise those from all the conflicts of the past 100 years, whether we are talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, the Falklands or any of the other conflicts that British service people have been involved in.
I recently met a constituent, Sian Woodland, and the mother of Paul Woodland. Sian and Paul were due to be married, but sadly Paul, a Royal Marine, was killed during operational training with the Special Boat Service in October 2012. Sian has done amazing work since raising money for charity, and to memorialise her fiancé. She has rightly raised the question of how we should memorialise all those who have died on active service and training since world war one. We should all think carefully in this year of remembrance about how properly to memorialise people, not only at fantastic facilities such as the National Memorial Arboretum, but in our communities up and down the country.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and I join him in praising those who tend the Commonwealth war graves. It is a pleasure, too, to follow the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and I join her in praising the Royal British Legion and all it does in supporting our armed services and the important role they will play in the commemorations.
I greatly welcome this debate on the commemoration, as well as the commemoration itself. I want to take this opportunity to place on record my profound respect for all those from Oxfordshire and beyond who served and suffered, along with their families, during the first world war. As is evident from so many of the contributions we have heard, the scale of people’s courage and sacrifice was matched only by the horrors that they were forced to endure. In a real sense, whatever we are able to say here in such debates cannot do justice to what people who went through the first world war endured. It is almost beyond our imagination. The most fitting thing to come out of the commemoration, and the epitaph to the centenary, must be a firm resolve on the part of us all to do everything we can to prevent such carnage from happening again.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I will be as quick as I can, and I would like to apologise for not being here for the entire debate; I was at Buckingham palace for the 95th anniversary of the Not Forgotten Association. I am glad to be back.
I want to say very quickly how very frightened those boys on the front lines must have been. None of us can understand how ghastly it must have been. I felt a little of that when in March 1993, my staff sergeant beside me was shot in the head by a sniper. That was on the front lines in Bosnia. I was determined to go, and I went. What was so awful was my tummy and my fear—the jitters. Overcoming that and trying to go forward was difficult; my feet felt like lead. That was just one little instance, so let us try to think what it must have been like for those men from Ulster and those other brave men on 1 July 1916 when they had to climb those ladders and go over the top in that dreadful row—with all that fear and all that kit and all that thinking of their mothers. Soldiers always think of their mothers. I think we would all totally understand that we can have no idea how bad it was for those boys who fought in the first world war; we just have a little glimmer from what they left behind and what they said. God bless the lot of them.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Let me first say how appropriate it is to have this debate today as we look forward to Armed Forces day this weekend. I congratulate the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on their opening remarks, and I pay tribute to the work in this area of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) as the shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport.
I congratulate the Minister not just on his speech today, but on the work he has done over the past few years. I remember meeting him shortly after he was appointed as the Prime Minister’s special representative for commemorating the first world war. I give credit to the Minister, because what he envisaged should happen over the four years leading up to the commemoration and what I discussed with him then has actually worked. I refer to the idea that this should not be a celebration driven centrally by the Government; it should be about local communities coming together at a local level to remember not just those who fought and fell in action, but all those who made a contribution in the widest possible sense. I think that he should be congratulated on that vision.
In April, I had the honour of visiting Gallipoli with the Minister. As has already been pointed out today, it is important to recognise that this is not just about the United Kingdom; it is also about the Commonwealth countries that made a contribution during the war—India, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Canada—and the other European nations that took part.
I have the privilege to serve as one of the 15 Commonwealth War Graves Commissioners, along with the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson). I might refer to the hon. Gentleman as “my hon. Friend”, because I consider him to be a very good friend. I pay tribute not only to the work of the commission and its staff, but to their tremendous dedication. Last year, a gardener in France asked me, “When you think about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, what is the main thing that you think about?” I said, as I always say, that it was the dedication and hard work of the individual members of staff who maintain cemeteries and organise commemorations around the world—in 150 countries, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
One of the projects in which the commission has been involved as part of the commemorations is intended to raise awareness. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and I have been trying to ensure that people are aware of Commonwealth war graves that are in churchyards in their own communities. If Members have not taken the opportunity to visit those graves with the commission’s staff, I urge them to do so. They will find the experience very educational, and I think it important for them to try to involve their local communities in that way.
Mr Jones
I would, but I am very short of time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on a fantastic maiden speech. Not only did he deliver it with force and passion, but he rightly praised the beauty of his constituency. Having been born in Nottinghamshire, I know the constituency very well. I went there once during the by-election campaign, but I have fonder memories of fishing on the River Trent—with, I have to say, not a great deal of success. I was also pleased to hear that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is so highly thought of in the area, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will find out very soon that the same sentiment is not shared among members of the parliamentary Conservative party. I wish him all the best for his parliamentary career, and congratulate him again on his speech.
We have heard 24 very good speeches today, which have demonstrated not only the breadth of knowledge about this subject in the House, but the way in which Members of Parliament are engaging with their constituents, with volunteers and with others to ensure that the story of the first world war and the involvement of their local communities is recognised. The hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) referred to Members of Parliament who had fought and died in the war. I think it important to recognise not only those who died but those who fought, because they influenced the debate that took place a generation later in the House. It is clear from the memoirs of Macmillan and Attlee, who fought in the first world war, that their experience brought a certain understanding of the gravity of the decisions that were made a generation later as we entered the second world war.
Many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), related personal stories about members of their families who had fought and, in some cases, died in the first world war. I expect that we shall hear more such stories from all over the country over the next four years, as Members engage in family research to find out what their forebears did.
Another important point is that in some contributions and commentary, there is an emphasis that it was all about the western front, but what has been good this afternoon is that a number of Members have recognised that the commemoration has to recognise the idea that it was a world war, with fighting across the globe. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) mentioned the dedication shown by nurses in parts of Serbia, and he raised an issue that we sometimes forget: people not only died of their wounds; a number died of typhus and Spanish flu after the war.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) said that this war was not only on the western front, mentioning the fighting that took place in Mesopotamia. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, and it is important, certainly when looking at issues from the first world war and how they impact on our lives today. We can look back and see that the boundaries that were drawn up after the first world war have had and still are having a direct impact in the tragic events in the middle east today.
Many Members have said thanks to the Heritage Lottery Fund, and can I put on record everyone’s thanks for the contribution it is making, in terms of allowing local communities to remember the first world war? From speaking to the Heritage Lottery Fund and from visiting various constituencies, I have been struck by the variety of projects that it is backing: for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth mentioned the excellent Tynemouth world war one project. Also, school groups are putting on plays and villages are holding events about their village at war. In a few weeks’ time, in Sacriston in my constituency, I will be attending a village at war presentation done by the local heritage group. That shows the variety of ways in which we can remember the first world war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland raised the issue of controversy around the first world war, and clearly that continues. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) also raised that issue, and I think he was wrong when he said that this is about the glorification of war. The Minister and the Government have made clear that this is not about celebration or jingoism; it is about remembering what happened during the first world war and how it impacted not only on Parliament and the international situation, but on daily lives. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Heritage Lottery Fund, he will see that it is funding projects including those remembering conscientious objectors, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). The role of conscientious objectors, whether for religious or political reasons, is important to the lessons of and the stories told about the first world war.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), spoke about Belgians. Again, it has been forgotten that during the war, this country opened its arms to large numbers of Belgian refugees, who settled here, fleeing violence in their own country. In the north-east, they made a huge contribution at the Royal Ordnance factory in Birtley to the war effort. I am pleased to announce that later this year, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission will be re-erecting a number of headstones in Birtley to honour Belgian soldiers who lost their lives during the first world war.
The home front also featured in a lot of today’s contributions, whether it was the changing role of women, or the contributions made by coal miners and factory workers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central mentioned. In the North Durham coalfield, a huge number of miners not only volunteered for active service, but kept the pits going throughout the first world war to provide the coal that was needed.
There are also examples of people in reserve occupations. One of my predecessors, Jack Lawson, who was Member of Parliament for Chester-le-Street from 1919 to 1949, was in a reserved occupation at the time as a county councillor. When his brother Will was killed at the battle of Ypres in 1915, he volunteered at the age of 39 for service on the western front. That did not stop the Liberals in 1918 accusing him, when he fought the next general election, of being a conscientious objector because he had been a member of the Independent Labour party. That shows the contribution that many communities made across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe spoke about the civilian cost, and it was the first war that brought war to the home front, such as in the bombardment of Hartlepool or the Zeppelin raids mentioned by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).
Another great change, which was illustrated in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), is the contribution made from Ireland. We heard stories of Captain O’Neill and Willie Redmond, and today this opportunity is being used to ensure that reconciliation comes into being. I saw that first hand last year when I visited Glasnevin cemetery, and I pay tribute to the group there who are ensuring that there is a fitting memorial and a recognition of the contribution made.
With time pressing I will mention just one other area: education. That has been mentioned by many Members, and is something that we must press not just this year but over the next four years. The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) is taking his grandson to France, and we must also ensure that children visit local cemeteries to see graves. We must ensure that the sacrifices made during the first world war are not forgotten, and that some of the lessons can be learned.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
I thank hon. Members from across the House who have spoken today, and I have listened with great attention to what they have said. Many have spoken with passion, and tears at times, and I will refer to as many contributions as possible in the time allowed.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), set out at the beginning of the debate what the Government are doing for the first world war centenary, so I will not rehearse that now. The commemoration will be accessible and relevant to all parts of the country. It will reach out to young people, as custodians of the first world war legacy, and we will be mindful of our present-day friendships, both with our former adversaries and with the Commonwealth.
Mrs Grant
I am afraid that I will not because I have so little time.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) spoke about the tone of the commemorations. The first world war continues to be a focus for strongly felt and widely differing responses. Some people see it as a squabble between empires; others as a just war, and all points in between. Let me be clear that it is not the Government’s role to accept or promote one view or another. We are neither celebratory nor apologetic. Although it is clear which side won, the enormous sacrifices on both sides and the horror of war referred to by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) means that there is no cause for celebration. Instead, we wish to commemorate the war appropriately and with humility, though with pride in the courage of our ancestors.
The Government share the view of many hon. Members that the programme should be inclusive. We want people of all backgrounds to have a chance to get involved and not just by ensuring diverse attendance at national events. For example, the immense contribution of troops from all the present-day Commonwealth will be recognised on 4 August and beyond, including the sacrifices of the Indian army’s famous Jullundur Brigade at Neuve Chapelle; the exemplary record of the Anzacs during the Gallipoli campaign; the heroism of the Canadians at Passchendaele; and the considerable contribution of the Caribbean regiments in various theatres.
We are also exploring ways to mark the life of Walter Tull, the first black commissioned officer in the British Army, and to commemorate the tragic sinking of the SS Mendi in 1917, with the loss of 646 men of the South African Native Labour Corps. Among the more than 600 world war one projects made possible by the Heritage Lottery Fund are many with a minority focus, such as “Hackney Remembers”, which will look at the Jewish experience in the war; and a major new exhibition at the School of Oriental and African Studies on the military contribution of Sikhs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and others have spoken about the important contribution of women. The empowerment of women was one of the most important ways in which the war shaped modern Britain. Not only did they enter the workplace as nurses, farmers and munitions workers, but they kept communities going when the men were away and when many were dealing with personal loss. Their huge contribution helped to bring about votes for women and it is right and proper that we should mark that now.
On international women’s day, my Department awarded the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry a £20,000 grant to aid its present-day mission, and the Heritage Lottery Fund has supported many local projects that tell women’s wartime stories, such as the digitisation of the British Red Cross’s volunteer women’s records and a theatre project in Leeds enabling young people to learn about the evolution of women’s roles during the war. Many projects and events linked to the Imperial War museum’s centenary partnership are wholly or partly about women, such as the exhibition on women in industry in the first world war at Imperial War Museum North in Manchester, to which the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) referred. The Imperial War museum’s new first world war galleries, opening in July, will include a section on the contribution of women. My Department’s arm’s length bodies are delivering various programmes looking at the home front, including the British Library’s new educational website, which explores topics such as class and gender during the war and its aftermath.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also referred to the exhibition at Imperial War Museum North covering conscientious objectors. I have not yet visited it, but I hope to do so. The Heritage Lottery Fund has recently awarded a grant of £95,000 to the Peace Pledge Union to help to explore the history of conscientious objectors during the first world war. It is right that the lottery programme should reflect a broad range of views and experiences of the war, and that is just one such example.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke about the importance of how we engage with our young people. One of our key objectives for the centenary is to encourage young people by making connections between young people today and the young people who fought and died a century ago. Our battlefield visits programme will connect young people with battlefields and offer a special experience that they can share with classmates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) spoke poignantly about the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. We fully appreciate its wonderful work. Indeed, it is responsible for providing some of the sites for our national events. Recognition of the commission’s work is inherent in all we do. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for his suggestion. I will look at what he said and come back to him on the proposal.
Many Members have spoken about the commemoration activities in their constituencies. I was delighted to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who delivered an excellent maiden speech. I was also delighted to visit his constituency recently, on at least three occasions, so I know what a beautiful constituency he has the honour to represent. Being Sports Minister, I was especially interested to hear about the recreation of a Christmas truce match on 24 August in his constituency, which I am sure will be a great success.
I was also pleased to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) about a range of different activities in their constituencies, from Facebook sites, “Colchester remembers” 1914-18, silent vigils, pipes and drums, world war one museums, events to commemorate the bravery of the Worcesters, the construction of an incredible arch in Folkestone—today, I believe—and the special Step Short project, which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has worked very hard on, to the researching of local war memorials in Cowley. These are precisely the types of project that we want to hear about, and I wish them every possible success.
I want to mention that the original Military Wives performed a wonderful medley of first world war songs last night in Portcullis House. I hope many Members were able to be present, because they were incredible. They were guests of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), so well done to him. It was an excellent and very special event.
We have heard many personal recollections today, too, and it was humbling and emotional to listen to the individual stories of the right hon. Members for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), the hon. Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—I hope that I have not missed anyone out. They related to a variety of individuals and groups ranging from the Barnsley and Pompey Pals, “Mrs Barbour’s army”, Edith Cavell, Fred Dancox, Matthew Brown and the Bevin Boys, Driver A. E. Ironside, Major Willie Redmond, Captain Arthur Edward Bruce O’Neill MP, Lieutenant George Ward, the sons of Trimdon who died on the Somme, the bombardment of Hartlepool, Robert Quigg, Horace Rees and his 14 rejections and, last but certainly not least, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Doughty-Wylie. We can feel nothing but respect and awe when we hear about such personal suffering and sacrifice and bravery, and the commemorations will help us to mark such contributions. They will also make future generations aware of the history of the war, so that we can continue to learn from the past.
I again thank all Members who have spoken and made interventions today. Many Members have written to their constituents urging them to get involved in the centenary commemoration, and to great effect. I ask Members to carry on with a steady drumbeat of information about what is being planned over the next four years. Connections to the war can be found in our churchyards and in the names on our memorials and even in those photographs that we keep at home of family members who are no longer with us, but whose stories remain to be discovered again.
The war and its legacy is of such importance that it is right that the Government should be leading the commemoration of its centenary. However, it is relevant to everyone in this country and the ownership of it rests with the public as a whole. I hope that what we have said this afternoon assures the House that what we have planned, and what we continue to plan, will have a life beyond the next four years, so that our generation passes what we have learned to the generations yet to come, so that they may pay their respects to the service and sacrifice of those who did and endured so much 100 years ago.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the programme of commemoration for the First World War.
Shop Closures (South Shields)
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I am very grateful for being given time in the Chamber today for my first Adjournment debate. I chose today’s subject because of the strong attachment my constituents feel to King street. The shopping street that runs through the heart of our town has always been at the centre of public life in Shields. Today, I will be explaining some of the challenges it faces, but in spite of them, King street and South Shields still have a huge amount to offer visitors—not just shops but our beautiful coastline, beaches and parks. We also have great plans for the future, and I am excited about the changes on the way.
King street has always been part of community life in South Shields and has historically been popular with shoppers from across the region. Generations of families, including mine, have pride in and are fond of our high street, with its friendly banter of our local market traders, retailers and locals. We have always had a strong local and tourist presence, but even in my lifetime I have seen changes to our King street. In recent years, a number of businesses have departed, leaving vacant shop fronts behind. In the last three years alone, retailers in and around King street such as HMV, Curry’s and JJB Sports have shut down, as well as local sellers such as Thompsons TV. Thompsons opened as a family business run by three brothers in 1930, selling wirelesses and later all kinds of other electronics. It was a fixture in our town for the best part of a century, before financial pressures forced it to close last year.
In February, Marks & Spencer announced the sad news that it too would be ending its 80-year presence in Shields. M&S had always been one of our most popular stores and attracted large numbers of shoppers to King street. Shoppers and businesses tell me that in the three months since M&S’s closure, there is already a noticeable drop in footfall in the town centre. When I spoke to Marks & Spencer after the announcement, it explained that the store simply did not have the customer base it used to have. There are a number of reasons for that. The global recession has resulted in less spending power in the pockets of my constituents. This, combined with the rise of online shopping, large supermarkets and out-of-town shopping and entertainment complexes, means people spend less money in town centres than they used to. In 2013, it was reported that for every £100 of disposable income, our residents were spending only £3.70 in our town centre.
However, just because people’s shopping habits have changed does not mean that our high streets need to decline. Out-of-town shopping centres are not new, and online shopping has been popular for some years, but it is in the last couple of years that we have seen the rate of closures speed up on King street. I believe that the decline in people’s incomes is one the main factors, and the Government need to take responsibility for that. Of course, high streets need to adapt to changing times as well, and since securing this debate I have been contacted by constituents with creative and innovative suggestions on how to support King street. Our council, too, is looking to regenerate the town centre through its ambitious 365 project, but we need a central Government policy that supports businesses and empowers local communities as well. However, it simply is not happening.
At complete odds with their localism agenda, the Government have taken away the protections offered by the use class system which allowed communities a say in shaping their high streets, and have made it easier for payday lenders, pawnbrokers, fast-food takeaways and betting shops to set up. Research conducted by the Local Government Association found that the clustering of such outlets has discouraged people from visiting their high street. Our King street has a current vacancy rate of approximately 21%, compared with the national average of 12%. When I wrote to the Secretary of State last month to express my concerns about King street, the Minister claimed that the UK’s high streets were starting to “bounce back” and that vacancy rates are falling, but on King street we have seen a new set of closures in the last few months.
King street is not alone in the challenges it faces. Let me briefly recap the government’s record: more than 50,000 shops standing vacant, a disproportionate number of them in the north; business rates having risen by an average of £1,500, with one in 10 small businesses spending more on business rates than rent; and more payday loan shops, betting shops and pawnbrokers on our high streets than there were in 2012. The Government are unclear about what approach to take. Bill Grimsey neatly sums it up, saying:
“We’ve seen reviews, pilots, future high street forums and more. But none of these initiatives are making much impact and there is a frustrating sense of policy being conducted in the margins. The need to grasp the nettle is bigger than ever.”
In his letter, the Minister pointed to the business rate package announced in last year’s autumn statement as a solution. Although this support is welcome, it does not appear to have benefited King street, where the majority of retailers I speak to still say that business rates are their No. 1 concern, and where closures have continued since the changes took effect in April. Mr Blake, owner of Premier Furnishings & Carpets, said his business rates are so high that they are actually double his rent and most weeks he goes without a wage. Another retailer told me that she no longer expects to make a profit; breaking even is a good week for her business. Another told me she cannot afford staff, so needs to work longer hours, yet her profits continue to fall.
The Forum of Private Business, towards the end of last year, found that action on business rates is the No.1 demand from small businesses, and judging by the discussions I have had with retailers, that is still the case on King street. Labour Members are listening to businesses, and we know we need to go further to support them. We have committed to reversing the hike due to take effect in April 2015 and then freezing rates for 2016. That will help some 1.5 million businesses, including shops, save up to nearly £450 over two years.
It is not just business rates that are crippling our local retailers, but the decline in footfall. As I mentioned, Marks & Spencer left our high street after 80 years in South Shields, explaining that it had seen a downward trend in custom in recent years but that the drop had been most noticeable over the past two or three. Sadly, the loss of M&S has meant that there is less activity on King street, and since its announcement other stores, including Mothercare and Thorntons, have shut down. Retailers and constituents have consistently expressed concern to me regarding footfall, and they agree that the decline began some three to four years ago. One local store manager estimated the store had seen a 20% decline in customers in the past year alone. Mr Hedley, a local cobbler, told me that he feels that in the past year things have been worse than they have ever been for small businesses. It is no coincidence that as people’s incomes are falling, shopping on our high streets is also in decline. Mr Hedley has been in business for 29 years and he wants to know why the Government did not reduce business rates to help businesses such as his during the economic downturn.
The Government’s decision to delay the revaluation of business rates is one factor in all this. The Minister will know that both the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Portas review noted the difficulties that was creating for the retail sector, particularly in towns where businesses are already struggling. It is disappointing for these retailers that the Government have failed to recognise the urgency of the situation.
The cost of living is also at the heart of the issue, and it is little wonder that when levels of poverty have soared under this Government, people have less money to spend on their local high street. It is quite simple: if people are well paid, they will spend money in their local economy and if they are not, the local economy will suffer. The Opposition understand that, which is why we want to get rid of exploitative zero-hours contracts, tackle failure to pay the minimum wage and introduce a jobs guarantee to get people back into work.
The Minister also wrote in his letter to me that
“it is for councils, businesses and communities to decide what their high streets and town centres will look like in the future”.
There is no shortage of ideas in South Shields. Pop-up shops have been allowed to occupy vacant units, and the council has worked with local businesses to offer a parking refund scheme. Last year, I also hosted an event in South Shields as part of Labour’s small business Saturday, with a Christmas market and special offers from local retailers. That small business Saturday gave our town a small boost and resulted in an estimated £500 million being spent across the UK in small and independent shops.
As I mentioned earlier, our council has embarked on a transformative project, the 365 project, which will see more than £100 million invested in our town centre and bring new visitors to Shields. The Haven Point leisure centre opened last year and will soon be joined by a new library and a cinema. Our council does not own any of the shops on King street. I agree with it that the wider town regeneration will act as an incentive to bring businesses back to our high street.
My constituents and I have welcomed these developments and the council’s plans, and we look forward to welcoming new visitors to Shields all year round. By attracting new visitors, we can also make our town a more attractive place for business, but the regeneration will take time. As I have highlighted in this debate, we need some action from the Government to help our retailers. Local authorities and communities have no shortage of ideas for improving their town centres, but they need a national Government who will enable them to turn those plans into reality. That means giving them more say over the kinds of shops that open on their high streets, as my hon. Friends have proposed.
The Minister’s letter to me stated that Government
“cannot and should not look to bail out or prop up ailing high street businesses.”
We are talking about not any one business, but the long-term future of our towns, and protecting the communities in which people live.
The reason why closures in King street stir so much passion in Shields is that the area is personally important to the people who live there—people like me who shop there every week and who have fond memories of being a child and going to the bustling and lively street, as I did with my parents and my Gran. That is not something that the Government should ignore. They could take away that sense of powerlessness that people feel now by giving them control and a sense of ownership over their area.
My constituents and I are proud of our town and of our council’s plans for the future, and we are not too proud to ask this Government to make the changes needed. King street, and high streets like it across the country, are endangered by the coalition’s plans.
I hope the Minister will consider a few points in his response. What assessment has he made of the way falling incomes are affecting our businesses? Does he agree that his Government need to target extra support for businesses in areas where vacancy rates remain high? Will he do more to support councils and communities such as mine by giving them more power to oversee the types of shops that are opening in their community? I hope the Minister will be able to offer some good news to my constituents today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this debate. It is always good to have a chance to discuss the situation on our high streets and to highlight the great work that is going on all over the country to develop them. Many local councils are committed to the regeneration of their town centres and to longer-term programmes, such as the £100 million plan, South Shields 365, which aims to regenerate the area. The plan includes a new central library and digital media centre; improvements to the market square and the public realm; new integrated transport, retail, leisure and cinema facilities; and a new food store, as well as a new multi-storey car park and other surface-level car parking.
If high streets are to remain at the heart of our communities, they need to be more than simply places to shop. We must be brave enough to admit that they are changing and that they need to change. They need to be vibrant and viable places where people live, shop, use services and spend their leisure time, both during the day and in the evening. They are no longer just somewhere to shop.
It is good to see the recent signs that the UK’s high streets are starting to recover. Overall, vacancy rates have started to reduce, and reoccupation rates for the high street are much higher—
Mrs Lewell-Buck
If that is the case, how does the Minister explain the fact that more shops are shutting on my high street, month after month? If there is a sense of recovery, why is it not being felt in towns such as mine in the north?
Brandon Lewis
If the hon. Lady will let me continue, I will give her some examples. At 70%, reoccupation rates are higher than they are for shopping centres or retail parks. A recent report from Experian highlighted the systematic change that is under way in our town centres, with traditional occupiers making way for a wider range of services—a mix of leisure, including food, and the night-time economy. Any area has to look at what is right for it and drive change. I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to work with her local area to work out what is right for that community and drive it forward. Areas are doing different things; her area has to look at what is right for it.
The hon. Lady mentioned the comment from Bill Grimsey about the plethora of things that the Government have done. She is right. There are town teams; there are Portas pilots; there is the future high streets forum. There is a menu of options for people who want to get involved and take their high street forward. That is a positive thing. It means that towns, villages, market squares and high streets can choose from that menu what is right for them and apply it to their area, rather than being restricted, as the Opposition would have it, to a one-size-fits-all. We do not believe in that. We believe that it is right to be committed to helping communities to adapt, but to be clear that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
Every town is different and has to address the problem at a local level. That is why we believe that the visions, plans and ideas for town centres must come from the areas themselves. I will touch in a minute on the powers that we have provided. Contrary to what the hon. Lady said, we have given a phenomenal amount of powers and opportunities to local areas to design their own future. It is for councils, businesses and communities themselves to decide what their high streets and town centres will look like in the future. The consumer will drive what the high street will be, not a Government body, be it local or central Government.
Just recently, we have worked with the future high streets forum to publish a model to deliver good local leadership, sharing best practice—a key part of delivering successful change. That model was developed by the forum, based on an analysis of the activity in some of our Portas pilot towns. I will say more on the forum in a moment. The Department for Communities and Local Government is funding a support programme for town teams, of which there are 333 across our country. That helps them to develop the vision and tools that they need to tackle the issues in their area.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for giving way again. It is all well and good giving towns and our high streets opportunities to decide what they want to do, but if retailers and businesses will not come because the business rates are too high, that will not solve the problem.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I am surprised that she has not convinced her council to discount the business rates using powers in the Localism Act 2011, which allows local authorities to discount the business rates by 100% if they want. Many of the small, independent businesses that she referred to are able to benefit from the small business rate relief that this Government have taken forward and doubled for another year. About 300,000 business across the country will benefit from small business rate relief. We have also brought in a new £1 billion package on business rates that gives a discount of a further £1,000 to those with a rateable value of under £50,000. We must remember that the local authority can go even further and give a bit more. I will outline that a bit further in a moment.
The Chancellor announced a comprehensive package of support—the largest business rate package of support—before Christmas. We recognise that high streets are changing, and we are helping to put in place a framework of support to see that change through.
In a Deloitte report not that long ago, the No. 1 issue raised was the importance of parking to the modern high street and town centre. It is not just about business rates. We have consulted on local authority parking enforcement and recently announced a range of reforms that could help the high street. We have to ensure that people can get to the high street and park affordably and easily in order to encourage them back to the high street; we should not use some of the policies of yesteryear that discourage car use.
We are restricting local authority use of CCTV for parking enforcement, introducing a 10-minute grace period and extending the powers of traffic adjudicators. The business rate support package is the biggest package of support in more than 20 years. It includes capping the retail prices index increase this year, and a £1,000 discount for premises with a rateable value of up to £50,000. That includes shops, pubs, cafes and restaurants, and it places a clear, sharp focus on benefiting the high street.
To help small businesses, we have extended the doubling of the small business rate relief for another year and changed the rules to allow those taking on an extra property to keep their relief for an extra year. To help tackle vacant properties, we have introduced a new reoccupation relief, halving business rates for 18 months for businesses taking on long-term empty retail property. Those measures will make a huge difference to the small shops and local traders that are essential to town centres across the country.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Does the Minister realise that freeing town centres from regulation means that payday loan shops and betting shops now proliferate on the high street? Far from allowing communities to make decisions, he has taken decisions away from them.
Brandon Lewis
Again, I suggest that the hon. Lady talks to her council about using the powers that it already has. It could use article 4 powers to deal with the issue, should it wish to.
Brandon Lewis
I shall just make a little more progress.
We must bear it in mind that this package is worth about £1 billion to businesses in England, of which about £500 million will benefit retail in England, making the point that this is about the whole high street, with a mix of leisure, retail, hospitality and services. We are also undertaking a review of business rates administration that will look at longer-term reforms to make the system even more transparent, efficient and responsive to economic circumstances.
The hon. Lady touched on planning. We have lifted planning restrictions to increase the flexibility of use on high streets, making it easier for communities to look to their future with a smaller retail core and encourage people to come back to live in town centres. Over the summer, we will consult on further changes to allow the high street to respond to changing demand, and perhaps to enable restrictions on payday lenders and betting shops in a way that goes beyond the powers that local authorities already have.
Looking wider, the only sustainable way to raise living standards and create employment is to grow our overall economy. This Government are systematically putting in place the measures that businesses want and need to thrive. We took action on corporation tax and national insurance contributions. Corporation tax has been reduced to 21% and will fall again next year, to 20%. We are also easing the tax burden on small shops. Since April this year, every business and charity has been entitled to an allowance against their national insurance contributions. Up to 1.25 million businesses will benefit, with around 450,000 of them taken out of paying employer contributions altogether. Over 90% of the benefit of that allowance goes to small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Retail is one of the major employers of young people, and we are making it cheaper to take them on by abolishing employer contributions for those under 21 who earn up to £813 per week.
There is only so much national Government can do. We can put the framework in place. It is right that we do that, and we will continue to take opportunities where we can to help and support at a national level, but everyone needs to play their part, from local authorities, businesses and communities working together to develop the vision and solutions for their areas, to Government, retail, local government and business leaders working together in the future high streets forum. The forum has been key in bringing together leaders across multiple sectors to drive forward new ideas and policies.
I mentioned the recent report on leadership; the forum has also worked closely with Government and the Association of Town and City Management to develop the great British high street awards for 2014. The competition was launched just last week, and today we have launched the social media portal that goes with it. The competition will recognise and celebrate the strides taken and the hard work done by high streets and their communities.
Many high streets are now thriving because they have changed to serve their changing communities. Different places will change in different ways and at different paces. South Shields has an ambitious project, which I think is exciting and offers real opportunity for the future. Local authorities can look at measures such as improving access to services, making it easier to click and collect on the high street, or offering more fun and variety. The competition we are running will highlight what can be achieved, and what is being achieved, when there is a strong partnership between local authorities, businesses and consumers. We are looking to town teams or local partnership bodies to nominate themselves, backed by their communities and Members of Parliament, so I encourage people to get involved and get behind their local town teams and partnerships.
We will continue to support councils, businesses and communities. I remind the hon. Lady that if business rates are the key issue in South Shields, we have given that authority the power to discount business rates by as much as it wants—even by 100%. High streets are evolving. We have to embrace the future, and everyone has to play their part, not just in regeneration but in identifying and celebrating what works. We will continue to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
House of Commons Commission
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Thomas Docherty
To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, which contractors have been hired by PICT during the current financial year; and which such contractors have had their contracts terminated due to poor performance.
[Official Report, 24 June 2014, Vol. 583, c. 135W.]
Letter of correction from John Thurso:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on 24 June 2014.
The full answer given was as follows:
John Thurso
So far during the financial year 2014-15 PICT has employed 57 contractors, of whom 14 have been supporting services for Members. Further details cannot be provided without identifying individuals. Many are on short term contracts. None has had a contract terminated early.
The correct answer should have been:
John Thurso
So far during the financial year 2014-15 PICT has employed 61 contractors, of whom 15 have been supporting services for Members. Further details cannot be provided without identifying individuals. Many are on short term contracts. None has had a contract terminated early.
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Migration Statistics
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Walker, for the opportunity to present to the House the Select Committee on Public Administration’s report of the 2013-14 Session on migration statistics. It has proved one of the most controversial that we have produced during this Parliament.
Migration statistics are of supreme importance to public policy and the debate about immigration in this country. National and local government depend on those estimates in planning public services. For reasons of security, we need to know not only how many people are arriving in and leaving the UK, but who they are. Migration statistics help us understand what is happening in British society and the British economy.
Accurate and reliable migration statistics are also important for public trust. How can the public trust politicians’ promises on immigration if we do not have reliable numbers on which to base our policies? One reason why the debate on immigration has become so toxic is that people no longer believe they are being told the truth; they do not even believe that Governments understand what is happening to their own country.
We conducted our inquiry last year and came to a conclusion that everybody in the know about immigration has understood for years, but been loth to say too clearly for fear of the consequences: the immigration statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics and the Home Office are but blunt instruments for measuring, managing and understanding migration to and from the UK, and they are not fit for purpose.
The current sources of migration statistics were established when migration levels were much lower than they are today. Those sources are not adequate for understanding the scale and complexity of modern migration flows, despite attempts in recent years to improve their accuracy and usefulness. Most people are astonished when they learn how the inadequate estimates that we do have are compiled. When a person checks in or out of the country, their passport is scanned, but they are not counted in or out of the country, even if they are a foreign national. The headline immigration, emigration and net migration numbers are annual estimates based on interviews of about 800,000 people stopped at random at ports and airports each year—a tiny fraction of the overall flow of passengers and people in and out of the UK. The method is called the international passenger survey.
The number of non-UK citizens identified from the sample as migrants entering or leaving the UK each year is fewer than 5,000. Most of the numbers that we hear in the immigration debate are based on that tiny sample of people, many of whom might be reticent, to say the least, about giving full and frank answers about where they have come from, who they are, why they are here and where they are going. To be clear, that group includes people entering and emigrating from the UK, so the sample number of immigrants in the survey may be as small as 3,000.
Unsurprisingly, migration estimates based on the international passenger survey are subject to a large margin of error, known to statisticians as the confidence interval: that is, the degree of confidence that it is possible to have about a particular margin of error. As we all know, the Government have stated that they intend to bring net migration—the difference between annual immigration into and emigration out of the UK—down from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. That is not a 90% cut; in fact, it amounts to about 50%.
On the ONS calculations for net migration as measured by the unadjusted IPS estimate, the 95% confidence interval is plus or minus 35,000, meaning that we can only be 95% certain that the true figure lies within 35,000 of the estimate either way. In other words, the error range is 70,000.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the error margin he gave is one of random variation in a bell curve distribution? Another potential source of variation could be systematic bias in the survey. For instance, if immigrants are not likely to complete the survey or if they say that they are not planning to stay for a long time when they actually are, that would make the margins vary even more.
Mr Jenkin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the survey relies on full and frank answers from those being interviewed even to include them. If people say that they are just visiting a relative for a week, they are not counted as migrants. To that extent, the 70,000 range for potential error within the 95% confidence interval is of significant size for the estimate.
If annual immigration is 120,000 or 150,000, there is only a 5% or one in 20 chance that the official figures are on target. The figures could say that the Government are missing their net immigration target by tens of thousands when in fact they are meeting it, or they could show that the UK is meeting its target when in fact it is missing it by tens of thousands. We do not have enough confidence to know. It is clearly a completely inadequate measure of net migration, but we must be careful before dismissing it, because it is all we have.
That degree of confidence applies only to the headline numbers. The ONS estimate simply does not provide sufficient detail to judge properly the social and economic consequences of different types and origins of migration, and the effects of immigration policy on, for example, students or people from particular countries. Nor does it provide any useful idea about international migration in and out of local areas. Efforts to achieve a blunt net migration target are therefore bound to have unintended consequences, such as skills shortages and effects on universities.
The shortcomings of relying on the IPS were highlighted when the 2011 census showed that the population of England and Wales was 465,000 higher than expected, given the recorded number of births and deaths and the estimated level of net migration during the decade since the previous census. The ONS identified several possible causes for the difference but considered that the
“largest single cause is most likely to be underestimation of long-term immigration from central and eastern Europe in the middle part of the decade”,
which of course was not picked up by the international passenger survey. The ONS concluded that the underestimation came partly from taking samples of people from the wrong airports. That is, the IPS sample under-represented airports such as Cardiff and ports such as Newcastle, where more immigrants are coming in than was previously understood.
As a result, this April, the ONS published a revised set of net migration estimates for the United Kingdom for the period 2001 to 2011. Total net migration during that period is now estimated to have been 346,000 higher than previously thought; the original estimate of 2.18 million has been revised to 2.53 million, plus or minus 35,000.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
With current technology, there is no reason not to have accurate figures, never mind estimates. Clearly, the most appropriate way to get them is at ports of entry and departure, but I have gone through Heathrow and Gatwick airports and seen enormous queues of people coming in who are non-EU citizens; it is actually quite bad for EU citizens. My only caution is that if we are to get adequate figures, we must ensure that sufficient personnel are made available, so we do not have 24-hour backlogs of people coming through our airports at entry.
Mr Jenkin
My hon. Friend highlights the complexity of moving purely to a counting in and counting out system. Only two countries in the world base their immigration and emigration estimates entirely on counting. One is Australia, which is a good example. A less encouraging example is North Korea. However, every other country in the world bases its migration flow estimates on samples, measuring and estimating or a population register. Germany, for example, keeps an up-to-date population register—the equivalent of a census kept constantly up to date—to monitor its migration flows.
We are in a no man’s land at the moment. We neither count effectively nor sample effectively, and even though we have the decennial census, which has provided the correction of 346,000, that does not resolve the problem between censuses. The underestimation of net migration was identified only by the census on a 10-yearly basis, so the ONS is unable to revise its annual estimates of immigration and emigration as components of migration during the same period, even though it knows that they must be wrong. As a result, for the years from 2001 to 2011, our best estimate of net migration each year is not equal to our best estimate of immigration minus our best estimate of emigration. We are into an Alice in Wonderland world of numbers in which we know that our official figures for each year are wrong, but they cannot be changed, as we have no other sources to use.
In all probability, the actual population of the country will be even larger than that recorded in the census. Many people in the country do not consider themselves to be “residents” and thus decide not to complete the census form. Many others, who have overstayed or are in the country illegally for other reasons, are most unlikely to complete the form. Immigration will thus have been even higher in the last decade than was estimated by the census.
The PASC concluded that the UK’s immigration statistics are not fit for purpose. There was some pushback from the Home Office in reaction to our report last summer, but I think we have to regard that as a natural reaction of denial about the failure of the system of immigration statistics that has been building up for decades. The UK Statistics Authority agrees with us in that respect, saying in its response to our report:
“The limitations of the International Passenger Survey (IPS) in particular and UK international migration statistics in general, especially for local areas, have long been known and debated. The Statistics Authority believes that action must now be taken to address this.”
As I mentioned, when we look at smaller groupings within the 3,000 immigrants identified, such as immigrants from the EU or from specific countries, the system becomes even less reliable, as the 95% confidence interval becomes larger relative to the size of the sample, eventually becoming larger than the sample itself.
Keith Vaz
I am sorry that I missed the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman’s very important speech. May I say how pleased I was, and the Home Affairs Committee was, to know that his Committee had undertaken such a thorough examination? One of the big problems has been the absence of a resolution of the issues relating to the e-Borders programme, which was promised to be the best and most effective way of counting people in and out. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, years after that programme was introduced and then closed, there is still no resolution of the problem relating to e-Borders?
Mr Jenkin
I do share that concern, but if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will deal with that issue later.
I was talking about the 95% confidence interval in respect of smaller samples relating to individual countries. The ONS will publish estimates of immigrants by country only for the top 15 source countries, because for all the other countries the sample is too small to provide a meaningful estimate—in other words, the number of people from Iran or Afghanistan is actually smaller than the 95% confidence interval itself, so the number is meaningless.
We have vague estimates of the numbers coming in from China, India, Poland, the USA, Australia, Spain, Pakistan, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Nigeria, New Zealand, Lithuania and Hong Kong. Those are the countries for which figures are published. For the other 180 or so countries, no figures are published, so we cannot tell from the data how many Russians, Iranians, South Africans or Romanians are coming to this country.
For the same reason, the ONS migration data cannot provide anything meaningful for local authorities that are trying to work out how migration flows affect their area or to plan for population changes. The UK Statistics Authority also stated:
“The IPS sample size is too small to enable the production of reliable international migration estimates at a local authority level, and cannot realistically be made sufficiently large to achieve robust local estimates.”
The census, which is designed to count every member of the population, provides the only reliable data on the number and characteristics of migrants at local level, but we get it only every 10 years, which is why it was so full of surprises.
In evidence to us, Westminster city council said that the current methodology for estimating migration was not robust enough to support accurate local-level estimates, so that
“the measurement of migration from the perspective of an LA user and as reliable information on our residents is failing”.
The leader of Westminster more or less told us that the only way it can find out the nationalities of the people in the borough is to go around and count them itself. That may be a responsibility that it should take on, but—[Interruption.]
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. I say to the official who just approached the Minister: please do not do that again. This is a Chamber.
Mr Jenkin
That, perhaps, is one of the shortcomings of Westminster Hall, Mr Walker.
The question is how this situation could be improved. We suggested, and I suggested to the Prime Minister when he came before the Liaison Committee, that we should expand the size of the international passenger survey and therefore increase the size of the migrant sample on which the estimates are based. We were advised that if we spent an extra £15 million on the IPS, that would quadruple its size. That would halve the size of the confidence interval, meaning that there would be a 95% chance that the data were within 17,500 of the estimate, rather than there being a total margin of error, on a 95% confidence interval, of 35,000. That brings the range down, but it is a lot of money for not much improved accuracy and it still helps us only with the headline figures. It does not help us with the quality of the data for smaller groups of migrants or for local areas.
The ONS could see what extra value it could derive from the IPS by, for example, asking respondents for various details, notably passport numbers but also national insurance or NHS numbers, which would allow responses to be linked to administrative data, but that would still not address the fundamental problem of the small sample size.
Alternatively, there could be a survey more specifically targeted at migration. A large-scale face-to-face survey of migrants in the UK has previously been considered, leading to a feasibility report published by the Home Office in January 2011. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give that further consideration. The Government concluded against funding such a migrant survey after it was estimated that it would cost a mere £2 million, based on the survey design envisaged. Unlike the Government, I think that that would be good value for money, and that option was recommended by the Office for National Statistics. I hope very much that the Minister will deal with that in his closing remarks.
A migrant survey could provide valuable information on the characteristics and distribution of migrants. That would increase the reliability of immigration estimates in relation to smaller geographical areas and be of some help to local authorities such as Westminster, which at the moment are reduced to doing surveys of their own.
In the longer term, as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) said, the only sure way to improve migration data is to use the e-Borders information. That comes from the advance passenger information, or API, which airlines and other carriers provide to the authorities whenever there is an incoming aircraft or ship.
“Using e-Borders data in the production of long-term and short-term migration counts would be a ground-breaking improvement that would offer several advantages over the migration estimates produced solely from the International Passenger Survey”.
Those are not my words but those of the ONS.
The ONS and the Home Office should move as quickly as possible towards measuring immigration, emigration and net migration using e-Borders data, so that at least a significant proportion of people can be counted in and out of the country as they enter and leave. The e-Borders scheme has now been replaced with the border systems programme, but it should still be possible to use it to count people in and out of the country. Those administrative data would give information about cross-border movements different from that provided by the IPS, but they would still not be without faults. In many respects, the data would give a deeper understanding of the comings and goings from our country. In their response to our report, the Government said that the data gathered through the border systems programme
“does not hold the information to directly estimate net migration”
and that:
“The Border Systems Programme is not designed to provide direct statistical measurement of migration flows”.
My understanding is that that represents a significant downgrading of the Government’s original ambitions for the programme and a failure to deliver what was originally envisaged. The Government’s original business case for the e-Borders scheme said that it would provide
“the ability, for the first time, to comprehensively count all foreign national passengers in and out of the UK, improving public confidence in the integrity of the border and enabling a more accurate count of migrants for future planning and for informing the population count.”
Of course, not everyone entering or leaving the UK is migrating, but if people are on a visa, it should be possible to measure when they enter and when they leave the country. Passport checks are all about checking whether people have a valid visa and whether they are on a watch list. Currently, although 80% or 90% of visas are scanned on entry or exit, we are told that those data are not used for counting in and counting out visa nationals. Why not?
I think that most of the British travelling public would be astonished to find out that passports are scanned but not even people who are on a visa are recorded as they pass into or out of the country. The Home Office should move as rapidly as possible towards integrating visa information with border systems programme data, so that an accurate measurement can be made of immigration, emigration and net migration by people in different visa categories. That would also provide data on the number of people in different visa categories currently living in the UK, and it would enable the Home Office to gather detailed information on the characteristics of migrants who are subject to migration control.
As things stand, we simply do not know how many visa nationals are currently in the country; we do not know how many comply with the rules and how many overstay; and we do not know how many of the people migrating to and from the UK on a long-term basis entered the country in each visa category. That makes it hard to work out whether changes in visa policy are having the intended effect on migration flows and almost impossible to establish the scale of the problem of people who stay here illegally. There is no reason for the situation to persist now that the Government have committed to reintroducing exit checks, but in their response to the Public Administration Committee the Government made no commitment to track the entries and exits of visa holders once that becomes possible, even though it is fully within their power to do so. They say only that that
“may be feasible in future”.
We believe, however, that it should be done as a matter of urgency.
To be clear, we have not recommended that the Government should stop using the IPS by any means, but the Public Administration Committee recommended that the Government plan to end their reliance on that survey as the sole basis for estimating migration flows. The IPS was not designed for the important job that it now has. It was never intended to be used for the purpose of estimating international migration; it was designed to support the work of the then British Tourist Authority by providing economic data on travel and tourism.
The next five years will see much work in Government on developing new data sources that will eventually replace the decennial population census. It is vital that work on immigration be fully co-ordinated and that Departments share intelligence. That our official immigration and emigration estimates do not match our official net migration figure for a whole decade underlines the Committee’s main finding that the current system of relying solely on the IPS for migration statistics is not fit for purpose. Although the IPS provides useful information about the characteristics of migrants, it cannot be relied on to give us accurate numbers of those migrating into and out of the United Kingdom.
There is no reason why the Government cannot use border systems programme data dramatically to improve the accuracy of migration data. The Home Office told us:
“There will be some possibility to link e-Borders data in the future, in due course”,
but we have not yet received any clear commitment that that will happen, let alone a time scale. That is not adequate. The issue requires urgent action. Estimates based on a survey alone are no longer fit for purpose. Instead, we need to make proper use of the electronic data from the border systems programme. The public need and deserve to be given accurate information about migration to the UK, using the latest technology and methods available.
We are now in an election year, during which the issue of immigration will be hotly contested, but that debate is likely to do no more than produce despair in the minds of our voters. The politicians of the main parties are arguing about policies, the effects of which they cannot measure, in relation to numbers of migrants that they cannot determine. That can only undermine trust and confidence in political life, and it will provide an avenue for extremist parties to exploit at the expense of the proper government of this country. We owe it to our voters to deliver more accurate migration statistics as soon as possible.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, Mr Walker. The Public Administration Committee report on migration statistics was published before I was appointed by the House to be a member of that Committee, but it is, none the less, excellent. It is a testament to the fine leadership of the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and to the hard work of current and previous Committee members.
The Committee is tasked with scrutinising good government across all Departments. Many people would argue that after the defence of the realm, the Government’s most important role is to protect and uphold the rights and interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom. In order to do so, they need to know with a high degree of accuracy exactly whose rights and interests they must protect and uphold. That information is necessary to ensure that public services can be properly planned and to enable the Office for National Statistics to produce statistics in which the public and the House can have confidence.
It is absolutely clear that the citizens whose rights and interests the Government should protect are interested in who is in our country, why they are here, what they are doing and when they leave. In order for the Government to fulfil their duties to UK citizens, plan public services, produce accurate statistics and address the legitimate concerns of the people, they must do all they can to ensure that migration statistics are accurate, up to date and fit for purpose.
On the Isle of Wight, UKSA usually refers to the UK Sailing Academy, but it also stands for the UK Statistics Authority. Despite the excellent work of the former organisation on the island, I am speaking today of the latter institution. In 2009, the UKSA said:
“Both users and ONS’ statisticians generally agree that migration statistics are not fit for all of the purposes for which they are currently used and require further improvement.”
Between 2008 and 2012, some improvements were made in the statistical data, which the Public Administration Committee welcomed. Those improvements were not enough, however, to earn the wholehearted support of the Royal Statistical Society, the British Society for Population Studies or the Royal Geographical Society, although the latter body conceded that the ONS is doing a good job with poor data. The international passenger survey, which is used as the primary source for those statistics, was never intended for that purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex has said. It is hardly surprising that the survey was not up to a job for which it was never designed, so more needs to be done.
The original recommendation from the Committee was that e-Borders data, due to be fully operational this year, should also be fed into the statistics. That was superseded by the news in March that Labour’s over-ambitious and badly implemented e-Borders scheme had to be scrapped. However, I welcome the Government’s commitment to make much more of the information from the border systems programme available to the ONS to help improve the statistics.
Keith Vaz
The e-Borders scheme is a particular concern of the Home Affairs Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that we still do not know why the agreement made between the previous Government and the company that was undertaking e-Borders went wrong? That is still the subject of litigation. When we have massive procurement, as we had with e-Borders, it is extremely important that we know what went wrong before we procure for the future.
Mr Turner
That is absolutely right, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing it out.
I also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation to use data held by other countries. The Government are hamstrung by EU free movement legislation, which prevents their gathering information on why people from EU countries are coming to the UK and how long they intend to stay.
Mr Nigel Evans
Is my hon. Friend aware that the normal price for a visa is £83, but for people staying a year or more the price is £300? That is a substantial sum. Surely some of that visa money should be allocated to ensuring that we have proper software and data collection systems in place. I do not apologise for going back to make certain that people are welcomed when they come into the United Kingdom via our airports. We want to ensure that people, particularly tourists, are not kept unduly in long queues while we collect the data that are necessary for us to have accurate information.
Mr Turner
We should be able to collect the data rapidly, as we all recognise. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering what can be done. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to make all possible information available to the ONS to help it improve its statistical analysis of migration figures. I ask him to keep in mind possible sources of information that might help the ONS and make those sources of information available, and to do so even when he is not being held directly to account by the Public Administration Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, the whole House or even those who sit in another place. I hope he is able to assure me that he will do so.
People across the UK, whatever their political persuasion, welcome the Government’s aim to cut immigration. In 2003, I made it clear that growing immigration levels would have an effect on the already overstretched jobs market, as well as on the public services to which immigrants would become entitled. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) echoed my statement. There is huge demand for housing in our cities and larger towns, with consequent movement into more rural towns, which was called “white flight.” My statement followed the admission of the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), that he “hadn’t a clue” about the number of illegal immigrants in the UK.
Even some of those on the Opposition Benches now decry Labour’s disastrous policy of opening this country’s doors to all comers—a policy with no mandate, implemented in secret. Andrew Neather, a former Government adviser, suggested that Labour’s policy was
“to rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”
Labour conducted its affairs privately so that, by encouraging mass migration, it would not alienate its core working-class vote. Such actions are neither acceptable nor beneficial to the country in any way.
The Labour Government brought two and a half cities the size of Birmingham—a total of almost 3 million people—to this country without breathing a word. There is little doubt that we have made significant progress in putting better controls in place and repairing some of the damage, but we need accurate statistics that demonstrate that our policies are working. So as well as knowing who is coming in, we need to know who is leaving. I hope the Home Secretary’s expectation that full exit checks will be in place by next year is met.
I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that I understand how difficult a job my hon. Friend the Minister and his Conservative predecessors have had. They inherited a right old muddle, and sorting it out was never going to be easy or quick, but if people are to have confidence in migration statistics, those statistics need to chime with the reality of people’s day-to-day experiences. At present, the statistics simply do not do that, so I particularly welcome the Government’s sensible and positive response to the Committee’s recommendations on communicating the statistics to the public better. These are complex issues, but improvements in communicating the data will help the public to understand them better and lead to more informed debate, which is something we will all welcome.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship of this important debate, Mr Walker. I did not plan to speak, but I will say a few words in support of the excellent report published by the Public Administration Committee. Those of us who sit on the Home Affairs Committee welcome the fact that other Committees are interested in migration issues. I am not in any way parochial, and I do not believe that there are bits of Government that should be reserved only for one Select Committee or another. Such oversight is a core function of the Public Administration Committee, which is so ably led by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). The Committee has produced a brilliant report that will help not only the Home Affairs Committee but other Select Committees that cover immigration policy, either directly or indirectly.
I will say a couple of things about the importance of accurate statistics. The hon. Gentleman is right that there will be a great deal of debate about immigration in the run-up to the next general election. We are in the odd situation of knowing the date of the general election. Subject to any changes that might occur in the coalition Government over the next few months, we know when the general election will take place and we know—one does not have to be a genius to know this—that immigration will probably be in the top three issues of concern to the British people. That is why it is so important that we have accurate information when immigration is debated in this House, and when it is debated outside by others who represent parties unable to get elected to this House. That is why the report is not only important but timely.
As the House goes on the slow journey to recess, some of us may choose to go abroad for a holiday—depending, of course, on whether our passports have been renewed. We will be watching and observing the “exit strategy” when we get to the airport. It has always been a mystery to me why we have to go through the great drama of supplying passport information and accurate information about our names, so that they do not differ in any way from our passports, prior to departure, yet after people check in and walk past the last person before getting to security, their passports do not really get checked.
I know that the Government’s commitment, which I am sure the Minister will reaffirm, is to have full exit checks by the time of the general election, so that by May 2015, we will have counted everyone out. However, I still do not understand why it is not possible, even at that stage—after checking in and walking past the last person before security—for the officers at Heathrow airport to check a passport on departure. After all, it is not a question of queues. I do not think any special arrangements are made for me or other members of the Home Affairs Committee—people may say, “If not, why not?”—but when I travel through Heathrow, I do not see many queues building up at the point where people show their tickets, walk through and get a little plastic bag to put in their liquids. There are queues before check-in—there is no doubt about that—and there are queues at security. There is an excellent opportunity to glance at people’s passports as they wait to go through security, because there are always queues there, whatever channel they go through.
Mr Jenkin
That is an interesting observation. The task of checking people’s luggage and what liquids they are carrying is far more complicated physically than checking passports or tickets or checking people in. However, where there has been a real will to try to reduce that anxious and tiresome part of the journey for passengers, great strides have been made in making a very painful process tolerable for passengers. Does that not show that where there is will, there is a way? We could get far more data from passengers as they go through ports of entry.
Keith Vaz
Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: of course it can be done. It is an easy win for this Minister, who is a hard-working Minister—I think he has now been in the House three times this week and there is another Adjournment debate before six o’clock; I do not know whether he knew that. It is an easy win for him to announce this change. It needs the co-operation of security staff at Heathrow airport, of course, as well as that of BAA and others, including the airlines, but it can be done.
When I went on my last visit abroad and I gave my details to the people from the Office for National Statistics—they wanted to know my details; I do not know whether the Minister had sent someone to the airport to check whether I was coming back or not—I referred to this report by the Public Administration Committee. They were extremely grateful. They knew about it and they said, “When you go back, please remind everybody that we would like to do this survey for everybody, but we’re not given the resources to be able to do that.” I then asked whether it was the quick survey or the long survey and they said, “We’re happy to do the quick survey, but we would like to do everyone rather than the limited number that we do,” so there is a willingness. People want to be helpful. It is not a case of civil servants and other officials wanting to thwart the will of Parliament and the will of the British people; they want to help. Given that and given the arrangements that are made at airports, why on earth can we not bring this change into effect before 7 May 2015?
Mark Reckless
Can I clarify what is being suggested here? I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was talking about quadrupling the size of the international passenger survey. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, instead of quadrupling the survey, it should be made universal? If so, would we then not be talking about the count, and would there not be a better way of doing that than having a separate person with a clipboard asking questions?
Keith Vaz
I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous member of the Home Affairs Committee, that we should be open to offers. Let us look and see what is available and what is the best way to do things. That approach may not be the best way to do things—I like what the Public Administration Committee has recommended—but it would certainly be an improvement on the existing situation.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because he and I went on new year’s day to check how many Romanians were arriving at Luton airport. That was because we did not trust the ONS or the media hype, so we went to see for ourselves what was going on. Unfortunately, we cannot do that when every single plane or coach arrives in the UK—because if we did, he would never see Mrs Reckless and I would never see my wife. The key thing is that there should be a practical way of getting over the problem. It is not rocket science.
Let us consider the options that are available, some of which have been described very eloquently, not only in the speech by the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee but in the Committee’s report. Let me say this about e-Borders. Whenever an immigration Minister has appeared before our Committee—certainly in the seven years since I have been Chairman—we have always asked him about e-Borders. I give the current Minister a free pass: he will be asked about it when he appears before us on 22 July, or possibly before, if the passport crisis is not sorted out very quickly.
Let me outline the issue. Of course the last Government were wrong to have entered into an agreement with a private company just because that company was able to provide such services in other parts of the world. I believe it was a huge mistake, and it would be good to look back and see who was responsible for it. I was a Minister in the last Government, although not the Minister who took the decision to enter into this agreement. However, it is important to look at the process. When the last Government signed the agreement with Raytheon, they did not put benchmarks in that agreement. As a result, Raytheon was able to turn round and say, “Well, we were not told what to do.” That is the subject of an arbitration that has been going on for, I think, four years. It could well be the longest arbitration in history, and every time our Committee asks for information, nobody wants to tell us anything about what is going on.
It is important to learn, although not so that we can blame Ministers in the last Government—as I say, two of them are in the Chamber today: my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and me. Rather, it is important to learn so that, when we procure services in future and civil servants and Ministers sign off deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds, the Government are clear about what they want and when they want it done, clear that it is being properly monitored, clear that there are penalties if what they want is not being done and clear that the company is clear as well. We are talking about £750 million. This is not chickenfeed. We need to treat taxpayers’ money carefully.
Mark Reckless
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons why many parties to contracts provide for arbitration rather than litigation in the event of a dispute is that arbitration takes place in private, so people do not hear the detail about the case? Is that appropriate in any public contract, let alone one worth £750 million?
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This is about the public knowing—it is public money that has gone into this—and we need to know precisely what was going on. We also need to know why it has taken four years. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was right to cancel the contract when he did, otherwise it would have drifted on, year after year. At the end of the day, however, we need to know what went wrong so that we do not do it again. For all we know, if we do not know what went wrong, this problem could happen again and again. It is vital that we get to the bottom of the problem of e-Borders.
I welcome this excellent report, which says some valuable things. The Home Affairs Committee continues, of course, to look at immigration and migration issues. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the best way to deal with the issue of migration and immigration is to have accurate statistics that everybody can sign up to. At the moment, we are conducting a debate without knowing the full facts.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Chairman Walker—if that does not sound too much like Chairman Mao. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.
First, I say a huge thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for the presentation of the report by the Public Administration Committee. Given that immigration is one of the top three issues in the country, it is absolutely vital that we have a look at the underpinning foundation of the statistics and data that inform the debate about it.
I also thank the Minister, before he even makes his closing remarks, because I know that he is working exceptionally hard; he has worked exceptionally hard in all the jobs he has had. I am aware that we have the same agenda. We would like to see better statistics, but sometimes in coalition it can be tricky to get these things through at the pace that he may wish for.
I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible, but nothing I say today is to be taken as criticism; it is merely observation that there are better ways in which we can collect the statistics and more intelligent ways in which we can present them.
As a former shadow Minister for science with a degree in a social science—a semi-science—and as chairman of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, I think that evidence is vital to any decision that we make in the public domain. Indeed, although I speak as a Back-Bench MP, I say as chairman of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology that its mission is to ensure that any parliamentary debate and policy formed on the Floor of the House is informed by the data and evidence, and that those are behind the decisions.
The data are so important in the immigration debate—that has largely been highlighted by the migration report—because it is a sensitive issue in the public domain. If we consider it in a political sense, a Government could stand or fall on the basis of their immigration policies and how the data are presented, and upcoming parties not currently in this place could succeed or fail on the basis of immigration data. Our national cultural-social cohesion could implode on the basis of a lack or misrepresentation of immigration data, and our future economic prosperity and relationship with the European Union could depend on the data and their presentation. It is an overwhelmingly important and sensitive issue.
One of my key concerns is that when I say “immigration”, people think it means different things. Some people think it is all about illegal immigrants and get upset about it, some think about genuine asylum seekers and others think that we need more immigration, saying, “Surely we need more, because we need more work visas for those important jobs in society that we are currently unable to fill here in the UK. Of course, those people go back.” Some think specifically about Romanians and Bulgarians because of the recent public debate and some think about investors, bringing millions and sometimes billions of pounds here to the UK, buying nice houses in the centre of London. Others may be thinking about visitors coming to join their families for a period who may return a year or two later, and some may—admittedly, mistakenly—think that tourists are part of the immigration debate.
The word “immigration” and immigration data are proxies for so many other things. That is why it is important that we have great clarity about the data we collect and what they mean. We must ensure that they are statistically significant.
Keith Vaz
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has just said. There are too many myths about immigration. That is why we need official statistics that people can sign up to before we can even start a debate. We are not saying that there should not be a debate; the hon. Gentleman knows that, having attended many debates in the House about immigration. Issues have been raised with him as they have with me. Once those data are available, the big issues that concern the public can be tackled.
Adam Afriyie
That is absolutely right. Clear, accurate and granular information, data and statistics will enable groups with a view on each category of immigration to take a reasoned view.
I often think that politicians’ use of statistics—I confess that this may include me in my early days—is like a drunk’s leaning on a lamp post, less for illumination and more for support. I do not mean to criticise the ONS or even the passenger survey, which is doing what it is told to do in the best way it can, but the danger of the Government’s or any politician’s leaning on the immigration data and statistics is that they are weak and will just fall over. Yet the public animosity and disharmony that can be created by the misuse or misrepresentation of the data are all too well known.
Mr Andrew Turner
Does my hon. Friend agree that the £2 million, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex said the Government are not willing to spend, is a tiny amount when it is considered that the same sum is proposed to be spent on a quarter of a mile of A road in my constituency? Why cannot the Home Office find the £2 million?
Adam Afriyie
The Home Office is doing difficult work in difficult circumstances of coalition. I agree with my hon. Friend. It would seem that spending £1 million or £2 million—or even £5 million or £10 million —to deal with such a vital issue at the heart of a current national debate, which could unsettle an entire nation, is a small sum, if that is what is required to put this matter right.
I suspect that only small sums and adaptations in how we use existing data and how we conduct the passenger surveys would be needed, and that those would assist enormously, in addition to the exit checks.
If we are to plan our public services, we need to have a good idea about what the immigration statistics and data are. It is interesting that the ONS said that the data at the moment
“should not be used as a proxy for flows of foreign migrants into the UK”.
The Oxford Migration Observatory stated:
“sampling errors are too large to measure with a reasonable degree of accuracy the number of migrants to a single region”
within
“the UK, or from a single country of origin”.
Yet if we listen to the public debate, including in my constituency, assumptions are already being made about particular areas and the effect of immigration. I have to admit that sometimes assumptions are presented by Departments, senior politicians and political leaders on the level of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration, for example, although the data just are not there to justify the statements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) made it clear on “Newsnight” a few weeks ago that, when looking at current data collection, a handful of Romanians or Bulgarians—four, five or six—making a certain statement could lead to a difference of 4,000 in our estimate of the number of Romanians or Bulgarians coming into the country. It is clear that the data are currently insufficient to draw conclusions or create policies from.
The current data are vague and self-selecting. People who go to another country wanting to stay there, knowing that there were no exit checks and that they could probably get away with it—not that I would do this—would, if they were desperate, answer appropriately to a question in a passenger survey about how long they intended to stay, to ensure that it looked okay. There is a lot of self-selection in who answers the survey and there will clearly be, if we are all reasonable human beings, an understanding that people will answer questions to serve their purpose, although I would hope that everyone is honest.
Although we want to get immigration levels down to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands, with the data and statistics that have been available for the past four years our current estimates could be 200,000 or 250,000, one way or the other: these numbers are enormous and the statistical significance of the data really needs to be examined and reined in as soon as possible.
Adam Afriyie
A very apposite question. No, I am saying that we do not have any idea about whether these targets may be met. If the immigration figures came in at 30,000 or 40,000 a year, it could be argued by one side that this goal had been magnificently achieved. It could also be argued that the goal had been achieved if the figures came in at 200,000 or 150,000. Conversely, political opponents may argue that, given the statistical significance of these data, the goal has definitely not been achieved. Above all, in the absence of accurate, robust data, it is impossible to have a sensible public discourse.
Again, if we had the granularity of data that I and most hon. Members would like to see on the various categories of migrant in and out of Britain, we could have a robust argument about each category of immigration. Perhaps, in years to come it might not be necessary to have a blanket limit or target; we could take a more granular approach. For example, I would be in no way unhappy if we had an extra several hundred thousand students studying in our universities, paying tuition fees, helping to fund our great institutions and spreading around the world a deep well of good will on British culture, British language and the British way of being. That would be fantastic, because the evidence is fairly clear that the majority will return to their countries of origin and spread the message that Britain is a great place. That could enormously enhance our standing in the world and our economic performance. If we can get down to the granularity of debate, we will come to better policy solutions. In getting to the granularity of debate, I commend the Committee’s report, which makes a huge step in the right direction by observing that we need more granular data.
What is the solution? I do not purport to have all the solutions, but I put forward a few suggestions on data collection, based on the report, my experience and what is possible with technology. First, a little more data need to be collected in the international passenger survey, possibly as a short-term measure, until we resolve the whole situation. Having had a chat with the Minister, I accept that we may well need more data collected by the international passenger survey in the short term, but the location in which the data are collected might be relevant in coming up with better numbers.
It is also important that exit checks come in sooner rather than later. As Conservatives, we would have loved to have seen them come in very early in this Parliament, but sadly, in coalition, other priorities often get in the way. It may well be that there are elements among our current political friends, but usual foes, who believe in completely liberal border control, where people can move around without any checks at all. I recognise that that might be an element in the challenge of bringing the exit checks in sooner rather than later, but it is perfectly achievable by 2015.
When we talk about exit checks, we need to be mindful that someone would not necessarily have to queue and answer questions to exit the country. Indeed, when I visit many African and middle eastern countries, I have virtually no conversation at all. I simply walk into the country, they scan my passport, frown at me and ask one question. Then, as I leave the country, I hand the passport over, they scan it and say, “Have a nice day, sir”, and that is it. With technology, the idea that there would need to be intrusive surveys and so on is not necessarily right.
We also need to bear it in mind that the airlines and travel companies hold an enormous amount of electronic data, which raises the question of why we do not use those data. We type in all the details on easyJet when we fly abroad, as do others when they travel in from overseas. Why are those data not used—not all of them, but a reasonably relevant or statistically significant sample—to check people when they are coming in and going out? I am sure that parts of the data may be used for certain purposes, which the Minister cannot discuss. It would be such an easy win, however, to open up access to those data, which people are freely providing when they travel, to get a better grip and understanding of the various types of migration and whether people are leaving the country.
Finally, I know that there is a will among Conservative Members of Parliament, many elements of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in Parliament that we get the issue resolved. I urge the Minister, for the sake of national harmony and a sensible national debate in the run-up to the 2015 election—when people must make their minds up about all sorts of things, including, hopefully, in the not too distant future, whether they want the UK to remain in the EU—to put some further measures in place, so that people are clear on the various categories of immigration data before that election. We would then not need broad, sweeping statements about immigrants in general; we would have a precise and targeted understanding of each of the groups that we approve or, in some cases, disapprove of, and the debate can become more rational.
I urge the Minister to take another look at the report and to bring forward more speedily some changes or suggested changes for the IPS, the ONS and the speeding up of exit checks from the United Kingdom. We can be a happy nation. The British people deserve better immigration data, particularly given that they will not be that expensive to collect.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Walker. In fact, it is such a pleasure that it will take several months for me to lose the image of “Chairman Walker”, which the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) put in my mind. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), his Committee and the work it has done. We came into the House on the same day—9 April 1992—and I cannot recall many occasions when we have agreed on every issue, but I say, with genuine openness and the hand of friendship, that the report is excellent. It puts a number of issues on the agenda and suggests policy areas that we should look at and seriously consider adopting. I cannot find much that I disagree with in his tone or policy or the tenor in which he began the debate.
I disagree with one or two of the comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on the previous Government’s record. We have had discussions on that before. There has been unanimity across the House today on the importance of integrity in statistics and of understanding who is coming to the country, who is leaving, why they are here and what procedures we undertake. It is important that we ensure for the public we serve that there is reliability, trust and confidence in those statistics. Today’s debate is important and welcome, because the Public Administration Committee’s report on how we calculate migration statistics has raised serious questions on the statistics’ reliability, robustness and usefulness. The report raises a number of extremely serious questions on a range of issues, which the Government need to focus on.
If there is one area that I want to press the Minister on, it is that the Government’s response to the report was disappointing in addressing some of the serious issues raised by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex and his Committee. There has been unanimity from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Windsor, and other Members who have intervened, which shows that there is genuine support for bringing forward the proposals. The report and the response from the UK Statistics Authority have made categorically clear the words of Andrew Dilnot, the chair of UKSA, who said that
“these statistical sources are currently not fully meeting all the different needs of the users of these statistics.”
It is important that we know who comes to the United Kingdom, who leaves, when they leave and, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Windsor gave, why they are here. We all have experience of discussing immigration and, as he said, there are many types of immigration, whether for business, education, tourism or asylum. The more information we have and the greater our depth of knowledge, the better our response will be, whatever our political view on these issues.
If I look at the Committee’s recommendations, I can find, without repeating too much of what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, little with which I disagree. Recommendation 1 states that,
“the International Passenger Survey is inadequate for measuring, managing and understanding the levels of migration that are now typical in the UK.”
I agree. Recommendation 2 states that,
“e-Borders data has the potential to provide better headline estimates of immigration, emigration and net migration”.
I agree. The report states:
“Data held by other countries on migration to and from the UK could help improve the depth and quality of UK migration statistics.”
I agree. Paragraph 6 of the report states:
“If the International Passenger Survey is not an adequate source for this information, and no other sources are available, new sources of migration statistics are needed”.
I agree. Where it says that we should look at building on the principle, if not the current practice, of the e-Borders system, I agree.
Finally, on the public’s understanding of statistics, it is important, for the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Windsor, that we get clarity and a full and accurate picture of migration to and from the UK. The different types of immigration have different impacts and it is important that we have information at hand. In other words, the report is helpful in showing that whatever we have now, which is partly due to the legacy of the previous Government and previous Governments before them and partly due to what has happened under this Government’s watch, is not fit for purpose, and that we need to consider the Committee’s recommendations.
I want to focus on the e-Borders project, because work needs to be done and there is potential for the project to be developed to ensure that we get the necessary information to meet the objectives that all hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned. Earlier this year, I was fortunate enough to travel to America to visit relatives. Before we travelled, I had to fill in an online ESTA—electronic system for travel authorisation—form for my whole family in order to provide our details to the US Government. It took me no more than 15 minutes to fill in the details for five members of my family. When we went to America, the details were checked and agreed and we were in. When we left, they were checked and agreed and we were out. It is a simple concept, which any Government should consider putting in place.
Although the previous Government tried to implement the e-Borders project, the coalition agreement also makes reference to such a scheme. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex made some play about difficulties with coalition partners, but page 21 of the coalition agreement states:
“We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.”
We have only about nine months for an agreement to be made in order for that objective to be achieved. The Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said on the “Today” programme on 11 April 2012 that,
“with our e-Borders system, we are very close to 100% coverage of flights coming from outside the EU, so we know who everyone is before they get on the plane, which is a much more effective way of exporting the border if you like.”
After four years in office and after spending £185 million, however, the head of UK Border Force, Sir Charles Montgomery, announced to the Home Affairs Committee in March that the scheme had been cancelled. The Minister is shaking his head, but we need clarity and the Minister has the opportunity to provide it. There has been no statement to the House or explanation. There has been no guidance or indication of whether that £185 million of taxpayers’ money is still investable in relation to the objectives of the Public Administration Committee.
Adam Afriyie
The right hon. Gentleman is making one or two political points, but will he clarify whether the Labour party is happy that it abolished universal exit and entry border controls in 1998, pretty much as it came into power? That seems to be the root cause of most of the challenges that the coalition Government are trying, somewhat belatedly, to repair today.
Mr Hanson
I anticipated that question and looked at the matter prior to today’s debate. The Library of the House of Commons, which the hon. Gentleman will agree is independent and provides impartial advice, informed me that exit checks were abolished by the Conservative Government in 1994. A Library briefing paper states:
“Paper-based embarkation (‘exit’) controls for passengers departing from the UK were ended in two stages. Checks on persons travelling from sea ports and small airports to the EU (which covered 40 per cent of departing passengers) were abolished in 1994. The remaining checks were abolished in 1998.”
The Labour Government, having been in government for three years, decided in 2000 to reintroduce checks, which is why we began the e-Borders programme.
The e-Borders project still has some issues outstanding, including, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, the dispute with Raytheon. I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Minister, asking him when the dispute might be resolved, what the terms of any final resolution will be and when he intends to bring the matter back to the House, all of which is integral to the objectives suggested by the Public Administration Committee’s report. We need political consensus to ensure that over the next three or four years, whoever the next Government are, a system of exit checks is put in place that meets the objectives desired by every Member who has spoken today.
Mark Reckless
Does the shadow Minister share my concern that an implication of contracts providing for arbitration rather than litigation in the event of a dispute is that that arbitration takes place in secret?
Mr Hanson
I take two points from major computing contracts. First, there is a lack of public scrutiny and transparency about the methods, the drawing up of contracts and the terms and conditions. It would be helpful if Parliament and the public could have that scrutiny. I would like agreed final contracts to be made public and open to scrutiny and benchmarking and testing by the public. Secondly—this is not meant to be critical of anyone in particular—I was fortunate to be a Minister for 12 years and I often got involved in a major computing contract after it had been agreed by somebody else or at the end of a review and found that Governments are good at policy, but not at delivery. Benchmarking, the methods of control over major contracts and whether or not the expertise is there to implement major contracts are issues that we need to consider in detail.
Mr Jenkin
Just as an aside, if the implementation is no good, that means that the policy was no good, because there is no point in one without the other.
We are of course outside the Schengen area, so exit and entry checks mean nothing unless we can check people coming across our borders from other European Union countries within the Schengen area. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that his party’s policy is that we should be able to check any passenger coming in or out of the UK from or to another EU country regardless of the free movement provisions, and that we should be able to ask them who they are, why they are coming here, where they are going to, and all the other questions that we would ask any other person coming in or out of our country?
Mr Hanson
I will give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer: yes. It is extremely important that we can make such checks. I support the principle of free movement, which involves a range of issues, but it is still important, as we are outside and will remain outside of the Schengen area, that we are able to control our borders.
Given the comments of the director general of UK Border Force in March to the Home Affairs Committee, we need clarity on the status of the e-Borders project. The Minister shakes his head again, but we need clarity on the programme’s trajectory and we need to know when he expects to achieve 100% coverage, and the total cost. He also needs to provide information about progress in the contract discussions with Raytheon. If the Government are to stick to a net migration target, they need to know the issues arising from migration in and out of the United Kingdom. Without up-to-date information, as outlined by the Public Administration Committee, they will not be able to keep their promise on net migration.
Getting the figures right is also important because, as everyone who has spoken today has said, the integrity of the figures and our trust and confidence in them are what will give us permission to debate this issue in a positive way in the run-up to the election. The issue of immigration has an element of toxicity to it—it is difficult to debate, and there are a range of political opinions about it. Our debate will be much better informed if in future we have clarity about which people are coming to the United Kingdom, how, where and when they are doing so, the basis upon which they are here and, crucially, when they leave.
That is my final point: as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, we still do not know how many people are overstaying their visas, where they are and what the position is on being able to remove them. That undermines the integrity of our immigration system. I want to see that integrity in the system, with basic information collected in a meaningful way. Dare I say it, we have the opportunity to get political consensus on doing that, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for the work of his Committee and for his speech this afternoon. He advocated the points his Committee made on the quality of immigration information, as well as presenting the broader issues about immigration, its importance as an issue to the public and the occasional complexity of the debate about it. Those points were echoed in contributions by other right hon. and hon. Members, and were made clearly by my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and for Windsor (Adam Afriyie).
Immigration impacts upon every part of our lives. It is important that the debate about and Government policy on immigration are well informed—that is why I welcome the contribution from the Public Administration Committee—and migration statistics clearly play a crucial role in that, so it is right that we discuss how we can ensure that they are as accurate and as relevant as possible. I therefore express the gratitude of the Government to the Committee for both its report on migration statistics and the wide-ranging programme of work that it has undertaken recently on statistical issues more generally.
In our response to the Committee the Government welcomed many of the positive points made. It is heartening to see the Committee acknowledge the improvements since 2011 in the breadth of migration data published by the Home Office. Those improvements have also been welcomed in feedback from a wide range of users of the statistics. We agree with the recommendations on better communication of migration statistics—a complex issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight highlighted. Not everyone will be as familiar with the intricacies of those statistics, or where they can be found, as the hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon. I am therefore pleased by the positive view of the Committee about the accessibility of our statistics on the new Home Office website.
[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]
We also agree that public understanding of migration issues can be poor and that ongoing work to improve that understanding is required. I welcome the support of the Committee and everyone who has contributed to the debate this afternoon in that context. It is to improve public understanding that we work closely with the Office for National Statistics on the migration statistics quarterly report, which provides an overview of migration trends each quarter. The report details both ONS statistics and Home Office data on visas and asylum to provide the public with a coherent picture of migration. The ONS is the independent and trusted source of immigration statistics, and I am pleased with the significant steps it has taken to improve how it presents those statistics. I know many users have already commented on the improvements in its webpages about migration. Last week, the ONS launched a public consultation on further changes to the quarterly release, and I urge all those with an interest in these issues to contribute to that so that we can make further improvements.
Although the Government welcome a number of the Committee’s proposals on clearer communications, which chime well with our approach and that of the Office for National Statistics, as our response indicated we do not agree with all of the Committee’s recommendations. I will address the main points in that regard, as well as dealing with other issues that have come up during the course of the debate.
First, we do not agree that the international passenger survey is inadequate for measuring migration. The view of the independent UK Statistics Authority is that our migration statistics are the best available within the current level of resources and that the ONS has taken significant steps in recent years to ensure that the statistics are as reliable and accurate as possible. I will go on to explore that in further detail.
The issues of cost, value and expenditure have been raised this afternoon and were also highlighted during the Committee’s evidence session on this matter. It may be helpful if I provide some more context. The international passenger survey already screens close to 800,000 travellers per year to determine whether they are migrants. It has been suggested that we increase the sample size—indeed, that was suggested this afternoon. In oral evidence to the Committee the issue of quadrupling the budget for the IPS came up. At that time, both the Chair of the Committee and Guy Goodwin, the expert witness from the Office for National Statistics, agreed that that would be bad value for money.
Our current view aligns with that of the ONS: expanding the survey would be unlikely to provide value for money. However, I am conscious of the need to continue to discuss and reflect further on these issues. I note that the Prime Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), Chair of both the Justice Committee and the Liaison Committee, about his recent evidence to the Liaison Committee, giving an undertaking that the Home Office would continue to discuss this issue with the ONS and would inform the Public Administration Committee of the outcome of those discussions. It is fair and appropriate that we continue the dialogue and discussion on the passenger survey and any improvements that could or should be made to it in the context of both the report’s recommendations and our proper consideration of the facts.
In that context, it is important to note that we have been sharing data from what is known as the Semaphore system, which uses advance passenger information. I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the statement released by the ONS on 13 June, in which it underlined the fact that it had received an extract of Semaphore data and set out the work it was undertaking in respect of those data. The ONS is doing further analysis of the data and will be providing further responses and updates in due course, so work is ongoing in that regard.
Alongside that, on 13 June we saw the user update on that work, and there will be further important updates at the end of the year. The ONS has committed to that, and I am happy to provide further details to the Chair of the Select Committee. I am also pleased to be able to reassure the House that the Home Office will continue to collaborate closely with the ONS in its work on this matter. I am happy to provide a further report on that work at the same time as the ONS provides its update.
Mr Jenkin
In my remarks, I raised the question of the 2011 study conducted by the Home Office into the expansion of the use of separate migration survey data. That would cost only £2 million, so is much better value than increasing the size of the international passenger survey. Is the Minister going to come on to that point in his remarks?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend did mention that specific aspect. The current discussions with the ONS indicate that its current approach is, rather, to look at other forms of data—other administrative data, such as those from the Department for Work and Pensions—to better inform the statistics. That is its preferred option for this type of work. I give a commitment to discuss the issues again as part of our discussions with the ONS, but that is its preferred approach instead of setting up a separate survey. I have noted the point that my hon. Friend has made, following on from the Select Committee’s recommendations, and we will check and confer with the ONS that that remains its preferred response in providing more localised data in order to inform this subject more carefully. That is certainly the feedback that we have had thus far in respect of what might be beneficial or might help to supplement the information provided by the international passenger survey.
The proposal to increase the IPS may not provide the best value for money, but that does not mean that we or the ONS are at all complacent, or that we do not recognise where improvements can be made. In that context—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor advanced this point—it has been acknowledged that there were problems with the IPS’s estimates following the large surge in eastern European migrants following EU enlargement in 2004. We know that the absence of transitional controls, unlike elsewhere, in the majority view resulted in an unprecedented and surprising number of new arrivals in the years that followed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex highlighted, that significant change also surprised the statisticians. That is why the ONS has taken steps since then to address the coverage of the IPS survey. The ONS is rightly independent and I cannot speak for it, but the revised statistics it has published indicate that some of the issues have been resolved by the size of the survey and some of the specific questions that are being raised as part of its migration statistics improvement programme. The problems that the ONS found were in the survey design, and they have been addressed by recalibrating the survey’s coverage and increasing the sample size as part of that programme.
Questions have been asked about whether the figures are reliable enough for the Government to use them as a basis for our aim on net migration. I accept that any reliance on a survey to monitor a policy objective inevitably means confidence intervals in the central estimates. However, this is not a new issue. Survey estimates have been used in this way for many years to monitor Government policy and societal changes more generally. They are well-established scientific techniques used to ensure that social surveys are well designed and their estimates robust. That is why I would take the advice of the UK Statistics Authority that the central statistical estimate derived from the IPS is currently the best available estimate of net migration.
It must also be remembered that we have a lot of information on migration to monitor migration policy from a wide range of other sources that provide a clear and coherent picture of trends. That picture is reported every quarter in the ONS’s migration statistics quarterly report, and I welcome the steps that the ONS is taking to improve the way in which the data are reported and presented. Those data sources continue to be developed and improved—for example, with the release of additional information by the Home Office on certificates of acceptance of study. The new data allow the public and us to see the impact of the Government’s policies to close down bogus colleges. My hon. Friends will no doubt be aware of my most recent announcements on this issue.
As well as reporting on trends, it is important to look at the impact of migration, and we are grateful for the excellent work of the ONS, through its reports from the 2011 census and other sources, in informing the British public clearly and authoritatively about the significant changes in population that we have seen over the past decade and the impact of migration on the make-up of the population in the UK.
Adam Afriyie
I appreciate some of the assurances the Minister is giving. General key concerns are whether the changes to which he is referring—I appreciate that they are not all in place—will mitigate the criticisms or observations by the Royal Statistical Society and the Oxford migration observatory that, with the present statistics and information, we cannot at the moment work out reliably people’s source country or changes in the migratory patterns from individual source countries in the EU or elsewhere, or the impact on specific regions in the United Kingdom. Is he satisfied that with the changes being made those concerns will be mitigated?
James Brokenshire
I will come to exit checks. The way in which advance passenger information data can be used to supplement and for support is important and I will address that directly. I highlight the fact that there are other sources of data. My hon. Friend may be aware of the workforce data survey and the use of the statistics for national insurance registrations. The IPS itself highlights and provides data in its reports and analysis in respect of different countries and provides separate analyses of where those flows come from, such as net migration from outside and from within the EU, and it produces the graphs that my hon. Friend has no doubt seen, tracking those back over 30 years. It gives a sense of long-term trends; it is important to understand where there may be growth in particular areas and what that might mean in terms of informing policy.
It is important to recognise some of the excellent and innovative research and analysis that has increased our knowledge of migration—for example, the migrant journey reports, the report on the social and public service impact of migration, and the recent report on labour market changes. All that work is critical in helping us to understand and appreciate the impact of migration on our country.
I highlighted the 2011 census, which provides extremely valuable data that has captured a much broader range of information on migrants than any census previously. The new census questions on the passports that people hold and the length of time they have lived in the UK recognise the strong public concerns about immigration. We welcome that new statistical resource, which will go some way to meeting the Committee’s recommendation, but I will come to further refinements.
The Home Office has commissioned additional data to inform our understanding, such as a new question on emigration in the international passenger survey, the first results from which are now in the public domain, and a new question for the labour force survey on why foreign respondents had originally come to the UK. The breadth and depth of that work reinforces the fact that no single data source can provide a comprehensive picture of migration. That is why I also welcome the work in the UK statistical system to develop and enhance the range of sources, which together mean that we have a picture of migration that I believe is as good as that available to any other country across the globe.
I noted what the shadow Minister said about filling out the ESTA form and how that might be used. It is interesting to note that the US uses population surveys, not the ESTA system, to measure migration. It is important to recognise the interrelationship between the two, and that in some respects the information from e-Borders may help to supplement, but not replace, other information.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman draws me on to the e-Borders system and its programme. We hear the point that the Committee has made in respect of that. While valuable, the border systems data are, in our judgment, not the right way to measure immigration flows, for which we believe that well-designed surveys are more appropriate. The data do not capture passengers’ onward travel plans or duration of stay, so they could not be directly used to measure long-term international migration. Rather, they are designed to alert us to passengers of interest leaving and entering the country, so that we can strengthen security and immigration controls. They allow law enforcement partners to target and monitor those seeking to travel to and from the UK who might harm this country’s interests—the point my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor highlighted. They are an extremely valuable tool; indeed, since 2010 our border systems have issued alerts resulting in more than 13,300 arrests, including 60 for murder, 59 for kidnap and 167 for rape.
I therefore understand why the Committee took the view that border systems data might entirely replace the IPS. However, that is at odds with the statistical advice we have received and the evidence that academic experts provided to the Committee. None the less, it is important to see how the information can be used to interpret what is happening. That is why it is important to share Semaphore data with the ONS, so that the ONS can carry out further analysis.
I want to come back on some of the points made about exit checks. The Home Office is on track to meet by April 2015 the commitment to introduce exit checks on those who leave the UK via scheduled international air, sea and rail services. Exit check capability will be founded on advance passenger information, supplemented by embarkation checks at ports, where necessary. That will further bolster border security.
Exit checks will also identify individuals who are wanted by the police, who pose security, immigration or customs threats, or who fail to comply with the conditions of their visas. It is important that checks are used in that way. We have introduced a power in the Immigration Act 2014 to enable those already involved in outbound passenger processes—for example, the staff of airlines, other carriers and port operators, as well as others—to integrate embarkation checks with existing processes where necessary. There is also a power to compel them to do so, if necessary.
Mr Hanson
Will the Minister say what the position is on non-scheduled traffic—in particular, private flights and through small airfields and small ports? I have tested him on those issues in parliamentary questions and have had no reply as yet, although that is for reasons of national security, which I understand.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Border Force, which is led by Sir Charles Montgomery, takes the issue of small airfields and the maritime arena very seriously. Indeed, those flying in or out of airfields must provide various reports, and that is monitored to ensure there is a focus on border security. We are focused on all those issues, and Border Force is attentive to those arrangements, as well as to broader approaches and the advance passenger information provided in respect of existing scheduled airlines and other forms of transport.
I want to come back to some of the accusations the right hon. Gentleman made, which may be founded on a reading of press reports following the appearance of the director general of Border Force at the Home Affairs Committee in March 2014. Sir Charles Montgomery wrote to the Committee to explain that the reporting in the media was “factually incorrect”. He said that the work of the e-Borders programme
“has been incorporated within the…Border Systems Programme”.
None of this work has been suspended; indeed the pace of development has quickened. The Home Office remains committed to delivering exit checks by 2015. It was never the intention of the e-Borders programme, as now incorporated in the border systems programme, to deliver a direct measure of net migration.
As a Government, we must decide what is feasible, taking account of expert evidence. The reasons why we will not be able to rely on the border systems data to measure international migration were set out in the UK Statistics Authority and Government responses to the Public Administration Committee’s report. I will not repeat all those points here, but we hold detailed information on those passengers required to apply for a visa. However, Home Office systems do not require information from those travelling from other EU countries. There is, therefore, a limit to what visa data provide.
Borders system data collect information on an individual’s travel documents, so one might imagine that one could track travel movements over time to identify the proportion of migrants. However, Professor Salt, who provided expert witness evidence to the Committee, alluded to the fact that this is not a simple matter. Difficulties associated with dual nationality, lost and renewed passports and changes of name preclude the possibility of producing statistically reliable estimates of migration flows. That means the data do not meet the very fine tolerances that would be required for a reliable statistical estimation of migration.
As I mentioned, that does not mean that data cannot be used to identify individuals of interest for valuable operational purposes. The ONS also believes there are significant benefits in using the border systems data, which will help to improve IPS weighting methodology and the identification of the main flows into and out of the UK. That will significantly enhance the degree to which we can rely on the IPS, but it does not imply that we can replace the IPS completely.
The new exit checks system, which will be introduced by April next year, will give us, for the first time, a more complete picture of those leaving the UK. The system will improve our ability to take appropriate enforcement action against those who have potentially overstayed or are abusing the UK’s health and welfare systems. However, it will not, on its own, provide a replacement for the comprehensive estimates of the number of migrants arriving in and leaving the country.
That said, the Government acknowledge the importance of the debate. That is why we will keep under review the arrangements for collecting statistics in this vital policy area. Only by ensuring that policy making and public debate are as well informed as possible can we continue to build on the successes we have already achieved. I very much welcome the contribution the Committee has made. I also welcome the contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made this afternoon. We will keep the issue under close focus, given the importance of reliable statistics and the faith and trust that the public put in them. That will inform the important debate on immigration into this country, as well as Government policy on this essential issue.
Mr Jenkin
Thank you, Mr Brady, for taking the Chair. I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate—particularly two members of my Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who reminded us that we can help to inform our own immigration data by sharing data with other countries.
I fear that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), is on the wrong track. He was complimentary about my report, I hasten to add, and I am grateful to him; but a massively larger international passenger survey is not the best use of resource, however enthusiastic the people doing it might be. His question about why arbitration on the e-Borders contract is taking so long was apposite. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is right to say that if we want more granular data, we need to collect it. Despite what the Government say about the inadequacy of e-Borders or border systems data and advance passenger information, I cannot help but feel that we could make better use of it, particularly when it can be cross-referred with visa data information that will be collected from 2015.
I commend the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), for his bipartisan approach. I draw comfort from his remarks and those of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. There appears to be a degree of cross-party consensus in support of the general thrust of our report and on the need to deal urgently with the issues it raises.
My hon. Friend the Minister showed the extraordinary complexity of the issues in his response, and I am grateful for what he said. My parting thought for him is about not dismissing the fact that checks are made on passports—and will be made on visas—when people enter and leave the UK. We can surely use those administrative data in conjunction with other data. We were not calling for the e-Borders data to replace the international passenger survey data, but we do want to press the Government to get systems going to enable those data to be used to inform the survey data. That would give us far more confidence about the IPS data and the component parts of those data about where people are going and the groups within the sample. That is the passing thought that I want to press on my hon. Friend—I think he said yes, sotto voce, but I will not require Hansard to record that comment, as I am not sure whether I understood him correctly.
I thank you Mr Brady, and Mr Walker, for chairing the debate. We will keep an eye on the matters in question.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
British Business Bank
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I would like to update the House on the British Business Bank.
The British Business Bank is already achieving significant results as over 30,000 businesses are benefiting from its programmes. Last year, £782 million of new lending and investment in UK small firms was generated by business bank programmes—this is double the level of activity generated by Government finance programmes to small business in 2012-13.
The British Business Bank has also played an important role in promoting a wider range of finance options. A total of 61% of its activity is channelled through smaller investors and lenders, with only 39% of support going through the big four banks. Over the coming years, I expect that this bias away from the big banks will continue.
Examples of the innovative investments over the last year include: £7.8 million committed to the Dawn Capital II venture capital fund; £25 million to the Episode 1 venture capital fund; £30 million committed to Praesidian Capital Europe debt fund; £15 million in BMS finance, £40 million invested through Funding Circle and £20 million in the Sussex Place Ventures capital fund. In all this cases, the British Business Bank’s investments of public money have been made alongside private sector investors, so crowding in new finance for small business in the UK.
In addition to this, the British Business Bank also funds the start-up loans programme, which has lent £70 million to new entrepreneurs in the UK. The bank has increased utilisation of the enterprise finance guarantee to £348 million—up by 21% year on year. This programme helps firms with good cash flow but low levels of collateral to obtain bank finance.
Today I am publishing the new strategic plan for the British Business Bank which sets out our ambitious plans for further increasing the impact of the institution. The full board of the British Business Bank is now in place, as are the majority of the staff and senior management team, operating out of the headquarters in Sheffield as well as, temporarily, the BIS office in London. The next stage will be to complete state aid negotiations with the European Commission later this year. At this point, responsibility for the assets and staff currently of the bank will transfer fully to the new corporate structures we have put in place.
I would also like to inform the House of the publication today of a new business finance guide aimed at making smaller businesses aware of the options for finance available across the market produced by the British Business Bank and the ICAEW. It has been produced in association with trade bodies representing all the major sources of funding—as well as the main business representative bodies. I will be launching the guide in Committee Room 10 at 11.00 today as part of a session on access to finance.
I am making copies of the strategic plan and the new business finance guide available in the Vote Office. The strategic plan for the British Business Bank can be found on gov.uk and the British Business Bank website.
Tax Policy
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
The bank levy, a permanent tax on banks’ balance sheet equity and liabilities, was introduced by the Government from 1 January 2011. It remains an essential policy tool, in helping to ensure a fair contribution from the banking sector and provide incentives for banks to move towards more stable funding profiles, increasing their resilience to liquidity shocks.
Despite recent changes to simplify the tax base and better align it with the regulatory regime, a number of concerns have been repeatedly raised by the sector in respect of the levy’s existing design:
banks’ balance sheets, and thus bank levy receipts, remain highly sensitive to economic and regulatory change;
the need for successive changes to the bank levy rate in order to achieve the revenue target has, it is claimed, created some uncertainty and impacted on perceptions of UK competitiveness; and
the marginal cost of the bank levy has, it is claimed, created risks of distortion and unintended impacts on banks’ behaviour.
Accordingly, the Government announced that they were willing to explore (on a non-committal basis) whether a revenue-neutral reform to the bank levy charging mechanism, in which the headline rate would be replaced by a new banding approach for determining a bank’s charge, could help to address these concerns and increase the predictability and sustainability of bank levy receipts.
Feedback from banks, building societies and advisory bodies as part of the consultation process suggests that it would not, irrespective of how it was structured.
Instead, it was considered that a banding approach would create uncertainty over banks’ charges, strengthen the incentives for activities to be relocated overseas and create arbitrary differences between banks’ effective tax rates and the relevance of the levy’s behavioural incentives.
Reflecting on these concerns—which were raised by banks of different domicile, structure and balance sheet size and trajectory—the Government have decided against the introduction of a banding approach for the bank levy at Finance Bill 2014 and have no plans to consider this idea further.
Two wider revenue-neutral proposals were put forward by the sector as part of the consultation, both of which may warrant further evaluation.
First, a technical amendment was proposed to the bank levy legislation, aiming to address certain banks inability to accrue the costs of the bank levy for quarterly reporting purposes, which is seen to create an inaccurate representation of quarterly operating profit, reduce comparability in interim results and necessitate careful market and shareholder explanation.
Secondly, a number of respondents suggested that the levy could be applied to the opening rather than closing balance sheet, in order to provide greater certainty to banks over their in-year charge and allow them to make more informed commercial decisions over short-term investment horizons.
The case for making these changes remains unclear and the Government need to give further consideration as to their merit, legality and legislative deliverability. However, the Government intend to maintain a dialogue with the sector on these points.
Overall, the Government would like to thank those who participated in the consultation process. The views put forward have been, and will continue to be, valuable in informing policy decisions in this area.
Openness of Local Government
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
Through the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, the coalition Government are committed to opening up council meetings in England to digital and social media, updating the provisions of Margaret Thatcher’s Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 to a digital age. This will give the press and public new rights to film, report, record, blog and tweet council meetings, allowing the public to see the good work that councillors do, and increase the understanding of local democracy in action.
The draft “Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014”, which have been laid before Parliament, implement these provisions. Without prejudging the consent of Parliament, it is important that local government is in a position to implement promptly these new access rules, including those cases where current Standing Orders might not be unambiguously in line with the new requirements. To facilitate these changes and ensure the smooth introduction of the new rights, the Government are undertaking not to make the statutory instrument (which would come into force on the day after that on which it is made) until at least 28 days after the day on which parliamentary approval for the statutory instrument is given. In taking this approach we have also had regard to the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the draft regulations.
We will also shortly be sending to local authorities a draft version of a new plain English guide on openness of council meetings, to explain the new rights and duties the regulations would bring. I will place a copy in the Library of the House in due course. Following any parliamentary approval, we will then publish a final plain English guide for the press and public. In the light of recent reports of journalists and bloggers being obstructed at council meetings of certain local authorities, we will highlight the need for councils to provide reasonable facilities to the free press (including print media, film crews, hyper-local journalists and bloggers) in a way that still allows for the orderly conduct of a meeting. We also wish to make crystal clear that council meetings in England should be conducted in English, and not in a foreign language.
Most town halls in England are already embracing such transparency, and do not need to wait for permission from Whitehall to open their doors to the press and public. However, a small minority are dragging their feet; Ministers want to make it clear that there is absolutely no reason for the public not to be able to exercise their new rights once the secondary legislation has been approved by Parliament and made.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
The remaining provisions of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (the Act) will come into force on 10 December 2014, subject to parliamentary approval. These provisions include section 9 of the Act which provides for the conversion of civil partnership into marriage and schedule 5 of the Act which makes provisions concerning married persons or civil partners who change their legal gender. The Government has also today published:
a consultation on marriage according to the usages of non-religious belief organisations, as required by section 14 of the Act. The consultation is available on the Ministry of Justice website at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/marriages-by-non-religious-belief-organisations.
the report on the conclusions of the review of civil partnership in England and Wales, as required by section 15 of the Act. The report is available on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-future-of-civil-partnership-in-england-and-wales.
the report on the review of survivor benefits under occupational pension schemes, as required by section 16 of the Act. The report is available on the Department for Work and Pensions website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/occupational-pension-schemes-review-of-survivor-benefits.
Gifting Package (Republic of Kazakhstan)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have today laid before Parliament a Ministry of Defence departmental minute describing a gifting package which the UK intends to make to the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Central Asia is a region of growing importance to the UK’s security and prosperity. The UK and the international community must continue to influence and engage with the Republic of Kazakhstan, and the other central Asian republics, on a range of issues, including counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and border security, if we are effectively to promote wider regional security and stability.
The Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan have played a constructive role supporting ISAF operations in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan will face increased security challenges once ISAF has withdrawn from Afghanistan; the international community has a part to play in preparing its security forces for these challenges. Kazakhstan also aspires to develop and deploy its troops in support of UN peacekeeping tasks. The departmental minute, which I have today laid before Parliament, describes a gifting package to the Republic of Kazakhstan of surplus quad bikes with trailers and handheld night vision equipment that is intended to contribute to this. Both items have been examined and cleared against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, which includes an assessment of whether the equipment might be used for human rights violations or internal repression, the risk to UK forces and the risk of diversion to an undesirable end user. Subject to completion of the departmental minute process, delivery is expected to be undertaken during the summer of 2014.
Service Complaints Commissioner's Sixth Annual Report
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
I am pleased today to publish the MOD’s formal response to the Service Complaints Commissioner’s (SCC) sixth annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.
The response sets out how the MOD proposes to address each of the new recommendations made by the commissioner in her latest report. We are committed to ensuring that our service personnel and their families have a complaints system in which they can have confidence, and one which is simpler and quicker. That is why we introduced the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill on 5 June to make improvements to the system and to create the first service complaints ombudsman.
No servicemen or women should lack confidence in seeking redress through the complaints process, and we know that to encourage them to do so we need a system that is fairer, more effective and more efficient than at present. While the Bill is progressing, we will continue to learn from the SCC’s annual reports and implement lessons from the services’ own continuous improvement programmes.
Energy Savings
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The Government are today publishing the Government response to the energy savings opportunity scheme (ESOS) consultation and laying draft regulations in Parliament to give effect to the policy.
ESOS will require large enterprises to undertake energy audits to identify opportunities to save money on energy bills through improved energy efficiency. It is estimated that the scheme will deliver £1.6 billion of net benefit to the UK.
The scheme is the Government’s approach to meeting the requirements of article 8(4-6) of the EU energy efficiency directive (2012/27/EU).
In developing this scheme, officials in my Department have worked closely with colleagues across Government and with industry experts. Government consider that ESOS demonstrates a proportionate approach, in line with principles of better regulation—we expect the scheme will yield significant net benefits for the UK as a result of the energy saving achieved.
The Government response sets out our consideration of the responses to the public consultation held from July to October 2013. The Government response summarises stakeholder responses to each of the consultation questions, and sets out the Government’s policy decisions, with reasoning.
We are also publishing a guide to ESOS for scheme participants, and the ESOS impact assessment. This demonstrates that ESOS has real potential to enhance economic growth and energy security in the UK, and to reduce our carbon emissions through improved energy efficiency—saving 3 TWh per year.
Afghanistan Monthly Progress Report
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 38th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
The Afghan Independent Election Commission confirmed that none of the presidential candidates secured over 50% of votes needed to win the election in the first round. Abdullah Abdullah was in the lead with 45% of the vote, followed by Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai with 31.6%. There were 6.6 million valid votes in the presidential election, 2 million more than the 2009 election, a display of popular support for the democratic process. Approximately 36% of voters were women. The second round was scheduled for 14 June.
The Afghan Parliament passed by majority vote the presidential decree amending article 26 of the criminal procedure code. This amends the controversial wording of the original articles that legally prevented relatives from testifying in cases involving their own family members.
12 May marked the beginning of the fighting season. While there was a spike in violence and ANSF casualties on this date, this was expected and consistent with levels seen in previous fighting seasons. There were also two selection days for the first female blook (platoon) which selected 33 candidates to start in June 14, demonstrating the ANSF’s commitment to increase the role of women in the security sector.
The Helmand redeployment continued with the closure of observation post Sterga 2 on 10 May. Following the closure, conventional UK forces in Helmand are now based only in Camp Bastion.
President Obama announced planned US post-2014 force levels. 9,800 US personnel will remain deployed in a regional model in 2015, reducing to 5,500 in Kabul by the end of 2015. A “normalised” embassy-based mission supported by up to 1,000 troops will be in operation by the end of 2016, providing a bilateral security agreement is concluded satisfactorily.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the gov.uk website: www.gov.uk/government/publications/afghanistan-progress-reports
EU-Georgia Association Agreement
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have opted in to the following measures:
Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application, of the association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part.
Council decision on the conclusion of the association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part.
The EU-Georgia association agreement constitutes a reform agenda for Georgia, based around a comprehensive programme to more closely align their legislation to EU norms, focusing on support to core reforms including economic recovery and growth, governance and co-operation in a wide range of sectors. This will help to ensure a stable and prosperous region, which is in the UK’s national interest.
The Council decisions approving the EU’s signature and conclusion of the EU-Georgia association agreement give approval to the EU to sign and conclude provisions covered by title V of the TFEU, in particular, in respect of provisions related to the temporary presence of natural persons for business—mode 4—and to the readmission of persons. The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs opt-in has been triggered as a result. The Government have decided that it is in the UK’s best interests to opt in to these Council decisions.
When making this decision, the Government took into consideration that the UK already participates in the existing readmission agreement between the EU and Georgia and as such it is appropriate that we now opt in to the new provisions which require the parties to ensure the full implementation of that agreement.
The mode 4 provisions are in line with the EU’s Doha round offer to the World Trade Organisation and are subject to rigorous safeguards, including minimum skills levels.
EU-Moldova Association Agreement
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have opted in to the following measures:
Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application, of the association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part.
Council decision on the conclusion of the association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part.
The EU-Moldova association agreement constitutes a reform agenda for Moldova, based around a comprehensive programme to more closely align their legislation to EU norms, focusing on support to core reforms including economic recovery and growth, governance and co-operation in a wide range of sectors. This will help to ensure a stable and prosperous region on the edge of the European Union, which is in the UK’s national interest.
The Council decisions approving the EU’s signature and conclusion of the EU-Moldova association agreement give approval to the EU to sign and conclude provisions covered by title V of the TFEU, in particular, in respect of provisions related to the temporary presence of natural persons for business—mode 4—and to the readmission of persons. The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs opt-in has been triggered as a result. The Government have decided that it is in the UK’s best interests to opt in to these Council decisions.
When making this decision, the Government took into consideration that the UK already participates in the existing readmission agreement between the EU and Moldova and as such it is appropriate that we now opt in to the new provisions which require the parties to ensure the full implementation of that agreement.
The mode 4 provisions are in line with the EU’s Doha round offer to the World Trade Organisation and are subject to rigorous safeguards, including minimum skills levels.
EU-Ukraine Association Agreement
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have opted in to the following measure:
Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application, of the association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, as regards titles III, IV, V, VI and VII of the agreement as well as the related annexes and protocols.
On 17 October 2013, Official Report, column 66WS, I informed the House that we had opted in to a previous version of this Council decision. In November 2013 former President Yanukovych decided not to pursue signature of the association agreement. This decision resulted in unrest in Ukraine, and in February 2014 a new interim President was appointed. The political titles of the agreement were signed at a European Council on 21 March 2014. That part of the agreement did not include provisions covered by title V of the TFEU and therefore did not trigger the UK’s JHA opt-in. Following successful presidential elections in May 2014, President Poroshenko confirmed his intention to sign the association agreement. The above new decision has since been brought forward to enable signature of the remaining titles of the agreement.
The EU-Ukraine association agreement constitutes a reform agenda for Ukraine, based around a comprehensive programme to align their legislation more closely to EU norms, focusing on support to core reforms including economic recovery and growth, governance and co- operation in a wide range of sectors. This will help to ensure a stable and prosperous region on the edge of the European Union, which is in the UK’s national interest.
The Council decisions approving the EU’s signature and conclusion of the EU-Ukraine association agreement give approval to the EU to sign and conclude provisions covered by title V of the TFEU, in particular, in respect of provisions related to the temporary presence of natural persons for business—mode 4—and to the readmission of persons. The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs opt-in has been triggered as a result. The Government have decided that it is in the UK’s best interests to opt in to these Council decisions.
When making this decision, the Government took into consideration that the UK already participates in the existing readmission agreement between the EU and Ukraine and as such it is appropriate that we now opt in to the new provisions which require the parties to ensure the full implementation of that agreement.
The mode 4 provisions are in line with the EU’s Doha round offer to the World Trade Organisation and are subject to rigorous safeguards, including minimum skills levels.
Standardised Tobacco Packaging
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
The Government have today published the “Consultation on the introduction of regulations for standardised packaging of tobacco products”. This consultation is being conducted on a UK-wide basis.
In November 2013, the Department of Health commissioned Sir Cyril Chantler to undertake an independent review of whether the introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco is likely to have an effect on public health, in particular in relation to children. The report of the Chantler review, which was published in April 2014, concluded that if standardised packaging was introduced, it would have a positive impact on public health.
Before reaching a decision on whether to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco products, we are holding a final, short consultation. This consultation will run for six weeks until 7 August. So that our decision on whether to introduce standardised packaging is properly and fully informed, the consultation includes a set of draft regulations so that it is clear how such a policy would work in practice. The draft regulations set out proposed requirements for the packaging of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, and requirements for the appearance of individual cigarettes, should standardised packaging be introduced.
In the consultation that has been published today, we ask, in particular, for views on anything new since the last full public consultation on standardised packaging that we ran in 2012 that is relevant to the development of this policy, including evidence relating to the wider implications of introducing standardised packaging. In July 2012, we published the “Consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products”. The report of the 2012 consultation was published in July 2013.
The consultation on the introduction of regulations for standardised packaging of tobacco products has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
I encourage any person or organisation with an interest in standardised packaging of tobacco products to engage with the consultation.
We have also today published on the web the detailed responses that were received to the 2012 consultation. These can be seen at:
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products
Health Council
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met in Luxembourg on 19 and 20 June 2014. Health issues were discussed on 20 June and the United Kingdom was represented at the meeting by the UK deputy permanent representative to the EU.
The presidency provided a progress report on the medical devices regulations and asked member states for an exchange of views on a compromise text on the designation of notified bodies, post-market surveillance and the tasks allocated to the medical devices co-ordinating group. Member states provided a range of opinions on these questions and the presidency and Commission thanked member states for their views.
The Council adopted Council conclusions on the economic crisis and health care, and on nutrition and physical activity. Italy and Romania tabled a joint declaration, expressing concern with the call upon the Commission to implement nutrient profiles.
Under any other business, France asked member states to work together to respond to the high price of a new hepatitis C medicine. Ireland briefly informed delegations of their plans to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco products, should the Bill successfully pass through their Parliament.
Most member states, including the UK, signed an agreement to be able to jointly procure vaccines in the future, if we choose to exercise this.
Italy presented their broad priorities for their presidency which begins on 1 July 2014. These cover a range of areas including dementia and anti-microbial resistance (AMR).
Liverpool Care Pathway
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
The Leadership Alliance for the Care of Dying People has today published details of the approach to secure high-quality, personalised care for everyone in the last few days and hours of life in England.
Today’s publication by the alliance of 21 organisations follows the report by the independent review that I commissioned to consider the Liverpool care pathway (LCP). The review panel made 44 recommendations, including that the LCP should be phased out over the succeeding six to 12 months. As I announced on 15 July 2013, the Government accepted that recommendation. I said that the Government would consider fully the recommendations of the review and work with the organisations to which the panel addressed its recommendations, other stakeholders and charities to inform a full system-wide response to the review’s recommendations. That response, which includes details of the new approach, is published today.
The work that has been done goes beyond responding to each of the recommendations. The leadership alliance has developed five priorities for care of the dying person. These set out, for dying people, their families, health and care staff and others, what should happen when someone is thought to be close to dying.
The priorities for care provide that:
the possibility that a person may die within the next days and hours should be recognised and communicated clearly, decisions about care made in accordance with the person’s needs and wishes, and these decisions reviewed and revised regularly; sensitive communication should take place between staff and the person who is dying and those people who are important to the dying person;
the dying person, and those identified as important to them, should be involved in decisions about treatment and care;
the people important to the dying person should be listened to and their needs respected; and
care should be compassionate and reflect a care plan for the individual dying person.
The response includes further details of the priorities, as well as a statement of the duties and responsibilities of health and care staff to deliver the priorities, and implementation guidance for service providers and commissioners. The 21 organisations have also published a collective statement, as well as individual statements, of the key actions they will take to implement the priorities. These include that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) will be developing new clinical guidelines on the care of the dying adult and end-of-life care for children. These guidelines will inform the development of a quality standard for end-of-life care for children and an update of NICE’S quality standard on end-of-life care for adults. From October 2014, Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections will incorporate the priorities as part of inspection of end of life care.
Taking account of the fact that one of the panel’s recommendations was in two parts, the organisations have accepted 28 of its recommendations in full and 12 in principle or in part. There are three that have not been accepted at this stage or that are still being considered. Two recommendations have not been accepted. NHS England and Health Education England will not promote the use of prognostic tools in relation to dying. The approach in the priorities for care does not, unlike the LCP, rely on a diagnosis of dying. The priorities apply
“when it is thought that a person may die within the next few days and hours”
and will support good care irrespective of whether someone is actually dying.
Rather than issue guidance to nurses on caring for people at the end of life, the Nursing and Midwifery Council will instead incorporate the principles behind the priorities into the revised NMC code: standards of conduct, performance and ethics, a draft version of which is currently out for consultation. It has also published its standards for competence as a separate stand-alone document.
The review panel found evidence of both good and poor care given to people in the last few days and hours of life. Use of the LCP was not found to be synonymous with poor care. The panel said that whilst in some circumstances, the LCP had supported the delivery of good care, it was not always applied properly. Where it was used as a generic protocol, the LCP ran the risk of becoming process-driven.
As I made clear in my statement of 15 July 2013, everyone who uses health and care services has the right to be treated with respect, dignity and compassion by staff with the skills and time to care for them properly, and any variation in standards of care is not acceptable. The priorities for care make it clear that where someone is thought to be in the last few days and hours of life, there must be sensitive communication, involvement in decision making and consideration of the needs of those who matter most to the dying person.
Key national organisations in the health and care system have committed to a co-ordinated programme of actions to take forward the priorities for care. This includes providing relevant education and training, as well as regulatory and inspection action. There is no excuse for individual organisations and health and care staff to deliver anything less than high-quality care for people in the last few days and hours of life, as set out in the five priorities.
The Government will continue to take a close interest in this area and intend to publish a report, around July 2015, two years on from the review panel’s report, assessing how national organisations have implemented the commitments they have set out today. The independent review panel chaired by Baroness Neuberger will continue to have a role, providing independent advice to Ministers about implementation of the commitments in the system-wide response. Their views will inform the report that the Government intend to publish.
I am grateful to members of the panel for agreeing to continue in this role, as well as for their wider commitment to ensuring high quality, compassionate care for everyone in the last few days and hours of life.
One chance to get it right, which incorporates the system-wide response to the report of the independent panel on the LCP, has been placed in the Library, along with the commitment statements made by national organisations. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
Al-Muhajiroun
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
We have today laid an order under section 3(6) of the Terrorism Act 2000 which, with effect from tomorrow, will specify “Need4Khilafah”, “the Shariah Project” and “the Islamic Dawah Association” as aliases of the proscribed organisation known as al-Ghurabaa, the Saved Sect, al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK. This organisation was proscribed in 2006 for glorifying terrorism and we are clear it should not be able to continue these activities by simply operating under alternative names.
The effect of this order is that being a member of or supporting any group operating under these names will be a criminal offence as to do so will amount to being a member of or supporting al-Ghurabaa, contrary to sections 11 and 12 of the Terrorism Act.
Detention of Persons with Statutorily Extended Leave
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
A removal decision under section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (the 2006 Act) may be made in relation to any person whose leave is statutorily extended leave by virtue of either:
section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (the 1971 Act)—where the migrant has made an in-time application and a decision on the application is pending or an appeal against refusal has not yet been exhausted; or
section 3D of the 1971 Act—where leave has been revoked or curtailed with immediate effect and any appeal against that decision has not yet been exhausted.
The previous Government stated that migrants who had received a removal decision under section 47 of the 2006 Act could not be subject to reporting conditions or detention while they had continuing leave pending the outcome of an appeal, 29 March 2006, Official Report, column 908. In fact, schedule 2 of the 1971 Act allows their detention, and in circumstances where leave has been abused this may be appropriate.
Curtailment with immediate effect is used where the migrant has failed to comply with the conditions of their leave, or their character, conduct or associations make it undesirable to allow them to remain in the UK—for example, there is reliable evidence that they have facilitated or entered into a sham marriage or civil partnership to gain an immigration advantage. Sham marriage is known to be a significant and increasing threat to UK immigration control.
To allow robust and proportionate enforcement action against individuals who abuse the immigration system, we are changing policy in regard of persons who have statutorily extended leave under section 3D of the 1971 Act. Migrants whose leave has been revoked or curtailed with immediate effect will be liable to be detained or to report to the Home Office (depending on the individual circumstances of the case) pending their removal from the UK.
The Home Office will continue not to detain persons whose leave is extended by virtue of section 3C of the 1971 Act. In these cases, migrants have sought to regularise their stay before their leave expired and should not be subject to enforcement action before their application is finally determined. Similarly, a person whose leave is curtailed for reasons outside their control (for example, the college at which they were studying has closed down) would normally be left with some leave remaining, in order to let them find alternative provision. A removal decision would not be made with the curtailment decision and they would be unaffected by this policy change.
National Fraud Authority
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
The National Fraud Authority annual report and accounts 2013-14 has been laid before the House today and published. Copies will be available from the Vote Office.
Immigration Removals (New Restraint System)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I am today announcing that I have formally approved a new restraint system for safely managing people being escorted during immigration removals.
This fulfils a commitment by this Government to provide training for escort staff that reflects the environment they work in, both in-country and overseas. The bespoke training is tailored to the experience and behaviour of detainees and staff in immigration removals and provides practical tools to de-escalate situations and minimise the use of restraint.
The new system has been assessed by the independent advisory panel for non-compliance management, chaired by Stephen Shaw. The panel was established to provide support to the National Offender Management Service in the design of the new training package to provide independent advice on the quality and safety of the new package, in particular on the use of restraint techniques.
The report by the independent advisory panel for non-compliance management is welcomed by the Government. The report recognises the balance to be struck between treating detainees with respect and minimising the need for restraint, with our responsibility to enforce immigration law, which sometimes requires the use of physical intervention.
After careful consideration of the panel’s comprehensive assessment of the quality and safety of the new system, the Government have accepted all of its recommendations.
The new training for overseas and in-country escort staff will begin implementation on 28 July 2014.
I am placing a copy of the full report of the independent advisory panel for non-compliance management and the Government’s response to the report in the Library of the House. A redacted version of the manual for escorting safely and supporting guidance will be published in due course.
Potential Miscarriages of Justice
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
When I made my statement to the House on 6 March 2014, announcing the findings of the Stephen Lawrence independent review by Mark Ellison QC, I said that:
“In identifying the possibility that SDS secrecy may have caused miscarriages of justice, Mark Ellison recommends a further review to identify the specific cases affected. I have accepted that recommendation and Mark Ellison will lead the work, working with the CPS and reporting to the Attorney-General. That will mean that proper consideration can be given to those cases and to any implications that may arise. In doing that work, Mark Ellison and the CPS will be provided with whatever access they judge necessary to relevant documentary evidence”—[Official Report, 6 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 1063.]
Mr Ellison, the Attorney-General and I have now agreed his terms of reference. Mr Ellison will continue to be supported by Alison Morgan, who was Mr Ellison’s junior counsel during the Stephen Lawrence independent review. The terms of reference are:
“Mark Ellison QC will co-ordinate a multi-agency review, reporting to the Attorney-General, to assess the possible impact upon the safety of convictions in England and Wales where relevant undercover police activity was not properly revealed to the prosecutor and considered at the time of trial. Nothing in these terms of reference affects the statutory responsibilities of the various agencies and office-holders working with the review.
The review will initially focus on the undercover police activity of the MPS’s Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) which, while not an MPS resource, worked to similar objectives. The review will then assess whether its scope may need to be broadened to cover other undercover police activity.
The review will seek to ensure, by working co-operatively with the Home Office, Operation Herne (on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)), other police forces, CPS, Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and any other relevant agencies, that the following tasks are carried out:
1. Establish the relevant document retention and destruction policies adopted within the relevant organisations;
2. Identify the extent of surviving police, prosecution and court case files;
3. Establish the nature of undercover policing undertaken and the potential for undercover police activity to have been relevant to a prosecution but unrevealed to the appropriate authority;
4. Identify, using both available records and other reasonable means, any convictions where it appears there was relevant undisclosed and unrevealed undercover police activity capable of impacting adversely on the safety of the conviction;
5. Ensure that any cases falling in 4 above, where it appears the safety of a conviction may have been adversely affected, are referred to the appropriate authority for evaluation and appropriate action;
6. Ensure that any cases falling in 4 above are reviewed to establish the rationale for non-revelation and to establish the extent to which the MPS and the Home Office were aware and identify the action taken as a result; and
7. Agree a protocol with the MPS (and all other police forces subsequently identified), the CPS, the CCRC and any other relevant agencies regarding the tasks that each will undertake; the availability and handling of material; and other issues as necessary.
Mark Ellison QC will aim to report the review’s findings in writing on the above to the Attorney-General by 31 March 2015”.
The review has already begun its preliminary work. Where the review identifies a potential miscarriage of justice, the case will be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for its consideration of whether the case should be referred to the appellate courts. At the conclusion of the process, the review will produce a report to the Attorney-General, which he will publish. That report will not include the details of the individuals whose cases have been examined, as to do so could prejudice any subsequent appeal proceedings or retrials.
I am grateful to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and to Chief Constable Creedon for the support they have offered to the review. I know that the Metropolitan Police Service will co-operate fully with the review team.
Parliamentary Oral Question (Correction)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
I am taking this opportunity to provide a corrected answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on 5 March 2014, Official Report, column 877. The hon. Member asked:
What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the UK’s programme of support for Syrian refugees. [902826]
On the basis of the World Food Programme’s final figures for 2013, the answer to this question is:
The UK has allocated £265 million to support refugees in countries neighbouring Syria, providing approximately 1.3 million monthly food packages last year, 71,000 medical consultations, and an improved water supply for more than 40,000people. We are working closely with Governments, the UN and others to ensure that the overall international response builds resilience and is implemented effectively.
Hallett Inquiry
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I would like to announce that the report of the Hallett inquiry will be published on 17 July. On that day, I will make a further statement to this House and lay the report in both Houses.
As the person responsible for publication of the Hallett report once it is delivered to me, I have a duty to act in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights. To fulfil this duty, I need to take steps to satisfy myself that publication of the report will not breach article 2 of the convention by putting the lives or safety of individuals at risk. These obligations were outlined in detail in the written statement I made on 31 October 2012, Official Report, column 18WS, regarding the release of the de Silva review. The same duties apply to me in relation to the Hallett report.
In order to comply with these duties, prior to publication the report has to be checked by a team of legal advisers and officials in relation to human rights and national security matters. This is in line with the approach used for the Bloody Sunday, Billy Wright and Rosemary Nelson inquiries, and the de Silva review.
The report is being prepared for publication by Lady Justice Hallett’s team. I will see the final report for the first time on 16 July, 24 hours before publication. As with the publication of previous reports, I intend to grant advance sight to those who Lady Justice Hallett has recommended as being interested parties.
Intelligence Services Commissioner (Annual Report)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I have today laid before both Houses a copy of the latest annual report from the Intelligence Services Commissioner. The right hon. Sir Mark Waller was appointed by me to keep under review the exercise by the Secretaries of State of their powers to issue warrants and authorisations to enable the security and intelligence agencies to carry out their vital functions. The commissioner also uses his position to check the lawful use of the powers and duties imposed on the intelligence services and the Ministry of Defence by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.
The commissioner’s report provides a complete summary of the inspection regime that he has undertaken. It shows that the agencies, Ministry of Defence personnel, civil servants and Secretaries of State understand their responsibilities and comply with the law. Through his inspection process and as a result of self-reporting by the relevant agencies, Sir Mark’s report sets out a number of instances in which human error has resulted in regrettable administrative errors. In these instances the commissioner has satisfied himself that these errors were not deliberate and has suggested changes to ensure that they are not repeated.
The commissioner has also made available to me a confidential annex to his main report, which as per section 60(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; Sir Mark and I have agreed it would not be in the public interest to publish. However, as the commissioner makes clear, the findings in the confidential annex do not detract or change the conclusions that he reaches in his main report.
The intelligence agencies’ work is vital to protect the UK’s national security. We have a robust legislative framework and strong system of oversight to ensure that the agencies operate within the law and that their actions are in accordance with our legal obligations. Sir Mark’s role, as set out in his annual report, is an important part of that system of oversight. I am pleased that this annual report provides more detail than ever before of how his oversight operates. It provides an independent and informed account of the agencies’ compliance with the law and the high ethical standards their staff follow. I am grateful to Sir Mark for his scrutiny and oversight and welcome his conclusion that the public should have confidence that the agencies act within the law.
House of Lords (Appointments)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The House of Lords Appointments Commission is responsible for recommending non-party political appointments to the House of Lords. In line with the practice of the previous Administration, I continue to nominate direct to Her Majesty the Queen a limited number of candidates for crossbench peerages, based on their public service. I am extending the criteria for these recommendations to ensure they can properly encompass a range of individuals with a proven track record of public service, not solely public servants on retirement. The nominations will continue to be vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The number of appointments covered under this arrangement will remain unchanged at a maximum often in any one Parliament.
HS2 Safeguarding Directions
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I can today inform the House that under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, I have issued updated and revised safeguarding directions to local planning authorities along the London to west midlands HS2 route. These adjust the previous directions issued in October 2013 to more closely match the description of the scheme set out in the HS2 hybrid Bill and accompanying environmental statement currently before the House.
Safeguarding directions aim to ensure that land which has been earmarked for major infrastructure projects is protected from conflicting developments before construction starts. They also enable many of those who own property in the safeguarded area to serve a blight notice and request that the Government purchase their property under the terms of the compensation code.
As the Government are no longer planning on building a link between HS1 and HS2 at the London end of the railway, the relevant land has also been removed from safeguarding.
HS2 Ltd is writing to all known property and landowners within the relevant areas to notify them of the revised directions, and their effect.
Safeguarding directions also trigger statutory blight procedures under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Owner-occupiers of properties within the safeguarded area who wish to move may apply to sell their property to the Government by serving a blight notice. If they meet the relevant criteria they can expect to receive the “un-blighted” open market value of their home, a home loss payment of 10% of the value of their home—up to £47,000—and reasonable moving costs such as legal fees, and stamp duty on a replacement property.
As I announced on 9 April, Official Report, column 19WS, the HS2 express purchase scheme now applies in the surface safeguarded area. The scheme provides eligible property owners with the same compensation entitlement, whether or not their property is required for the scheme. Where an area of land has been removed from the safeguarded area by these new safeguarding directions, the express purchase scheme will remain available to owners of properties in that area—the extended home owner protection zone—for five years. This does not apply to properties along the formerly proposed link between HS1 and HS2, which will no longer be close to the high-speed railway. Full information and maps describing the new directions, as well as guidance and application forms for express purchase and other property compensation schemes, are available at, www.hs2.org.uk or by phoning the HS2 Ltd public enquiries line on 020 7944 4908.
Child Poverty Strategy 2014-17
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Today, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Schools, I will publish the Government’s child poverty strategy 2014-17. At the end of this Parliament, as at the start, the coalition Government are committed to ending child poverty by 2020, transforming the lives of the most vulnerable in our society.
Despite the tough economic climate, we are making progress. With employment at a record high, up by nearly 1.7 million since 2010, there are now 290,000 fewer children in workless households. Poor children are doing better than ever at school, with the proportion of children on free school meals getting good GCSEs, including English and maths, having increased from 31% in 2010 to 38% in 2013. This is the kind of lasting life change that makes a real difference to children’s outcomes.
Based on an in-depth evidence review, today’s strategy sets out the actions we will take to build on this momentum, restating our commitment to tackle poverty at its source.
We will help families into work and to increase their earnings; support living standards through decreasing costs for low-income families; and prevent poor children becoming poor adults through raising their educational attainment. In doing so, we can break the cycle of disadvantage, offering families security and stability for the future.
To achieve this end, our strategy calls for action from employers, the devolved Administrations, local areas and the voluntary and community sector. All must play their part, for we know that central Government action alone cannot end child poverty.
Alongside the strategy, it is our firm belief that we need a revised set of child poverty measures which underline our commitment to ending child poverty, but better reflect the evidence about its underlying causes and where we need to target action most.
We are not yet in a position to put these forward. In the meantime, the Child Poverty Act 2010 requires us to set a persistent child poverty target through affirmative regulations by December 2014. As we will not have put forward new measures by then, the Government remain committed to meeting their existing obligations under the Act. We are therefore consulting on a persistent child poverty target based on the definition set out in the Act and at a level of less than 7% by 2020, which is consistent with existing statutory child poverty targets.
Defined Ambition Pensions
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to confirm that the Government have published their response to the consultation “Reshaping workplace pensions for future generations”. Later today, we shall publish independent research on defined ambition—or shared risk—pensions, commissioned by DWP, and we intend to introduce the Pension Schemes Bill 2014.
The Bill provides for a new legislative framework for defined ambition pensions that enable employers and their workers to share risks, providing more certainty for savers and controlling costs for employers.
The Bill will also encourage “collective schemes”, which are popular in many countries around the world as the pooled risks can make pension outcomes more stable.
The time is right for a new regulatory framework for future private pension provision; we know that consumers value greater certainty in pensions and over a quarter of employers are interested in offering a pension involving risk sharing.
I shall place a copy of the delegated powers memorandum and impact assessment in the Libraries of both Houses along with a list of the relevant older papers.
Copies of the impact assessment and the delegated powers memorandum will be available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office and on the gov.uk website later today.
Health and Safety Executive (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
On 9 January 2014, I made a written statement to Parliament—Official Report, column 19WS—announcing the publication of the independent report of Martin Temple on the triennial review of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). I am pleased to announce that later today the Government response to the triennial review of HSE will be published.
HSE is an Executive non-departmental public body (NDPB). It is the national, independent regulator for work-related safety and health. Its mission is the prevention of death, injury and ill-health to those at work and those affected by work activities.
I am very grateful to Mr Temple for producing such a thorough independent report, which has been widely welcomed. I support the majority of his recommendations. Today’s Government response explains the actions we will take on all the recommendations and updates on progress made so far in implementing them, where appropriate.
In some areas, as set out in the Government response, I want to go further to reform HSE to ensure that it delivers value for money to the taxpayer, while ensuring safety for the nation. Good health and safety is vital to good business in a growing UK economy. There is international interest in learning from and adopting Britain’s health and safety regulatory system. Realising HSE’s potential as a world leader in providing health and safety advice will create a new income stream for Government as well as benefiting UK businesses who already work within this regulatory framework.
I will place a copy of the Government response to the triennial review of HSE in the House Library later today.
Grand Committee
Asylum Seekers
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have in respect of the right of asylum seekers to work after six months of waiting for a decision on their application.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, my first pleasant duty today is to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to her first debate. I also posed her first Question, so I am delighted that she is here for this debate. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who will speak today.
Once again we are asking Her Majesty’s Government to reconsider their policy on allowing those waiting for asylum decisions to apply for work after 12 months. We want this time reduced to six months. The people we are speaking of are human beings who should be given the chance to support themselves. It is very demeaning to ask for handouts or not to be able to afford decent meals every day. How could we manage on £5 a day? If we go to the Pugin Room for coffee with two or three people, £5 is gone right away. How inadequate. You are stereotyped as a scrounger, and this leads to low esteem and stress.
Until July 2002, asylum seekers who had been waiting for an initial decision on their asylum claim for six months or more could apply for permission to work under a Home Office employment concession. This concession was abolished on 25 July 2002. The then Government said that the increasing speed of the asylum determination process—it must have been a remarkable year—and the importance of separating economic migration routes from asylum were why it had been decided to restrict asylum seekers’ right to work. This was clearly the wrong decision.
Many of these asylum seekers are being forced to wait for the full 12-month period before being able to begin their search for work. The Red Cross has said that it often takes the Home Office years to determine an asylum claim. In fact, it says that almost 40% of asylum applications made in the year 2012-13 were not concluded within 12 months. This leaves thousands of asylum seekers unable to apply for work for long periods of time.
Eleven European Union countries already allow asylum seekers access to the labour markets after six months or less. They are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. They have had these policies in place for many years and not one of them has had to change the policy because of any abuse of the asylum route by economic migrants. In fact, all but one of these countries received fewer asylum applications than the UK in 2012 and 2013. In 2014, Germany published its new asylum Bill, which includes plans to reduce the period of time that asylum seekers have to wait before receiving authorisation to work. It is going from nine months to three months. Meanwhile, in the UK we still impose the unreasonable and punitive 12-month limit.
Allowing asylum seekers to work more quickly would lessen the possibility of them being a target for the unscrupulous and the criminal world which can exploit vulnerable people through illegal employment. The recast European Union reception conditions directive gives the period for which asylum seekers can be excluded from the labour market pending an initial decision. It was reduced to nine months. However, the UK has not signed up to this directive, which means that we will be one of the very few countries in Europe where asylum seekers can apply for permission to work only after waiting for more than one year for an initial decision on their case. In this respect, we see that almost all the 27 EU states have a more generous policy than the UK.
Furthermore, in practice, the UK Government effectively prohibit asylum seekers from working even after one year, as they are allowed to work only in highly skilled, shortage occupations. Once again, this is not the policy in many other European countries. Belgium, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Spain and Sweden all allow asylum seekers to work in any job—including being self-employed—once they are granted permission to work. As for entrepreneurs, a report in February showed that those from Africa, the Middle East and Asia, and especially from Poland, were not only first-class workers but first-class employers, with many of them setting up their own business.
The average asylum seeker spends about 18 months on Section 95 support. Research has shown that those who spend prolonged periods on this level of support are known to suffer from physical and mental health problems. Studies for Refugee Action’s Bring Back Dignity campaign revealed that physical health problems were common among asylum seekers, 38% of whom reported that they could not buy enough food to feed their families. Many asylum seekers were concerned that their limited financial support did not allow them to purchase healthy and nutritious food and they had to opt for a cheaper diet instead. Only the more expensive shops now exchange goods for Azure cards. Why can they not be used in the corner shop or shops such as Asda and Lidl which sell at lower prices? There is no reason to force anyone to pay more than necessary for their basic food and supplies. Cultural dietary requirements are sometimes difficult to obtain because of financial constraints.
The implications of current provision for those with young children are also of great concern, since the Secretary of State failed to take into account essential household goods such as non-prescription medicines and special requirements for new mothers. Reports have demonstrated that current rates of support do not allow for sufficient adaptation to life in the UK. Many cannot afford adequate clothing to face the British climate. Financial limitation also makes it difficult to engage socially or in a community. There is just no money to spare and this can increase social isolation. I would also like assurances that those with long-term, serious medical conditions, such as type 1 diabetes—which can require as many as five injections a day—heart conditions and epilepsy, are able to receive their prescriptions. Is there sufficient finance, not just for the injections, but for the hygienic conditions needed to inject in?
The children of asylum seekers want to look to their father as a role model, who supports them in the usual way by being an example of good family values, getting up in the morning and going to a job. This also helps to keep a healthy mind and lessens the chance of mental health problems developing. Housing is provided, but its standard is often questionable. An asylum seeker cannot choose where to live and it is often in the hard-to-let properties which council tenants do not want.
Cash support is currently set at £36.62 per person, per week: £5.23 a day for food, sanitation and clothing. This amount was set way back in 2007. Between then and April 2013, the consumer prices index increased by 20.5%. If the benefits provided to asylum seekers had increased at this rate, they would currently be on £53 a week, which would make a massive difference. The amount allowed is clearly not adequate. The Government’s claim that Section 95 is adequate was undermined on 9 April 2014 when the High Court handed down its judgment in a case which the judge described as considering,
“what was sufficient to keep about 20,000 people above subsistence level destitution, a significant proportion of whom are vulnerable and have suffered traumatic experiences”.
The ruling states that the Government failed to take account of items that must be considered as essential living needs, such as non-prescription medicines, nappies, formula milk, other requirements for new mothers, basic household cleaning goods and the opportunity to maintain relationships and a minimum level of participation in society. The court also found that errors had been made by the Government in calculating the amount required for asylum seekers to meet their essential living needs. The Government failed to take into account the extent to which asylum support had decreased in real terms in recent years.
We should be leading in these human rights issues. The United Kingdom has a fairly good record, but now we are dragging our feet and causing great hurt and harm to so many people. That is why I cannot see any objection whatever to reducing the number of months from 12 to six. I cannot see an argument for it. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider very seriously the need to think again on this issue.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno for once again valiantly trying to change UK government policy in this area. The difficulty is that successive UK Governments have not allowed asylum seekers to work, and for very good reason. On the face of it, and especially for the general public, it appears to be an odd position to maintain, but it is the right one.
I, too, welcome my noble friend the Minister to her new role and in this important and interesting area of government policy. However, I hope that she can resist the tempting dish that my noble friend has so skilfully offered her.
The last time we debated this issue, noble Lords explained—as I expect some will explain today—how valuable to one’s self-esteem is the ability to work and support society. I totally agree. My wife’s brother-in-law has vascular dementia and his short-term memory is down to 30 seconds or less. However, under direct immediate supervision, he is still able to help me in my classic commercial vehicle restoration activities. By the time he gets home, he has absolutely no idea of what he has done or where he has been. The interesting point is this: his feel-good benefit lasts all evening, and my sister-in-law reports that he is much easier to look after, so we can agree that work is good for you. The Committee should not forget that asylum seekers can undertake voluntary work, but I accept that it might be difficult to find.
The problem is that most of the working-age population of the world would like to come to our green and pleasant land to live and work—if not here, then to the United States, where they have similar problems. It is no good looking at other EU states that have more relaxed rules without understanding the full context of those rules or accepting that the UK is the most desirable destination in the EU. I think that answers my noble friend’s point about why we receive more applications for asylum than other EU states that have more relaxed rules about work. If I am wrong, why do people dice with death trying to get to the UK?
There is a well trodden route for economic migrants from outside the EU. They apply for a visa, start working in the informal sector of the economy—thus, to some extent, depressing the market rate for legitimate workers—and eventually, we hope, they will be detected as overstayers. At this point they might suddenly remember that they are asylum seekers. Alternatively, they obtain a visitor’s visa, travel to the UK and immediately claim asylum, possibly having destroyed their travel documents en route. In many cases, it is advantageous for them to make their claim as difficult and as time-consuming as possible in order to stay in the UK for as long as possible.
If my noble friend the Minister were to comply with my noble friend’s wishes, the number of economic migrants would undoubtedly increase. This would have an adverse effect on three deserving groups. First, it will affect those genuine visitors seeking a visitor’s visa, who will inevitably find it harder to get one if they are a borderline case. Secondly, those asylum seekers who have a genuine but complex case will find that it will take longer than necessary to determine because finite resources are being expended on bogus cases. Finally, the UK taxpayer will have to devote more resources to running the system.
I hope that the Committee does not see me as an out-and-out xenophobe, because I am not. I look forward to a later opportunity to give the Committee—or perhaps the whole House—my views on the benefits of the free movement of labour throughout the Community and, in particular, how this benefits us and other EU states. Offering work to asylum seekers will benefit no one, and we certainly cannot welcome everyone, from anywhere, who wants to come and work here.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Baroness to the government Front Bench and look forward to the many exchanges that I suspect we will have.
On this issue, I side very much with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, rather than with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. In doing so, I declare an interest as a member of an independent asylum commission which studied this whole issue for three years and reported to the previous Government in 2009. Right at the heart of what we said was that we were very concerned that within the Home Office there was what we called a culture of disbelief. This amounted to a general disbelief of anyone coming to this country. This included people who had been victims of torture, whose stories were also disbelieved. We felt that that was unattractive, not least because it influenced too many decisions that had to be made objectively and were conditioned by something else. During that experience I also saw something that I never thought I would see on the streets of this country—namely, the distribution of Red Cross food parcels to destitute asylum seekers in Manchester. The Canon Theologian at Westminster Abbey, who was leading the delegation, asked whether he could take one of them away and try to live on it for a week. His report on that, which was included in our report, makes salutary reading.
I suspect that the inadequate reasons that the Government put forward for resisting the suggestion that the period might be reduced to six months, which were questioned by the High Court in the 9 April judgment to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred, hides a deeper malaise in the Home Office, to which I last drew attention during the passage of the Immigration Bill through this House. At present, there is a monstrous backlog of 500,000 unresolved applications to come to this country. That millstone has not just arrived; it has built up over years. I cannot believe that any system can work properly if it has a millstone of that proportion hanging round its neck. During the passage of the Bill, I made the suggestion that it would only be good sense for the Government to make special arrangements to have that backlog cleared as quickly as possible by drafting in extra people to do the work, which, admittedly, would involve expense. However, having cleared the backlog, the system would be able to function properly, processing day-to-day applications as they arrived.
When a former Home Secretary, John Reid, described the immigration system as being not fit for purpose, I entirely agreed with him because it included many aspects like this. At the time, I was privileged to be working with it as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, with responsibility for inspecting immigration detention centres, so I was close to the coal-face.
There is no evidence at all that the proposals for the punitive 12 months mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, would succeed in deterring what are called economic migrants. Indeed, I think that the economic migrant scare is just that. Of course, there are people who come for the wrong reasons, but the vast majority do not. It is entirely unworthy of this country, with its traditional record of offering sanctuary and as a place where human rights are observed, to persist in the myth that everyone coming here is an economic migrant, a vandal and a vagrant who should not be here. We need to remove that suggestion from any reasoning of why processing cannot happen more quickly. If people got down to it and the designed procedures were operated properly, it would be perfectly easy for all applications to be completed within six months, as happens in other European countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has stated. If they can do it, so can we. It requires will and determination but it can be done. I agree that it is ludicrous to go on with the reasons that, allegedly, we cannot do it and cannot afford it. I do not believe that.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right to talk about raising the level of support given. The suggestion has been made that it should be 70% of the income support rate—which seems nearer to the £53 that the noble Lord mentions than the £36, which I defy anyone to live on. I absolutely agree with him that the abolition ruling on 25 July 2002 was a mistake that ought to be rectified as soon as possible. Having cleared the backlog, there is absolutely no reason why we should not proceed in a civilised way with the aim of having a six-month ceiling for all decision-making.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, what I have to say is not original but I do not think that means it is not worth saying. Just because it is not original does not mean that it is trite. However, what is not trite is my welcome to the Minister. This may not be the last time we debate this issue.
It has been anticipated but I am going to say it: I doubt any of us can truly understand what it must be like to seek asylum, or even to be driven to seek to be allowed to live in another country without the reasons which would back up an asylum claim but simply out of concern for one’s own family and to make a reasonable living. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has referred to the baggage around the term “economic migrant”. On the one hand it is vagrancy and laziness; on the other, it suggests a degree of greater affluence than is generally the case. Again this point has been anticipated, but I cannot imagine what it would be like not to be allowed to work; it would dominate my sense of self-worth and my well-being. However, those issues would not dominate if I were trying to live on £5.23 per day—I could not do it for a week, let alone six months— and I have what Mr Justice Popplewell in the recent judicial review called a “significant wardrobe”. I am not someone who, as he described it, arrives,
“with no more than the clothes they stand up in so that the asylum support has to provide for an initial stock of sufficient clothing and footwear for the English climate”.
That is apart from food, healthcare, personal care and so on.
It is clearly common ground that the amount provided is considerably less than income support, the minimum wage or the London living wage. The word “living” is in there for a reason. The London Assembly is one of the organisations—political and non-political, secular and non-secular—which has supported the proposition put forward by my noble friend, and one might expect that in London this would have the most impact.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I have not seen anything to support the assertion that we deter economic migration. As has been said, this is not a view shared by many other European countries with shorter periods of restriction.
Recent news reports—and not only recent reports—have indeed talked about people dicing with death, but they have diced with death to get across the Mediterranean to Lampedusa, mainland Italy or Greece. I do not recognise the description given by my noble friend Lord Attlee. This view of immigrants is applied to asylum seekers by people who do not distinguish between migration and asylum-seeking. I do not charge my noble friend with that—we have had this conversation on the Floor of the Chamber and I know that he makes the distinction—but there are people who say of the two populations that they come only for the benefits.
If an asylum seeker is keen to contribute to society and has not been fast-tracked out within the six months, as I suspect many economic migrants would be, and is seen to be keen, that might be something of an answer to that mindset or, frankly, that prejudice. However, from what I have seen, the policy proposed by my noble friend has public support. We are all very aware of the need to do anything that can assist integration and community cohesion. Not permitting work has a danger of producing the converse, of making very vulnerable people even more vulnerable to exploitation and driving them underground into the black economy. It would help, too, to ease the transition for those who are given status—and there are quite a lot—when their claims succeed.
Of course, a lot can be said about the importance of work for physical and mental health, for keeping up one’s skills—life skills, social skills and skills in handling relationships—and for keeping up one’s confidence and being able to show a prospective employer that one has been employed.
The point was made—I do not know by whom—that many asylum seekers are self-employed. That does not surprise me. If you have the get up and go to face getting up and going, you will probably have something of an entrepreneurial spirit. I do not need to spell out the impact of poverty on dependants, including children, and on their development and learning when combined with being uprooted from one’s original country and culture. I was struck by what Z, a torture survivor said—I think in the recent case but certainly in the report of the case—that,
“for me when you are poor there is no life for you. It is a kind of prison. It is worse than prison.
The Still Human Still Here consortium urges a geographical pilot covering at least two regions—of course, asylum seekers have no choice about where they are dispersed to—for a year to allow for assessment of whether allowing this group to work does indeed lead to an increase in unfounded applications, or whether it helps integration and provides value for money, taking into account administrative costs but also savings from not having to pay for support. I urge the Government to engage with the NGOs and the various organisations which, struggling on very little money themselves, are doing very good work, not just with direct support but in drawing attention to the issues.
I can think of little so demeaning as being prevented from working. Frankly, six months without work seems an unattractive proposition. We demean ourselves as a country with this restriction—perhaps “exclusion” would be the better word.
I know the views of my noble friend Lord Attlee about free movement in the EU. He took me by surprise once when he answered a Question from me very sympathetically on this. He now argues that such a change in policy would prejudice those who are not bogus asylum seekers. I continue to have the view that they are bogus only because that is how we label them. Our systems—this is very much the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—need to be good enough to identify asylum seekers with well-founded claims without unreasonable delay. They should not cause problems which in themselves penalise asylum seekers.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, is to be congratulated on the determination with which he pursues the issue of asylum seekers awaiting application decisions and their right to work. Like all other noble Lords who have spoken, I add my welcome to the Minister.
As we know, in essence asylum seekers can apply for permission to work if they have waited for longer than 12 months for an initial decision on their claim and are not considered responsible for the delay in decision-making. The regular calls to extend asylum seekers’ rights to work have not found favour—as has been said—with successive Governments on the basis that it could encourage and lead to an increase in unfounded asylum applications and that the faster processing of asylum cases made the case for allowing asylum seekers to work less compelling.
The coalition Government—both parties—adopted a similar approach to that of the previous Government. Mr Damian Green, when he was the Minister concerned, said:
“Extending the permission to work policy”,
by reducing the time period,
“risks abuse of the asylum system by economic migrants and detracts from the aim of encouraging those whose claim has failed to return home voluntarily. Our focus … is on implementing new ways to speed up the processing of applications, while also improving the quality of decision making”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/11; col. 65W.]
It is on this aspect of the speed of decision-making that I will ask the Minister a few questions.
If there were not delays in dealing with some applications—I understand that a clear majority are dealt with within six months—there would not be the kind of concerns being raised in today’s debate. The number of applications was at a peak in 2002 at over 80,000. That fell dramatically to under 20,000 in 2010 and has started to rise slowly since then. In the year ending March 2014, there were some 23,731 asylum applications—a rise of 5% compared with the previous 12 months. I understand that at the end of March 2014 some 19,685 applications for asylum received since 2006 from main applicants were pending a decision—that is, initial decision, appeal or further review—and that this was 38% more than at the end of March 2013. Could the Government give a breakdown of that figure? Just how long, in terms of numbers of years, have these 19,685 applications been pending a decision and what has been the reason for the delay, where there has been one?
The Government say—as have successive Governments—that some asylum seekers are responsible for the delay in decision-making. How many of those 19,685 applications received since April 2006 are the Government saying have been delayed solely because of the actions, or lack of actions, of the asylum seekers themselves? To what extent are the delays due to the processes for which the Government, or government contractors or agents, are responsible? How many staff are dealing with asylum applications and how have those numbers varied in each year since 2001? How long is it taking for appeals to be heard through the Courts and Tribunals Service? Is it the case that on the day of a tribunal hearing, or shortly before, it is far from unknown for the Government to ask for the case not to proceed because they want more time to make further investigations and that this then puts such a case back towards the end of the queue?
If the Government can show that the delays are almost always attributable to the asylum seekers themselves, their position is a much stronger one. The number of asylum applications has been relatively constant since 2005, ranging between some 19,000 to just over 25,000. So, bearing that in mind, one would think that it would have been possible to ensure that we now had a process for dealing with asylum applications where responsibility for any delays could not be laid at the door of government. I hope that when the Minister responds she will be able to prove that that is the case and that government indifference or incompetence is not a significant factor in those delays.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to be involved with this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, who not only asked me my first Question but has engaged me in my first debate. When researching this subject, I noticed that he has an almost Wilberforcian determination to bring the issue forward.
As noble Lords have outlined, the Government’s policy is to allow asylum seekers to apply for permission to work only if they have not received a decision on their claim after 12 months because of reasons outside their control. This is fair and reasonable. In the Government’s view, it is vital that we maintain a distinction between economic migration and asylum. Many noble Lords have raised the issue of the crossover where people awaiting asylum can work. The policy in place is specifically designed to mitigate this risk and to protect labour markets by restricting employment, when permission is granted, to occupations on the shortage occupations list published by the Home Office.
As many noble Lords have said, the desirability of the United Kingdom as a destination for economic migrants is not in doubt—this is a great place to live. The Government have been successful at reducing non-EEA migration, but EEA migration remains high as those who benefit from EU free movement come here to look for work. Widening access to the labour market by relaxing our policy on the right for asylum seekers would send the wrong signals and damage the significant progress that this Government have made in controlling migration.
My noble friend Lord Roberts referred to the attitude of other EU countries to asylum seekers. I have looked into this. It is true that if you arrive in Greece you can work straightaway. However, you cannot avail yourself of some of the asylum support and accommodation that we provide in this country, and life could be made far more difficult for you ultimately. He also referred to Sweden, which is a very good case in point. In Sweden you have to have a personal identification number in order to work. However, in order to work as a migrant you have to learn Swedish and do extensive volunteering work, which in itself takes up time.
The issue of whether it takes too long to consider asylum claims has been raised. The Home Office is addressing the issue. In 2012-13, 78% of asylum claims received a decision within six months. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that all asylum claims must be carefully considered and that this takes time and resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned the backlog, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I have some figures about the number of additional staff being drafted in. I understand that 160 new decision-making executive officers are in place to deal with this, as are 90 administration officers. Nearly 80% of claims are dealt with within six months. However, it is important that the Government do all that they can to deter unfounded claims, not least because such claims must still be decided and this slows down consideration of genuine claims at the expense of people who really need our protection.
Perhaps I can go through some of the other points made by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Roberts talked about the judgment this year that asylum support needs to be reviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, also mentioned it. The judge did not say that the current rate was too low; he said that the methodology for making decisions was flawed. We are, therefore, reviewing that and a report on the outcomes will be produced on 9 August.
My noble friend Lord Roberts also asked whether Azure cards could be offered in Lidl and Aldi. My noble friend kindly gave me the heads-up on the issue yesterday and I have approached my noble friend Lord Taylor, the Minister, to ask whether this could be looked into.
My noble friend Lord Roberts talked about medication, which is, in fact, fully covered by the NHS. I am pleased to report that asylum seekers awaiting a decision can have full access to the NHS, including help with getting to health facilities. He also brought up the issue of the standard of housing. I have to say that it is varied but I can absolutely assure him that any accommodation provided must be fully equipped and appointed with all necessary items.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of self-esteem and the inability to work during the stressful time awaiting an asylum decision. It is absolutely the case that people awaiting decisions on asylum claims can volunteer. They are also not necessarily poor, although I accept that, in giving up their homes and livelihoods in their countries of origin, they may well be poor—but not necessarily. They are able to volunteer. This goes back to the point about not muddying the difference between an asylum claim and seeking a work permit. My noble friend Lord Attlee made the point about volunteering and the UK being such a great place in which to live—hence the number of applications that we receive. My noble friend also made the good distinction between the genuine asylum seeker and those seeking work.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, talked about the culture of disbelief. We cannot accept that there is such a culture. All claims are considered on their merits, the evidence and the law. The noble Lord might be pleased to know that on average we grant asylum in 30% of initial decisions.
I have covered the issue of the backlog. The number of undecided cases predating 2012 is decreasing and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, might be pleased to know that we have made a decision in all pre-2011 cases. However, I will look into some of the questions and statistics that he asked me about and, if I have not covered everything, we will ensure that those questions are addressed.
Several noble Lords commented on our decision about reviewing the point at which we would allow asylum seekers to seek employment. We have not reviewed that issue, which lies entirely within the 2003 reception conditions directive. We make a distinction between people seeking asylum and those coming here to seek work.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee made several points, including on asylum seekers not being allowed to work—I referred to volunteering in that regard—and on integration and community cohesion. I acknowledge that an asylum seeker might feel isolated, but we are an incredibly integrated community, particularly in the capital, London, and, indeed, elsewhere in the country. We pride ourselves on that integration and on our tolerance and much work goes on to promote that. My noble friend also said that we need to have good systems. I hope that some of the figures that I have mentioned reassure her. Indeed, almost 80% of the claims are heard within six months.
I hope that I have answered all the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. However, I note that he is about to rise to tell me which ones I have not answered.
Lord Rosser
I took it from an earlier comment that the noble Baroness made that she would check to see whether all the questions that I raised had been answered and, if that was not the case, would write to me soon. That is perfectly acceptable from my point of view. However, I was particularly interested in the figure in the briefing that we received—as far as I know, these are Home Office figures—on the 19,685 applications received since April 2006, and the issue of how many of those the Government are attributing to delays arising from the actions of asylum seekers and how many are due to the actions of the Government.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not have those figures before me but I will certainly provide them to the noble Lord. However, given that 11 minutes have passed, I conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
Baroness Hamwee
Before my noble friend sits down, as we are well within the hour, she mentioned the decision being announced on 9 August, following the review. I accept her point that this is about the methodology, not the amount. If she cannot do so now, and she may not be able to, will she let us know fairly soon when the announcement, which will be made on a Saturday, will take effect if there is to be a new rate? Is there any possibility of the announcement being made while Parliament is still sitting so that we might have an opportunity, possibly as the least important people involved in this, to debate and air the issues that will arise from the decision?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for making that point. Of course, 9 August will fall during the Summer Recess. I will ask for the measure to be debated in this House.
Women: Custodial Sentences
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures are being taken to reduce the number of women given custodial sentences.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I have asked for this debate because we have one of the highest rates of women’s imprisonment in western Europe. The human, social and financial costs are considerable. Women in prison are 10 times more likely than men to harm themselves, most women are in prison for short periods and they have very high reconviction rates, which demonstrate that for many women prison is neither rehabilitative nor a deterrent.
There is a growing consensus that most of the solutions to women’s offending lie outside prison walls in treatment for addictions and mental health problems, protection from domestic violence and coercive relationships, secure housing, debt management, education, skills development and employment. Community services enable women to take control of their lives, care for their children and address the causes of their offending. I am quoting the Prison Reform Trust, for whose briefing I am most grateful.
The statistics are worth highlighting. On 20 June this year, there were 3,899 women in prison, accounting for 5% of the total prison population. Last year, 7,008 women were sentenced to custody in England and Wales. The number of women remanded to custody is disproportionately high, with 60% of women received into custody each year being on remand. There were 715 in March this year. Yet 70% of these women do not go on to be convicted or to receive a custodial sentence. They and their families will have suffered serious disruption by being put on remand for an average of four to six weeks. The type of crime committed by women is mostly non-violent. In the last quarter of 2013, eight in 10 women entering prison under an immediate custodial sentence had committed non-violent crimes. Theft from a shop is the primary driver of women’s imprisonment, accounting for 35% of all custodial sentences. In 2013, the average sentence for this offence was less than two months. In 2013, more females were received into prison under an immediate custodial sentence for theft and handling than for the offences of violence against the person, robbery, sexual offences, burglary, fraud and forgery, drug offences and motoring offences combined. More than three-quarters of sentenced females received into prison for theft and handling offences in 2013 were serving sentences of six months or less.
It is now accepted that short sentences have the worst reoffending outcomes. More than half of all women leaving prison are reconvicted within 12 months. Of those serving sentences of less than 12 months, the reconviction rate rises to 62%. The extent to which community sentences outperform short spells in prison with respect to reoffending is greater for women than for men. The Government, in recognising the high rate of reoffending following short sentences, are attempting to address this by offering mentoring and through-the- gate supervision on release through their Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, but there remain concerns, as stated by the Prison Reform Trust, that proposals to extend the statutory monitoring and supervision to offenders serving sentences of less than 12 months will disproportionately affect women as the nature of their offending means that they are more likely to be imprisoned for the shortest periods. Unless there is specific provision for women, there is a significant risk that the changes will have an adverse impact on the majority of women who commit minor offences. Section 2 of the Act introduces a 12-month statutory supervision period on release for all those sentenced to custody for however brief a period, so sentencers may view short spells in custody as a gateway to accessing the support and supervision services women need in the community. There is a risk that more women will end up in custody for breach—that is, for failing to comply with the terms of the supervision period. When will Section 2 commence? Will the Minister undertake to monitor the impact on the number of women who are sentenced to custody or imprisoned for breach? If the Sentencing Council, which is consulting on a new theft offences guideline, could discourage reliance on custodial sentences for shoplifting and other theft, it could dramatically reduce the number of women in custody.
When we look at the lives of those women who commit crimes, it becomes clear that many are victims as well as offenders. More than half report having experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child, while a similar proportion have been victims of domestic violence. When in prison, women account for 25% of all incidences of self-harm, and the number of such incidences is even higher among those on remand. Nearly half of women in prison report having committed offences to support someone else’s drug use—women’s crimes are more likely to be financially motivated than men’s. Most worryingly for the greater good of society and future generations, women prisoners are more likely than men to be primary carers of children. The survey found that six in 10 women in prison have dependent children.
The recent report from Barnardo’s, On the Outside: Identifying and Supporting Children with a Parent in Prison, estimates that 200,000 children are affected by the imprisonment of a parent, with an increased likelihood of facing family breakdown, poverty and isolation. Barnardo’s points out that there is currently no requirement for courts, local services or government to ask questions about these children, who therefore do not receive appropriate support. It calls on the Government to appoint a lead Minister to have responsibility for children of prisoners, and I ask the Minister to respond to that.
Around 18,000 children are separated from mothers who have been imprisoned, 34% of whom are lone parents. It has been estimated that imprisoning mothers for non-violent offences costs the state more than £17 million over a 10-year period as a result of the increased likelihood of their children becoming NEETs—not in education, employment or training—and therefore having poorer long-term prospects.
Non-custodial sentences would lead to additional savings to the state. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy points out that, of those almost 18,000 children, only 9% are put in the care of their fathers, leading to most being placed in care. Children of prisoners are three times more likely to be at risk of developing mental health problems and/or conduct disorders, while 72% of children in care have behavioural and emotional problems.
The economic arguments are compelling. The average annual cost of a woman’s prison place is £56,415, compared with a community order, costing £2,800 per year, and an average of £1,300 for stand-alone community-based services. The New Economics Foundation found that if alternatives to prison reduced reoffending by just 6%, the necessary expenditure would be recouped in a year.
We need to act urgently to reduce the number of women in custody. I of course welcome this Government’s published strategic objectives for female offenders:
“Ensuring the provision of credible, robust sentencing options in the community that will enable female offenders to be punished and rehabilitated in the community where appropriate”,
but I ask the Minister how much in government resources is going into reconfiguring the women’s custodial estate, compared with providing community alternatives to custody. Now is the time to implement the 2007 report of my noble friend Lady Corston on women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. As the Justice Select Committee said in 2013:
“Prison is an expensive and ineffective way of dealing with many women offenders who do not pose a significant risk of harm to public safety”.
It called for,
“a significant increase in … residential alternatives to custody as well as the maintenance of the network of women’s centres”,
as proposed by my noble friend Lady Corston.
Women’s services that have been funded by their local probation trust will continue to receive funding from community rehabilitation companies until March 2015. However, after that date, funding will depend on the commissioning decisions taken in each contract package area for offender services. Considering the proven success of these centres in cutting reoffending, helping women to rebuild their lives after prison and offering support to women at risk of offending, what assurances can the Minister give that these women’s centres will receive adequate funding to ensure their continuation post-March 2015? I draw the Minister’s attention to the excellent report by the Prison Reform Trust, Brighter Futures, which recommends:
“Central government should fund a national network of women’s centres, projects and services as these are critical to improved outcomes for women in contact with the criminal justice system”.
There is still much to do and I hope that the Government’s Advisory Board on Female Offenders and the transforming rehabilitation programme will now focus on cutting the number of women in custody in this country, because the numbers are unacceptable and unnecessary.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, on securing this debate. I declare an interest: I am a member of the Women’s Justice Taskforce, established by the Prison Reform Trust in 2010 to consider the needs of women in the criminal justice system and to further look at how women’s justice might be reformed, both in terms of economic benefit and helping to reform lives. We published a report, Reforming Women’s Justice, in 2011.
Although, as the noble Baroness said, women form a very small part of the total prison population, over the past 20 years the numbers have doubled to 3,899 women in prison on 20 June last week. It is said that going to prison often ruins people’s lives. Nowhere is that more true than for women—and not only for the women themselves. They are often linchpins of families so it can also ruin children’s lives. For women on the breadline, even a short spell in prison can mean losing everything they have.
The task force believes that those who commit crimes should be punished. Clearly, some women’s offending is so serious that there is no other option but prison. However, punishment should be appropriate, proportionate and support rehabilitation. As the noble Baroness pointed out, most of the women held in prison are serving short sentences or are on remand for non-violent crimes—usually petty crime such as theft or handling stolen goods, often to feed their children or their drug habit.
In 2009, two-thirds of all women sentenced to custody were serving sentences of six months or less. More than half of women entering prison do so on remand. They spend an average six weeks in prison and 60% of them do not then go on to receive a custodial sentence. Worryingly, one-third of women prisoners lose their home and often all their possessions, which makes it difficult for them to restart their lives when released. Some 41% of women leaving prison did not have accommodation arranged. They come out with almost nothing and have nowhere to go. We heard at Holloway that some women would return voluntarily to prison and beg to come back, or reoffend the same day to ensure a return to custody.
Why make women a special case? First, as we heard, a high percentage of women prisoners have been victims of violent crime themselves—domestic or child sexual abuse. Women are often primary carers for disabled or elderly relatives and, as we heard, an estimated 18,000 children per year are affected by their mothers being sent to prison. Only 5% of those children remain in their own home. While many are cared for by friends and relatives, some are taken into care. Taking a child into care all too often condemns them to a life of underachievement. Research suggests that children with an imprisoned parent are three times more likely to have mental health problems or to engage in anti-social behaviour. How can you learn in school when you are frightened and confused about what is happening at home? Nearly two-thirds of boys who have a parent in prison will go on to commit some kind of crime themselves.
The consequences for the woman herself are devastating. There is a very high incidence of self-harm in prison. Visiting Holloway, we met the “listeners”—those prisoners there for others to talk to—and got some understanding of all this. Imagine, as a mother, what it is like to be in prison and hear that your small child is unhappy and missing you or, even worse, that they will be removed from the family and never see you again. It was felt that, for both social and economic reasons, alternatives to prison should be sought at every opportunity. Economically, robust community orders for low-level offences make more sense, costing between £10,000 and £15,000 per annum as opposed to more than £50,000 for a prison place, not to mention the unquantifiable ongoing social costs of, for example, children in care, creating future offenders, mental healthcare, et cetera. The positive work of the voluntarily run women’s centres was highlighted to us.
One of the most important recommendations made by the task force report is the need for sustained government leadership and oversight of women’s justice. The ministerial Advisory Board on Female Offenders is a step in the right direction but dedicated government infrastructure such as a women’s justice commission would probably enable us to halve women’s prison numbers, thus enabling some closures of prisons and the reduction of reoffending. This model has already proved transformative with youth justice.
This subject is not new. The 2007 review by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, recommended reducing the women’s prison population. I hope that some progress can truly be made. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Healy on securing this debate. It is an unusual day today, or it seems so to me at least. We have at least two debates in Grand Committee dealing with this sort of issue and there is a debate in the Chamber. It is a bit difficult to decide where you should be at any particular time, but life was ever thus.
I declare my interest. I chair an organisation called Changing Lives, which is based in the north-east but now has responsibility for women’s centres around the country and in Wales. I will mainly say what I have learnt from them in the north-east.
I am not going to repeat the staggering statistics. I am sure the Minister has them in his briefing too. The reality is that too often the criminal justice system treats women as if they are men. I remember, as a Member of Parliament, going into Durham prison. It was a fairly grim, Victorian, old place, and in those days they had the women in the middle of the prison. They had some very serious offenders who had to be in prison. It was a terrifying experience for me to go in because the men would watch what was going on and shout. The food came from there, and the women knew that various other things were in it apart from what was supposed to be.
I have seen some of the worst of what goes on, but I have also seen some of the very good work that can go on. The litany of statistics should be telling the Minister that there is something wrong. We have not got it right. The reality is that women need to be looked at in particular ways. They are different. Their childhood will have been different to many of the men, leading to particular issues and challenges. By continuing to send women to prison, we are compounding the problems that women and their families have and, indeed, that society has. We also know that it is the most expensive option by a long way. It is expensive financially but it is also hugely expensive socially, emotionally and in terms of the health of communities in this country.
Changing Lives supports women across England and Wales but our specialist knowledge of engaging female offenders originated in the north-east. We were one of the first organisations to receive Ministry of Justice funding following the Corston report. Our interventions demonstrated a 44% reduction in frequency of offending, and after two years at least 20% had stopped their offending and had stopped their addiction, and so on. The figures are very significant but also offer hope. In other words, there are alternatives which work. The Ministry of Justice continued to fund that and saw it as one of the most successful programmes.
We have a model which we are now rolling out in other women’s centres—but I have to tell the Minister, it is exceptionally challenging. I do not get this briefing from my charity because it never wants to be controversial—but it is challenging. The funding comes on an annual basis. The new funders do not look at historic experience and knowledge of what works, and therefore we have to find additional funding. The reality is that there are models that work. I hope that the Government will have another look at getting more stability in funding—one year is simply nonsense —and that they will also work with the judiciary and the magistracy, so that they understand that there are alternatives that will work better and be more effective financially and socially in our local communities.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, on obtaining this debate, not least because it maintains the momentum on an issue that has been raised countless times on the Floor of the House but always seems to be marked by a lack of progress. I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, mentioned the difference with men, because one thing that I shall never forget is finding on my initial inspection of Holloway that women’s injuries were recorded on a diagram of a man’s body, as there were no diagrams of female bodies available in the Prison Service.
I am afraid that I am going to sound a hobby-horse that I have been sounding ever since 1995 when I walked out of Holloway because I had found, among other things, that women were in chains while they were in labour. I found that there was absolutely nobody in charge of women’s prisons. I went to the director-general, whom I had never met, and said, “Please may I meet the director of women?”, and he said, “There isn’t one”. So I said, “Well, who is responsible for what happens in prisons in the selection and training of staff, and the organising of programmes and of making good practice somewhere into common practice everywhere?”, so as to make certain that what happens in Durham is the same as what happens down in Gloucestershire. He said, “There is a civil servant in the policy department”, but I said, “That’s no good. Who is responsible for overseeing that it actually happens?”. There was no one and there still is no one today.
In the two reports that I wrote on women in prison in 1997 and 2001, I recommended that there should be someone. The Prison Reform Trust recommended in 1999, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, has just repeated, that there should be a women’s justice board like the Youth Justice Board. The three reports of the Fawcett Society all recommended that there should be a women’s justice board or somebody in charge. All that was before the Corston report. Nothing has happened. After I had walked out of Holloway, the Government produced an action plan for that prison, which I supervised by annual inspections, to see how it was being maintained. That was fine while the action plan lasted but, after it had finished, there was nothing. So Holloway has zigzagged up and down, as have all other women’s prisons ever since.
Why have the Prison Service and the Ministry of Justice consistently refused to put people in charge of different types of prisoners and be responsible and accountable to Ministers for what happens? That is what happens in schools, in hospitals and in businesses, but it does not happen in the Prison Service and it is why nothing has happened. We do not need any more reports or lists of good practice. They are there in spades and have been coming out for years. What we need is action to put it together.
I include the women who are out of custody in all this because I am worried about the future under the new system of community rehabilitation companies. The previous Government’s proposal for custody plus failed because, among other things, people were concerned that magistrates and others would take advantage of the system and award short custody because supervision would follow. I know that this is a worry about men but to me it is much more of a worry about women because of the number of short-sentenced women. I say that because I am concerned about the content of the community service that is then required and what is actually done for the supervision. Many of these women come from a dysfunctional background and have pretty chaotic lives. What therefore ought to be done during the community sentence is management to enable them to live their lives better, to look after their children better and to prepare better food. Masses of things could practically be done in a proper community service that was aimed at preparing the women to live more useful and law-abiding lives in future.
There is therefore an opportunity but, again, I see it all going on as a sort of discussion point rather than an action point unless somebody is made responsible for ensuring that it happens and for driving it through. That somebody is not a Minister. I have lost count of the number of Ministers for Children and Ministers for Women whom I have met and who have all come and gone. They have produced a strategy and disappeared and nothing has happened. What you need is an official who is accountable to Ministers for making it happen. They should be held to account and, until that happens, I am afraid that I can see this debate being repeated over and over again.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, for initiating this debate. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that a number of the points that I was going to make have already been made, so I will resist the temptation to make them all over again. Indeed, many of your Lordships will have had the briefings from various organisations that give the statistics, and so forth.
It is undoubtedly the case that the female prison population disproportionately includes those who face huge challenges in their lives. It is also clear that prison is not the best place to address many of the issues that these people face. I speak as one who is married to a person who used to be the head of healthcare in a prison in a female estate and saw it at first hand. That was a few years ago and, sadly, the problems are clearly still there.
We have heard reference also to the effect on the children and wider families of women in custody. The cost is immense. We have heard about the financial cost of the custody element. The cost of the care of those children, many of whom have to go into care, is also huge. Therefore, there has to be an answer that will be good not only for social well-being, for the children and for the women themselves, but also for the public purse.
We have heard reference to one community-based initiative that addresses these points. I will share one other of which I have some experience, the Anawim Project in Balsall Heath in Birmingham, a city where I lived and worked for 18 years. It is a project supported and sponsored by two Roman Catholic charities and with a project leader from an Anglican mission society; therefore, apart from anything else, there is a bit of ecumenical working, which is no bad thing. One of their interventions, the specified activity requirement, has produced a reoffending rate of 1% in those who go through that programme—that is, one in 100 reoffend. That has to be the right way to go forward. In other community-based initiatives, reoffending rates are in the 3% to 6% range. Surely that has to be the right way. It makes sense financially as well as making sense for the well-being of individual women, their families and the wider society.
We have heard concerns expressed as to how the working out of the transforming rehabilitation programme will affect some of this, particularly the community rehabilitation companies. I join others in urging the Minister and the Government to make sure that this issue does not get compounded rather than cured by the way in which the new programme works its way out.
Reference has been made to sentencing guidelines. Clearly, it is important that the judiciary and the magistracy are aware of the alternative responses and of their undoubted efficacy in addressing some of these issues. They should also be aware of the wider effects, particularly on children, when they decide to sentence a mother to a custodial sentence.
Could we cut that figure of 3,899 by 50%, as one contributor has suggested we might be able to do? I do not see why we could not, with the kind of attention that different contributors to our debate have suggested. It should result in a gain for all parties: for the women; for their families, especially their children; for the wider well-being of society; and for the public purse. It is one of those things that should just make sense and I trust that, as a result of this debate, we may see some progress in ways that really make sense.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Healy for bringing this important debate before us.
Many noble Lords have said that giving custodial sentences to women who commit petty crimes does not work. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, the numerous reports and inquiries on this topic all recommend alternatives such as those suggested in the excellent report of my noble friend Lady Corston. Women in prison have special needs which include childcare responsibilities, often poor physical and mental health, self-harm and domestic abuse. One in three has experienced sexual abuse, and about 25% were in care during their childhood. A number will have attempted suicide.
These are inadequate women, made even more so as a result of being in prison. We know that the majority of women in jail have committed not serious but petty crimes. Do these offences really require a prison sentence? There are other ways, mentioned by other noble Lords, which would be of greater benefit to the women and their families. There is a good economic case for looking at alternatives to prison.
The average annual cost of a prison place in England and Wales for the financial year in 2012-13 was just over £36,000—although I have seen other estimates that suggest that the average cost of keeping a women in prison is more than £56,000, compared to the cost of a community order of £2,800 per year and an average £1,300 for stand-alone community-based services. I should have thought that the Government would be very interested in that as it makes good economic sense to look at alternatives, especially given all the budget cuts.
What are the alternatives? The House of Commons Justice Committee report, Women Offenders: After the Corston Report, states:
“Prison is an expensive and ineffective way of dealing with many women offenders who do not pose a significant risk of harm to public safety … we recommend a gradual reconfiguration of the female custodial estate, coupled with a significant increase in the use of residential alternatives to custody as well as the maintenance of the network of women’s centres, as these are likely to be more effective, and cheaper in the long-run, than short custodial sentences”.
The Government’s response said they would set out a new approach to managing female offenders, including setting up an open unit at Styal to accommodate 25 women, and providing support work outside the prison. The aim is to make each custodial establishment in the women’s prison estate a resettlement prison, and to support women though the gate on release. This will be driven by the Advisory Board on Female Offenders.
In its most recent report in March, the Ministry of Justice gave an update on the Government’s delivery of strategic objectives for female offenders. It sets out its objectives for the year ahead, with the idea of supporting women in maintaining links with their children and family; helping women to find suitable housing on release; ensuring that women’s prisons have the strongest possible focus on employment; using the Advisory Board on Female Offenders; and, this year, starting with a particular focus on Wales. We do not have women’s prisons in Wales, and we certainly do not want any, but we would welcome the community approach that we have in Cardiff. What does the focus on Wales mean?
What is happening with Askham Grange in Yorkshire and East Sutton Park in Kent, due to be closed? They are regarded as having successful records in encouraging rehabilitation and enabling mothers to remain with their children. Because of protests, the closures have been halted for some time. Although the closure of prisons is to be welcomed, we should not be closing women’s prisons before all the alternatives are set out, otherwise we will have overcrowding. Can the Minister also say how the ambitious aims of the MoJ in its year-ahead objectives will be achieved?
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, I join the chorus of congratulations for the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, in achieving this very valuable discussion. Most of the ground has already been covered in the preceding speeches. I do not resent this in any way; they were ably saying what I would have tried to do on the subject.
I declare my interest as chairman of the Prison Reform Trust, a post I am extremely proud to hold. One of the recent achievements of the trust was contributing to the campaign to get general recognition in legislation that women prisoners are different and need special consideration. I am very glad to say that, as a result, and with the Government’s acceptance, Section 10 of the Offender Rehabilitation Act now makes that clear. I will use my limited time to say why that could now be the catalyst which is needed for what should have been achieved so long ago, in consequence of the excellent reports there have been. I am sure there is truth in what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said about the lack of an individual to drive a programme of reform. However, I am happy that Section 10 gives hope to those who want a special programme for women offenders.
Things are already happening which could be significant for the future. First, there is the Prison Reform Trust’s three-year programme involving a number of those operating in this field, particularly the Pilgrim Trust, with the sole aim of reducing the imprisonment of women. It focuses on the particular difficulties that women in prison undoubtedly have, and I am sure that it will lead to beneficial results. I also refer to another, more recently initiated, programme which is spearheaded by the Mayor of London, the Prison Reform Trust and others. This focuses on finding out what really works, over time, for women prisoners in London. There is potential funding for this programme from lottery sources. If these funds could be made available, this could transform the situation. If the lottery makes this one of its primary targets—as I hope it will—it would be just the sort of initiative which is needed. I am sure the Government will respond positively to any of its recommendations and give it their backing.
Those who have ever had anything to do with prisons know that there are particular problems both because of the needs of women prisoners and because the female prison population is small, relative to the male one. The very small number of women who should be in custody need to have sentences which allow them to maintain connections with their children and the locality to which they will return after they complete their sentence.
Somehow we must recognise that fulfilling the requirement of Section 10 means that the sort of centres that have been talked about today are the obvious option. Where we must imprison women, we should do so in small centres in the locality so that they can maintain, as far as possible, the links with their family. I very much hope that when we come back to this subject—as we will, almost certainly—we will find we are progressing along that path.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, just said about the need for small prisons and prisons near to women’s homes. That is very important.
This has been an excellent debate. I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Healy. Like others, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Corston—who is unfortunately unable to be here this afternoon although she very much wanted to be. Her invaluable report in 2007 focused on,
“the need for a distinct, radically different, visibly-led, strategic, proportionate, holistic, woman-centred, integrated approach”.
Seven years on, there is still much more to be done to prevent the lives of women and their families being torn apart by the lack of action to address issues connected with women’s offending before imprisonment becomes a serious option. The decline in the number of women prisoners is welcome but there are still far too many women in prison. Why are so many women prisoners on remand? As my noble friend said, much more needs to be done with the magistrates and judiciary.
As a result of the Corston report, much was done with the support of the last Labour Government. There was funding to start building a network of women’s centres, mandatory strip-searching in prisons was ended and governance structures, including a cross-departmental women’s team, were established. I recognise what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. When women first enter a prison, they are now treated with dignity and are able to make contact with their children to ensure they are being properly cared for.
Sadly, this Government have not maintained the momentum. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, where is the sustained government leadership on this issue? As the Justice Select Committee report on the Corston agenda said:
“In the first two years of the Coalition Government there was a hiatus in efforts to make headway”.
The reforms put in place were, it said, clearly designed with men in mind. As my noble friend Lady Armstrong said, too often prisons treat women as if they were men. Instead of a proper women’s strategy, we have a government agenda which the committee judged to have been,
“produced in haste with insufficient thought”,
and that fails to make progress or commit to improve the rehabilitative services and outcomes for women offenders.
Why have the Government proposed the closure of the open prisons in Askham Grange and East Sutton Park despite both having a proven track record of encouraging rehabilitation and enabling mums to remain with their children? The Government appear to have abandoned the women at risk agenda. Not enough is being done in relation to evidence-based rehabilitation and prevention, without which women suffer. The decline in the number of women given custodial sentences is not sustainable.
As has been said, prisons are rarely a necessary, appropriate or proportionate response to women who get caught up in the criminal justice system. Of course, there will be cases where women need to go to prison but we must ensure that these environments support and promote an easier transition back into society. Many programmes up and down the country have been mentioned this afternoon. I cite the excellent example of the social enterprise in Eastwood Park prison, where the women make quality and beautifully presented soap. I am proud to be associated with that programme. The women gain skills, dignity and confidence. They leave prison with a little more money in those first days of freedom when they are most vulnerable.
As noble Lords said, good practice should be common practice. Reducing offending is a vital goal but so, too, is preventing women from falling into the criminal justice system in the first place. As the Prison Reform Trust said, most solutions to women’s offending lie outside the prison walls. This is where women’s centres play such a crucial role. They provide support and care for those who have suffered domestic abuse or have mental health problems. Appallingly, this is likely to be the majority of the female prison population. More than half of the women currently in prison have reported suffering from domestic abuse, and women in custody are five times more likely to have a mental health problem than women in the general population.
The centres also offer educational and skills support to the 40% of women offenders who left school before they were 16 and the 10% who left before they were 13 years old. When 58% of the women identified unemployment and lack of skills as contributing to their offending, it is crucial that these resources are available to women across the country. What safeguards are the Government putting in place to ensure that the new providers will continue to fund these vital centres?
I hope that this afternoon the Government will demonstrate that they really are taking seriously a reduction in the number of women being given custodial sentences. The women, their children and our society deserve no less. This afternoon, we have heard many fine examples of where the Government and we as a society, and our communities, can do better. We must do better for the benefit of these women and society.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, on securing this debate. Your Lordships have long had an interest in the plight of female offenders. I am sure that noble Lords will not misunderstand me if I say that a number of them who have participated in this debate are very much recidivists in addressing the issues that we must confront.
Noble Lords will, of course, know that the decision to send someone to prison is a matter for the independent judiciary. Courts take into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender in determining this, including whether the offender is a primary carer, as will often be the case. Courts must consider custody only where they are satisfied that the offence is so serious that neither a fine alone, nor a community order, can be justified—the so-called custody threshold.
I should declare an interest as having sat as a recorder for some 10 years until relatively recently. I can tell the Committee how slow someone in my position is to send a woman to prison, for all the reasons that have been so ably outlined in this debate. In fact, I can hardly think of an occasion when I had cause to do so.
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 introduced a new provision which means that people should be released on bail if it is unlikely that they will receive a custodial sentence on conviction. That provision should go some way to dealing with the point made by a number of noble Lords about women who are remanded and then ultimately not sent to prison when their case comes up for sentence.
As was acknowledged by a number of noble Lords, custody must be available where appropriate, but only when the thresholds are passed. I should be absolutely clear that the Government are committed to making sure that all offenders are given the support they need to turn their lives around. That commitment is central to our transforming rehabilitation reforms. We also recognise the need to address women’s specific needs where these differ, as they often will, from those of men.
Noble Lords will recall that the Government published their strategic objectives for female offenders in March last year. These are aimed at reducing the number of women in custody—which is desirable for all the reasons that have been given throughout this debate—by making sure that women receive the support that they need in custody and in the community to address the factors associated with their offending. Those are fine words, but what do they mean in practice?
First, our transforming rehabilitation reforms mean that those serving sentences of less than 12 months will, for the very first time, be subject to statutory supervision, including a licence period in the community aimed at supporting successful community reintegration and rehabilitation. As was rightly pointed out, proportionally more women than men are serving short sentences, so they, in particular, will be beneficiaries of this element of the reform.
The companies bidding for contracts under our transforming rehabilitation reforms must demonstrate in their bids an effective approach to the identification and recognition of women’s needs to make sure that those needs are properly addressed. To assist, we have made available guidance which identifies the key gender-specific factors associated with women’s offending and provides signposting to specialist services. The contracts will also require providers, where practicable, to give women the option of being interviewed in a women-only environment, having a female supervisor and not being the only woman in an otherwise all-male group on, for example, unpaid work, subject to any requirements.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, quite rightly drew attention to Section 10 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I join him in paying tribute to the Prison Reform Trust in this context. Section 10 relates to female offenders and was widely supported across the House. It came into force on 1 June and the new requirement specifically to address the concerns of female offenders will apply both to contracts with CRCs—community rehabilitation companies—and services provided by the new National Probation Service.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger raised the suggestion of a women’s commissioner, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, suggested someone with overall control of women’s prisons, an official or even a Minister. All those points have been made eloquently before. The Government do not think for the moment that that is appropriate. It would be a significant cost at this time. However, I hope and believe that the provision of Section 10 will be something of a catalyst—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said. Together with the other initiatives, it should help to address the many issues that have been identified in this debate.
We are working towards ensuring sentencers have robust community options at their disposal. Under the guidance of the Advisory Board on Female Offenders, we are working with Greater Manchester to develop a pathfinder that will look at how we can provide robust and effective sentencing options in the community for female offenders that may divert women from custodial sentences, where appropriate.
We are also working with the Department of Health, the Home Office and NHS England to develop a model for youth and adult liaison and diversion services at police custody and courts. That service will assess and refer individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including mental health problems and substance misuse. Those with mental health problems represent a considerable proportion of women who are or might be sent to prison. The Department of Health has committed £25 million this year to test a liaison and diversion model in 10 different areas in England.
For women who are given custodial sentences, we are making changes to the women’s custodial estate to keep women closer to their home. This is one of the issues raised during this debate. It will help them to maintain links with their children and families and also support them to get the skills they need to find employment on release. We are increasing capacity at prisons close to conurbations, including giving priority to Welsh women at Eastwood Park. We are also improving access to interventions and resettlement opportunities across the entire estate, supported by the fact that all women’s prisons will become resettlement prisons.
I was asked questions about Askham Grange and East Sutton Park. I cannot discuss the Government’s intention to close these open prisons as this is the subject of ongoing litigation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, may know. However, we are reconfiguring the estate to allow women to be held closer to home, for the very reasons that have been identified by a number of noble Lords.
In addition, an officials’ sub-group under the Social Justice Cabinet Committee has been set up to examine the relationship between women’s offending behaviour and debt and finance issues. The support of the SJCC for this work is a good example of the progress we are making. We will continue to work with other government departments to make it easier in the future for women to move away from crime.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked me about ensuring that community services will be maintained following the transforming rehabilitation plan. As well as the Section 10 requirement, we are continuing to fund women’s community services in 2014-15 and taking appropriate steps. There is not a gap between those existing services and whatever will be provided by the new providers. As the noble Baroness will understand, this is a complex matter, and I will write to her in a little more detail about how we are going to ensure this continuity. I wholly understand her concern about it.
I conclude by saying that the anxiety to avoid sending women to prison is one that is of course shared by the Government and all noble Lords, as is the desire to explore alternative options. We believe that the initiatives we are taking with transforming rehabilitation represent a real opportunity to improve this. As I said, those who are serving a sentence of less than 12 months will, for the first time, be able to get help. I think that noble Lords will be peculiarly aware of the danger that when women, and of course men, leave prison they are lost. They do not know what the next step is and are particularly vulnerable to reoffending and coming back to prison. We believe that this will be significantly addressed by our changes.
We are concerned that the strategic objectives on female offenders will be addressed. The report by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, has remained extremely valuable. Almost all her recommendations have in fact been implemented; I think it was something like 40 out of 43 of them, so it remains an extremely valuable source. I repeat my gratitude to all noble Lords for their participation in this important debate.
Egypt: Human Rights
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the human rights situation in Egypt.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, the recent presidential election in Egypt and the subsequent inauguration of former Field Marshal Sisi as president make this a very timely debate. This week’s visit of the United States Secretary of State to Cairo, as well as the conviction of the three Al-Jazeera journalists, casts a spotlight on the human rights situation in Egypt. The return of the strongman to Egypt once again brings to centre stage the classic dilemma of how we navigate between interests and values in our foreign policy.
President Sisi takes office in the midst of a fiercely orchestrated campaign of repression against the Muslim Brotherhood and civil society activists, and at a time of serious security threats in Egypt and, of course, the region. Since the revolution that ousted Mohamed Morsi from office on 3 July 2013, more than 41,000 people have been arrested for political reasons, among them many youth activists who played such a prominent role in toppling both Mubarak and Morsi. Undoubtedly, Morsi’s rule caused widespread discomfort in Egypt and led to an intensification of violence against Christians and other minorities. His removal was welcomed by large sections of society. Nevertheless, many court rulings against the opponents of the present regime have been nothing short of scandalous. I think of the repeated death penalties handed down to approximately 1,500 Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Minya earlier this year.
We could also mention dozens of other cases where the courts’ harsh rulings are disproportionate to the deeds of the accused in any regard. Press freedom, academic freedom, freedom of thought and speech, and freedom of assembly remain heavily restricted in Egypt. The introduction of tough protest laws and the prospect of ever more restrictive laws on NGOs are all signs of a polarised and silenced society. Taken together, they have contributed to a climate of populist tolerance and a shrinking of the democratic space in Egypt.
In the field of religious freedom, the end of Egypt’s first Islamic presidency has not presaged a golden age for Muslim Coptic relations. Instances of violence and physical intimidation against Coptic Christians remain disturbingly high. Police investigations are haphazard and prosecutions rare. In addition to the targeted attacks against Christians, we are, sadly, witnessing a predictable return to the subtler, pernicious problems of the Sadat-Mubarak era. Egypt’s outdated laws and authoritarian institutions continue to enshrine inequality and discrimination, which breed social tension and religious conflict. The implementation of Article 98(f) of the Egyptian Penal Code, which criminalises contempt for religion, continues to be used against religious minorities despite the new constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion.
At its heart, this is a question of citizenship and what it means to have full membership in the national political community. I am inspired by the words of his Grace Bishop Angaelos, General Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the United Kingdom, when he said that Egyptian Christians need to be seen as citizens on the basis that they are Egyptians who take pride in their indigenous homeland. Before anything else, he called for equal citizenship for all, by which he meant,
“equal rights and equal accountability before the law”,
regardless of religion. Any discussion on religious freedom in Egypt should note that, besides the Copts, the Shiites and the Baha’i suffer from many hardships. These hardships are at least as onerous as the problems encountered by the Copts, but because they are so much smaller in number, their problems do not appear as pressing—although, of course, they are.
Against this background it would be wrong to assume that the presidential elections signal a meaningful return to democracy or even political stability; they do not appear to do that at all. The European Union election observation mission to the Egyptian elections demonstrated in its preliminary statement of 29 May that the elections were administered in an environment that fell short of the principles of the new constitution. Do the Government agree with the assessment that the voting took place within an inherently biased framework?
Although it remains too early to say how President Sisi will act in office, and whether hopes that his political connections with the army will be properly severed, the early signs are not encouraging. Let one small example suffice: the week before last, all branches of the well established Seoudi supermarket chain were raided by the police and temporarily shut down. The owner’s family is alleged to be sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood but the move was clearly designed to ease competition for other military-run supermarkets. Egyptians without personal connections to the army appear to be treated as second-class citizens when interacting with their Government.
I am aware that this depressing picture presents the Government with an all too familiar quandary. I am conscious that Egypt’s current hypersensitivity to foreign criticism means that there might be little short-term prospect of effecting positive change. Yet without bringing these human rights injustices to attention, the stability and prosperity that is currently being sought through repression of these rights is itself undermined. Clearly, the Government should work with President Sisi on development, security, migration and other mutual interests but they must at the same time also maintain clear and critical distance from the regime. I would be grateful, therefore, for the Minister’s reassurance that the Government will continue to argue both privately and publicly that Egypt’s future development, including its stability, depends on a political system that gives a fair and equal stake to all its citizens, and which allows for the free and open expression of dissenting political views.
In addition, I would be glad to know what impact the EU’s Support for Partnership, Reform and Inclusive Growth programme is having on the ground in Egypt. At the very least, I hope that Her Majesty’s Government and their EU partners will not look to assist the stabilisation effort by following the US lead and loosening the restrictions on arms licences that were put in place by the Foreign Affairs Council in August of last year. I recognise the countervailing economic pressures, not least given impending US arms exports to Egypt, but I trust that these will be resisted. The likelihood of an escalating cycle of repression and violence in Egypt cannot be ruled out. The deep divisions of Egyptian society require determined processes of reconciliation. Does the Minister hold out any hope that there might be a reconciling role here for the EU, given that it appears to be the only actor currently able to talk to all sides?
Whatever we conclude about the UK’s short-term capacity to assist Egypt to significantly improve its human rights record, I hope that this debate will serve as a timely reminder that the situation in Egypt leaves the liberties of its people severely restricted. Finally, I hope that it will strengthen our resolve to avoid slipping back into the habits of old whereby the values on which human dignity depend are too readily sacrificed on the altar of political stability.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate. The terrible events and strife in Syria, and now in Iraq, have somewhat swung the media spotlight away from Egypt, leaving an impression, after last month’s democratic presidential election, that the country has emerged from difficult years. However, I was personally rather abruptly shaken out of this view when I met an Egyptian contact at the recent Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. She painted a very different picture of what has really been happening in Egypt this past year. I have never known her to be so anxious—indeed, frightened—about what is happening. She described a situation where security has deteriorated and a suppressive authoritarian culture has been imposed. People are terrified to speak out and any opposition is mercilessly crushed. I shall share with noble Lords some examples she provided and also draw their attention to the plight of women in particular.
Many noble Lords know that I champion the rights of women in developing and conflict countries. Human Rights Watch has long reported that Egyptian women are underrepresented in public life and face endemic levels of sexual and gender-based violence, with the authorities failing to take substantive action to acknowledge the problem or combat it. This adds immense fear and difficulty to women’s daily lives.
In 2011, I visited Egypt with Plan International and saw projects in the poorest parts of Cairo. What I saw was truly shocking. FGM is prevalent. I was told that 91% of women had undergone it, although it is illegal. It is hard to prosecute and is a taboo subject in their society. Most of the women I met were illiterate. There was terrible poverty, which meant early marriage was prevalent, with girls aged 13 to 15 being removed from education, if they were receiving it at all. There was also a market in child brides. Girls were effectively being sold to men who came from the Gulf. They often bored of the girls after a few months and just threw them out. Some of them were already pregnant.
Positively, there was a women’s movement, with a strong women’s body, the National Council for Women of Egypt, and women were starting to speak out. During the revolution in 2011, women stood shoulder to shoulder with men in Tahrir Square to topple Mubarak’s dictatorship. However, these women paid a price, being verbally abused and harassed by male protesters. A few were arrested and subjected to “virginity tests” because they had camped out in tents alongside male protestors. The Arab spring frustratingly brought with it a fundamentalist credo that these burgeoning women’s rights belonged with the ousted dictators and that women in leadership roles was un-Islamic. Therefore in the elections that followed, sweeping the Muslim Brotherhood to power, women’s rights were proactively downgraded. Despite this, during demonstrations last year, women bravely continued to participate, but there was a higher price, a wave of sexual violence, with more than 100 attacks reported in Tahrir Square alone.
I speak about the situation for women because women’s rights are part of human rights and must be given equal consideration, more so when such gender- based abuses are endemic in a country. Creating a strong and resilient women’s civil society is the cornerstone to addressing human rights abuses as a whole.
There is a sliver of light, as on paper there have been some legal developments under the new Government. On 10 June, they approved a law that punishes sexual assault. Although the newly drafted constitution shows signs of improvement compared to its predecessor, when noble Lords consider the wider human rights context being debated today, I expect they will join me in being doubtful as to whether President al-Sisi is the right person to implement these changes effectively. Indeed, he was the senior general who defended the army’s policy of subjecting female detainees to “virginity tests”.
So, I return to the voice of my fearful contact. She told me that independent local NGOs daily verifying data from local sources say that in the six months from July 2013 to 31 January 2014, 3,248 people have been killed on protests, in detention and during police raids. She spoke of the mass arrests which we have already heard about, the 44,163 Egyptian citizens who were arrested between 3 July 2013 and 15 May 2014. More than 9,000 of them have now stood trial. I say “trial”, but in reality there appears to have been an abandonment of democratic legal process. There has been a renewal of pretrial detention orders with people, including children, illegally held for months. Mass trials are resulting in lengthy prison sentences or death penalties, as we have already heard. In one case, 554 Egyptians were sentenced to death, most of them in absentia. The Henry Jackson Society informs me that prosecutors fail to investigate the security forces for the killing of protesters. Not a single police officer has stood trial. Meanwhile, I understand dozens of people have disappeared since July 2013. Savage torture and sexual assault have been reported by 79 protesters held in Abu Zaabal prison after a recent mass arrest and over 100 in Wadi al-Natrun.
My contact reported a worrying clampdown on the press and free speech. On 3 July 2013, at least six TV stations were shut down. Now, only TV stations owned by businessmen supportive of al-Sisi are allowed to work. Local NGOs report that around 27 journalists are currently detained. Dozens of people are similarly detained simply for possessing flyers with opposition slogans.
Death, illegal arrest, detention, a compromised legal process, torture, the repression of free speech and the repression of women are an intolerable situation. Today I join the call for Egypt’s Government to make their human rights record a top priority. But can we have any real hope that there will be any political will for this? I hope that the Minister may offer some reassurance about the situation in Egypt and indicate what influence the UK Government will be able to exert to address the human rights record there.
Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)
My Lords, I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry for calling this debate. Lest we look unusually critical of Egypt, one has to acknowledge at the outset that violations of human rights are, sadly, all too widespread throughout the Middle East, from the Maghreb to the Gulf, with freedom of religion and freedom of speech and association routinely circumscribed and disregarded. Representative government and an independent judiciary and press are deficient or absent in many cases.
There are of course differences, and in some Arab countries there is greater tolerance than in others. I note in passing the acquittal in Bahrain yesterday of a Shiite critic of the Government, Khalil Marzook, one of the leaders of the opposition Wefaq party. As for freedom of religion in Bahrain, its ambassador here is a Christian, and her counterpart, the Bahrainian ambassador in Washington DC, is Jewish. All of us would wish Bahrain well in a process of reconciliation, which, I hope, can include the now-freed Khalil Marzook.
Turning to Egypt, one cannot begin but with the shocking jailing of the three journalists in Cairo just a few days ago. Here I declare an interest as the international trustee of the BBC and as someone who remembers Peter Greste from the time when we both worked together in the World Service at Bush House in the late 1980s. He is a professional journalist of the highest calibre who would acquit himself well in any of the world’s major news organisations. It is no surprise to me that journalists at the BBC held a demonstration on Tuesday in support of Peter and his colleagues.
I have to say that it was shocking to see footage of three journalists held in cages in a 10-minute session in court, being sentenced in two cases to seven years’ imprisonment and to 10 years in the third. It was sadly reminiscent of Europe in the 1930s. Two other British journalists were tried in absentia and, needless to say, found guilty. All this is a chilling warning to the international press, and to the British press, in their coverage of Egypt. Those sentences have been widely condemned. The Prime Minister called them “appalling”, and the Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop—Peter Greste is Australian—considered the sentences to be a serious attack on the freedom of the press. Condemnation came from Governments and press associations around the world.
Egypt is in danger of losing friends, not gaining them. For all his faults, and there were very many—especially his meddling with the constitution, which concerned Egypt’s large Coptic Christian and secular communities—Mohamed Morsi was the only civilian elected president of the Egyptian Arab Republic in 62 years. He was replaced as interim president by Adly Mansour, a judge—but he was not elected. Egypt and Egyptian politics cannot be defined for ever by the limits of the garrison state. Like other Arab countries, it needs to look to models elsewhere, such as India, South Africa and Indonesia—incidentally the world’s largest Muslim country—which have made that difficult transition to real economic development, representative government, protection of human rights and religious tolerance.
There are, sadly, many areas of human rights where conditions in Egypt fall far below acceptable international standards. The reports of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group can provide chapter and verse, including, it has to be said, reports of widespread incidents of torture.
What then should be the attitude of the British Government? I believe that we should act on the words of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and raise our concerns about the case of the three journalists and other human rights violations in Egypt. As a former special adviser to two Foreign Secretaries and the current Secretary-General of the UN, I can imagine the advice that will go forward to Ministers. At other times, I would perhaps have written it. It would include the conflict between human rights considerations and security issues, the importance of Egypt because of the peace treaty with Israel, counterterrorism co-operation and so on. It will not be easy, but diplomacy is not meant to be easy. Our Government need to be tough in addressing concerns about the behaviour of the Government of President Sisi. I therefore submit that this is the moment for Ministers to act, not necessarily publicly but in a robust manner, on human rights violations, which have no place in the fight against terrorism and which are completely counterproductive. The political contest with the Ikhwan—the Islamic Brotherhood—is never going to be won if Egypt continues to undermine human rights in this manner.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has vast experience and is absolutely right to emphasise the significance of what has happened to journalists. This is very sinister, as the whole concept of the freedom of the press is essential to a stable, secure society and to the cause of democracy itself. I hope we can send a very strong message of support from this debate to the journalist community. I take second place to nobody in having to be peeled off the ceiling sometimes because of things journalists say. However, whatever our frustrations, we ought to be congratulating journalists and encouraging them in the crucial role they play for the things we believe in.
I warmly endorse the observations and analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I was greatly heartened by what she said; she ticked off the points one after another. I would like to add and re-emphasise a couple of things. First, I have rather admired the way that the Foreign Secretary has—without qualification—advocated his total conviction on the importance of human rights and the rule of law. It is very important for the Minister to convince and reassure us this afternoon that the Government’s position on Egypt is absolutely consistent with that approach because it would be a tragedy if, by default, the credibility of what the Foreign Secretary is saying was undermined.
It is also important to look at the harsh realities; they have been mentioned but I must repeat them. We have spoken of journalists, but how can the mass trials and death sentences be reconciled with the rule of law and with justice as we understand it? What about the disappearances? When I was rapporteur to the Council of Europe on the conflict in Chechnya, I found this in very real terms. I kept saying to myself: “Think of the mass concern in my country if one child or young person disappears”. People in large numbers are just disappearing. Imagine what that means for ordinary families and people throughout Egyptian society. There is also ruthless, cruel, sadistic torture and all the implications for women of what is happening.
As an old man, I have come to the conclusion that there comes a time when the niceties have to be put in perspective. At the moment, our basic message should be one of solidarity with the Egyptian people. We do not want any rationalisation about how we must be reasonable and so on. What happened in Egypt was, in fact, a military coup. There is no other way to describe it. I was in Cairo when the demonstrations were on. What worried me then was that a number of people with whom I spoke said, “All that matters is to get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood”. I said, “What are you going to replace it with? First, you should not be doing it this way but building up to the next election when you deal with these things.” They said, “That does not matter. We must just get rid of it”. There is a great need for some investigation by historians into what the riots were really about, who orchestrated them and who stirred up the passion there. I think there are some very ugly realities there. I detect the hand of the old guard. I am absolutely certain about that. I suspect the military were very much involved, too.
To conclude, I again emphasise that if we are worried about extremism in the world—I am very worried about it—the one thing we must forgo at all costs is direct or indirect counterproductivity. To try to apologise for or find ways to accommodate the military regime is direct provocation to the cause of extremism and militant behaviour in the Islamic community. We have to be even-handed. I am very uncomfortable about a situation in which we have an inquiry going on about the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood while we may find all sorts of rationalisations for our behaviour on other fronts with Egypt. That is just not even-handed. I look to the Minister to reassure us on these issues.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I took part in two visits this year to Cairo by the all-party group. Egypt has had a deservedly bad press following shootings, mass trials and death sentences. I understand that civilians can still be tried before military courts for certain offences and that some 62,000 people are in prison, many of them facing very poor conditions. This week, the New York Times estimated that 15,000 of them are there for political reasons. Another source in April thought that 2,000 were in pre-trial detention.
As far as I know, there is no process for reviewing cases before they come to court. As a delegation, we met with the National Council for Human Rights. It appeared—certainly to me—that it lacks independence and real authority. Six journalists have been killed and 20 arrested. Five received long sentences after a questionable trial. I am glad that the Egyptian ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office following those verdicts. I note that media control has already failed in Tunis and may yet fail in Egypt.
There are other relevant points. Preachers in mosques will in future have to be licensed and qualified persons—a move intended to prevent extremists and rabble-rousers. Almost all the senior and middle-rank judges were appointed in the Mubarak era and may well have very conservative views. We were told that the Government were funding the rebuilding or repair of 27 churches, mainly Coptic Orthodox, that were destroyed or damaged.
I noted that Mr Amr Moussa, the veteran Minister and former Secretary-General of the Arab League, did not demonise the Muslim Brotherhood as others have done but suggested that the 50-member constitutional committee might have a continuing role in guiding the new Parliament that should be elected before the end of this year. The real test will be whether the Government actively promote common citizenship and equality of opportunity for all. One small and low-cost improvement would be to remove the obligation to show religious affiliation on a person’s identity card.
Given the anxieties of the Egyptian Government about the Libyan frontier and the Sinai peninsula, my fear is that the military will keep a harsh grip on events. Already the state owns a significant part of the media and the many-headed private and commercial media may well feel constrained to act with great caution. The outlook for freedom of expression may not be too bright. It would be good if there could be an independent investigation of the many violent deaths that occurred in 2013, of the alleged torture in prison and of police impunity.
I conclude by asking whether Her Majesty’s Government will combine maximum co-operation for the good of Egypt’s economy and for the benefit of its neighbours with a critical eye on all abuses of human rights, whether these occur against Egypt’s own citizens or they are suffered by refugees who found themselves in Egypt.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I was fortunate to be added to the second visit of the all-party group to Egypt two weeks’ ago on the grounds that on the previous visit it was suggested that it would be helpful if someone with a military background joined the delegation.
I was particularly interested to have, first, a two-hour meeting with Mr Sisi—he was very much Mr, not Field Marshal, Sisi. We all came away impressed with the grasp that he had of the issues that were facing the country and some of the ways in which he said he was approaching them. He said that Egypt was embarked on a road map which had three main ingredients—two of which had been completed and the third was to come. The first was the writing of the constitution by the committee of 50. Like my noble friend Lord Hylton, I was extremely interested in the exposition of this by Mr Amr Moussa, a wise man. It was interesting that the scope of the people included in the 50- person committee was very wide. I definitely share the impression he got that the Muslim Brotherhood was not to be excluded from future discussions because it was very much part of Egypt.
The second part of the road map, of course, was the election of the president. Although people think that he had a vast majority in the votes cast, we were left under no illusion that the general feeling was that it was of votes cast and did not represent that percentage of the population of Egypt. I was gratified to hear that, knowing of the number of people who deliberately abstained, particularly from the Muslim Brotherhood, because that meant that he would not claim it.
The third part, of course, is the election of Parliament. Quite a lot of time was spent on that. Not least, we were interested to learn that guaranteed numbers of women and Christians would be appointed to that Parliament. Although it sounded extremely complicated, there was a kind of first past the post representation all over Egypt. There was then the production of party lists, which had to contain a number of people of different kinds. Then there was a presidential addition of 20. It all seems complicated but at least it is based on a constitution. Certainly I came away feeling that the jury was out and we would be unwise to be too critical of everything that is in train until it has actually happened and we can see what part it can play in the development of Egypt.
The second point that President Sisi made to us very clearly—as has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Williams of Baglan—was that Egypt comes first. As far as he was concerned, gender and religion did not matter. Provided that you put Egypt first, then Egypt welcomed you, but if you put something above Egypt, that was where you parted company. That is where—he did not say as much but others mentioned it—the Muslim Brotherhood had appeared to go wrong, because they had put something above being Egyptian. He went on to criticise the British for our involvement in Iraq and in Libya, and for leaving Libya so soon. Others added a little dagger with the two names of Sykes and Picot, who had successfully mucked up that part of the world. Our status was not as high as we would like .
However, President Sisi said several times that task number one was to put food on everyone’s table, so there was a feeling of reality in all these discussions. The person who most concerned me was the Minister of Defence, not least when he suggested that the internal security situation in Sinai was 85% under control. I did not get the chance to ask him about the other 15%. As a soldier, I have never been able to measure internal security situations in that way. I was interested in the co-operation with Israel over this because, not surprisingly, Israel has as much interest in any terrorism based in Sinai as Egypt has.
The other group which interested me enormously were groups of students, in a meeting arranged by the British Council. I was grouped with a wonderful team of about 15 male and female students from the old Egyptian university in Cairo. Had any of them voted in the presidential election? The answer was no. Were any of them going to vote in the parliamentary election? Again, the answer was no, because they were disillusioned with politics. This was rather sad, because they are the coming generation. They were bright and one just hoped that there was more from that.
So what did I conclude from all this? I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. When I look at the world and consider the national security interests, I look at the geopolitical position of Egypt, the junction between Arabia and Africa and that immensely important waterway between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. We have a very long connection with Egypt. Despite all the human rights problems, I think that the attitude of critical friend is the one that we should adopt.
Finally, the most interesting person we met quite apart from the political scene was the Grand Mufti. I had not realised until he spoke to us that when all these death penalties are passed in the courts, that does not mean that they have been passed. Every death penalty that is imposed then comes to the Grand Mufti and he looks at it from the Islamic point of view. It then goes to the appeal court, then back to the Grand Mufti, then to the president. So I suspect that there is quite a long way to go. That is not to say that I support any of this, but I am interested that there are checks and balances in the system. These ought to be allowed to work through before we damage our position in the eyes of a country which is one with which we ought to maintain friendship—albeit a critical one.
Lord Judd
Before the noble Lord sits down, may I just ask him one question? It would be interesting to hear his research. In this House he is renowned for his stand on the implementation of justice and the penal system. Did he make any inquiries about what was happening within the penal system?
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I did not. I would dearly liked to have done so. However, the 62,000 my noble friend Lord Hylton mentioned are out of a population of 90 million, while we have 84,000 in prison with a far lower population.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, while I quite often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on this occasion I fundamentally disagree with him. I agree that we should be critical friends, but this is a country where there is no proper judicial process, where hundreds and thousands of people are sentenced to death, where journalists are banged up for seven years for doing nothing, where there is no freedom of speech and where women’s rights are totally abused. It is right to be critical, and probably right to be a friend, but I do not share the confidence that the noble Lord puts in the country of Egypt.
This has been an excellent, if depressing, debate, and I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry for tabling the Question. The catalyst for the Arab spring was the struggle for dignity, and I fear that, after three years of challenges and change, few people have had their dignity enhanced—quite the contrary. The current human rights situation is a degradation of dignity. There is no equality of citizenship.
Journalism is not a crime—at least, it should not be—but it is a crime in Egypt. My noble friend Lord Williams spoke graphically about the sentencing and imprisonment of the three journalists on charges that they provided aid to a terrorist organisation by broadcasting falsified news. This, combined with the previous imprisonment of other journalists, makes Egypt one of the worst jailers of journalists in the world. The chilling effect on freedom of speech of imprisoning those who report what is happening in the country is dramatic and it risks shifting Egypt back towards its authoritarian past. This effect will be felt not only by Egyptian and overseas journalists in Egypt but by its people. These sentences can be interpreted only as the military-led Government’s attempt to silence dissent in the country.
In the trial, the prosecution offered no evidence that was publicly available which would have shown that the journalists supported the Muslim Brotherhood or that they had broadcast anything that was not accurate. In fact, there were Kafkaesque scenes in the courtroom. It is evident that what the journalists experienced was very far from due process—in fact, quite the contrary. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will continue to pressure Egypt to release the journalists.
I turn to another pressing human rights issue that Egypt is facing at the moment: women’s rights. There were many brave women protesting in Tahrir Square in 2011, demanding change for their country and society, but their voices have not been properly heard and they paid a price, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said. Indeed, that price grows even higher. Like the noble Baroness, I was shocked to learn that according to UNICEF 91% of married Egyptian women aged between 15 and 49 have been subjected to female genital mutilation. While support for the practice has been falling in the past 20 years, and while it was legally banned in 2008, it is still broadly an accepted practice in Egypt. This acceptance is particularly prevalent in areas with lower levels of education, which underscores the importance of promoting better education for girls. I was encouraged to read that in March this year, for the first time, a doctor was prosecuted for FGM after a 13 year-old girl died in his clinic last year. I hope that this will not be an isolated case and that the new Government take the issue seriously.
Violence against women more broadly has been a grave problem in Egypt. The new Government have criminalised the physical and verbal harassment of women and set harsh punishments for these crimes. However, real progress will be made when enforcement against these crimes takes place. During the inauguration of President al-Sisi, many women were sexually assaulted in Tahrir Square, including a gang rape. In describing the current situation for women in Egypt, Human Rights Watch calls it an “epidemic of sexual violence”. In the past year, Egyptian authorities have taken little action to prevent or investigate violence against women or to prosecute those responsible. According to recent surveys, women face alarmingly high levels of sexual and gender-based violence. This includes widespread sexual harassment in public, as well as high levels of domestic violence. More broadly, women remain underrepresented in public life, are paid less than men and are prevented from advancing to higher positions. It is clear that FGM, domestic violence and street sexual violence are all connected and form a broader pattern of crimes against women.
It is imperative that the new Egyptian Government take the issue of women’s rights seriously, and that it becomes a high priority. However, I have a pessimistic lack of confidence, although I hope it will be confounded. The future of the country as a whole depends on women not being afraid of being assaulted when walking down the street or while at home. A democratic, progressive Egypt must include women from all walks of life, especially in leadership positions. The death sentence on hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members is abhorrent, notwithstanding what the noble Lord said.
Sadly, it is clear that the new Government are cracking down on other political parties to deter people organising and uniting. Party-political activists are fearful of arrest. I pay tribute to friends who are members of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, which has the support of my party, and who have been doing some fantastic work to build and grow their party, but a proposed new law on party politics would ban parties fielding candidates and allow candidates to stand only as independents.
These actions detract Egypt from the secure, stable, democratic future its people rightfully deserve and have fought tenaciously to secure, but voting does not equal democracy. Human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of political expression must underpin any democratic system. I fervently hope that the new Government will come to understand that, so that Egypt can look forward to a fair and prosperous future. I also trust that our Government will be tough, but of course I recognise—as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said—that diplomacy is not always easy.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this Question asks us to assess the human rights situation in Egypt. I have to say that it is poor, and at the moment is getting worse. We all recognise that and the severity of the situation. We also recognise, as the right reverend Prelate said, the conflict between interest and values in foreign policy. Egypt is one of the most important countries in the Arab and Muslim world. It is also an important player in the world economy because of the Suez Canal, and in regional order, because it is Israel’s neighbour and part of the key to Gaza. So we have a complex number of interests there.
I recall that when I first started studying international relations, Egypt was in those days the largest and most important player in the Arab world and the source of influence on other countries. That is less so now because the Egyptian economy is in an extremely weak position and has gone backwards sharply over the past three years. The poverty of Egypt, in contrast to the wealth of the oil-producing states, has to some extent altered the balance. We have to start by recognising that the countries which now support the Egyptian economy and are perhaps helping to rebuild it are the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which gives them much more direct influence on what is happening in Egypt than we have.
We also have to recognise that Egypt has, after all, the origins of the Muslim Brotherhood—an important Sunni player. The Muslim Brotherhood, in a sense, was one way in which to reconcile traditional Islam and aspects of modernity. As such, it is seen by a number of other Governments in the Gulf as being a threat to their rule. The Saudi Government declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation in March this year; that was very much because of its history within Saudi Arabia, in the sense that it is a challenge to the nature of the Gulf regimes.
Therefore, alongside the pressures that we are putting on the Egyptian Government, we also have to recognise that others have different priorities, which are not ours. Her Majesty’s Government have a close and continuing relationship with the Egyptian Government. We speak frankly to them. We have issued a number of statements about the numbers who have been imprisoned and, in particular, about the recent condemnation of the journalists and the liberal activists with whom we were in indirect contact. We have made, and continue to make, our position entirely clear to the current Egyptian Government.
Some participants in this debate have suggested that there are chinks of light. The new constitution has elements guaranteeing the rights of women. If we are to believe President Sisi, he sees his role as being to provide a gradual transition to democracy. We all know that such a transition can be extremely gradual; that is part of the problem we have to bear. The European Union has some influence. Egypt is part of the southern neighbourhood with which we work. We, and others, through, in our case, the Arab Partnership Participation Fund and a number of European Union funds, have been working with bodies in Egypt which want to promote a more open, liberal and equal society.
That is not easy under the current conditions. In the Chamber not long ago, some of us were debating whether foreign NGOs and other organisations are recognised as legitimate in other states. Egypt is as conscious of sovereignty as any other state in this regard. The Egyptian Government’s response to Secretary of State Kerry’s condemnation of the punishment of the journalists demonstrates how difficult it is to get one’s influence through.
That being said, the Government will maintain their dialogue and their strong condemnation of the direction in which Egypt is going. To be honest, we have to recognise that Egypt, like Turkey until recently, has a deep state which is the military—linked to military control of aspects of the economy, the intelligence services, the police and the judiciary. I never entirely understood what was meant by the phrase “the deep state” until I worked on the Cyprus problem many years ago. After funny articles and various bits in the press started getting published attacking me, I met somebody in Istanbul who told me how that had been arranged. There are parallels between Egypt and Turkey. They are not entirely dissimilar regimes, although Turkey is a great deal more developed than Egypt.
Moving the Egyptian regime on from the current privileged position of the military within the state apparatus and the economy is going to be extremely difficult. We have to recognise that, in doing so, we will not be pushing them in the same direction as Saudi Arabia or the Emirates. Thus the Europeans and, to an extent, the Americans will have a hard task to get their messages through. What we saw with the Arab spring in Egypt, as in a number of other countries, was the emergence for the first time of an urban middle class. There is a similar one in Tehran. Iran, after all, has all the tensions between rural elements and educated urban elements that we now see in Egypt, although, again, Iran is much more economically developed than Egypt.
There is a very long way to go in Egypt, and I have not yet touched on the treatment of minorities, the Coptic Church and other elements which we also have a great deal of concern about. We recognise that what happens in Egypt matters for the whole of the Middle East, for the Sunni dimension of the Middle East, in particular, and for the relationship between the Middle East and Europe as a whole. We therefore must maintain our dialogue and our criticism. We need to speak on the rights of minorities and the role of women, as well as the need to accept that the media must be allowed to criticise and that foreign media play a legitimate role in contributing to the national debate. All those messages, which the current Egyptian Government do not wish to hear, have to be repeated on a regular basis.
I think I have covered all the points. I accept what the noble Baroness said about mass arrests, torture, the role of the remarkably untrained and over-independent judiciary and all the problems that we see in that society. We are attempting to train a small number of Egyptian judges but that is also a very large task. The experience we have gained in helping to move the states of eastern Europe through transition shows just how difficult this can be. I recall going to Budapest in about 1995 and meeting my noble friend Lord Lester, who said: “We are having great difficulty in explaining to the judges here that they can rule against the state.” If that was the case in a country as developed as Hungary, the problems are much larger in less developed states and those with no tradition of democracy.
The right reverend Prelate said that Egypt is currently narrowing the space for democracy. Egypt has not yet been a democracy for any sustained period. As we all now understand in this country, democracy is a frail concept which we have to cherish. It is very easy to lose and very hard to build. It will take a long time to build it across the Middle East but we must work as hard as we can, through all the means and with all the allies we have to promote it. I assure him that the Government will continue to make their views clear as we continue a close, frank dialogue with the Egyptian Government.
Lord Judd
My Lords, the noble Lord has been emphasising positive engagement and dialogue. Before he sits down, can he give us a specific assurance that the Government’s representations will include the dangers of counterproductivity and the hard-headed argument that what is happening within the penal system plays right into the hands of the extremists?
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I did not hear the Minister address my question about whether the loosening of arms licences is envisaged, in the light of the recent statement by the US Secretary of State.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I apologise. No, it is not envisaged. There are those who think it is a not entirely happy event that they should have announced that—for good security reasons about Sinai—just before the judgments on the journalists came out. We have no such intention.
Women: Local Services
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to improve how local services respond to women with multiple and complex needs including homelessness, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse and physical and mental health problems.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I start by thanking noble Lords for participating in this short debate, offering what I know will be their valuable insights and expertise. It is very timely that we have an opportunity to consider what more could and should be done to ensure that the well over 10,000 women in this country with multiple and complex needs receive the help that they need to start rebuilding their lives.
These are women whose lives have been blighted by more than one of the following: homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, mental health problems, physical health problems, rape, imprisonment and the consequences of prostitution. If your Lordships believe, as I do, that public services, be they in the public or voluntary sectors, have a moral duty to improve the well-being of the worst off, then the plight of these women demands our attention.
I want to set the scene by painting a picture based on a visit that I made a couple of months ago to a St Mungo’s women’s hostel in north London. The hostel had 29 beds for single homeless women with high and medium support needs. To give an idea of the challenges that these women currently face, let us consider the following snapshot of the hostel’s 28 clients at one point last year. Of those 28 women, 22 had a problem with crack cocaine or heroin, 10 used alcohol problematically, 25 had a mental health problem, 23 had some form sort of physical health condition, 15 had engaged in prostitution, 15 had experienced violence or abuse from a family member and 13 had been in prison.
St Mungo’s is a fantastic facility. It provides women with resources such as access to counsellors trained in helping people with multiple needs and complex care caseworkers, who, among other things, understand the intricacies of the benefit system. Crucially, it also provides emotional support to women regarding their relationship with their children.
However, far too few women have access to somewhere like St Mungo’s. It is clear from both recent and forthcoming research that we need to make a greater effort to consider certain gender-specific concerns about services for people with multiple needs. New research commissioned by the Lankelly Chase Foundation, which will be published shortly, finds that gender matters a great deal when it comes to the causes and effects of vulnerability, and that gender-specific analysis and solutions are needed.
To try to bring to life what I am talking about, more than one in every three homeless women who seek a bed in a hostel will have experienced some kind of domestic violence, as opposed to fewer than one in 10 men. Often, the lack of a safe home is the key reason why these women have no place to live, yet many areas lack any kind of all-women facilities such as hostels, mental and physical health clinics and drug treatment centres. Something is wrong when a woman turns to the state or, indeed, to local services for help only to be offered a situation in which she will feel just as unsafe as she did prior to seeking support.
Of course, I am not suggesting that all men who turn to hostels for an emergency bed are a threat to women’s safety—anything but. However, the testimony from the women at St Mungo’s suggests that some men in these settings do target women. Stories abound of women in drug treatment groups and hostels being targeted by unwanted sexual advances. These women are at their most vulnerable and need a place where they feel safe and secure. For many, given the traumatic experiences of their lives, that place will simply have to be an all-woman environment. If it is a mixed environment, they will at least need a safe place within it.
Indeed, that was a key recommendation in the St Mungo’s report, Rebuilding Shattered Lives, published in March this year. The report found that homeless women have a number of severe interrelated and exceptionally complex problems and that they tend to access support services later than men, when their problems have escalated significantly and they are less ready to begin their recovery. I am aware that this report has been considered by the ministerial working group on homelessness, and I should be grateful if, in her summing up, the Minister could update us on the Government’s response to the report. The report contained recommendations targeted at a wide range of government departments as well as at local service providers.
Of all the terrible things that have happened to these women, for many the worst thing by far is being separated from their children. Given the social stigma attached to having children removed, it is not surprising that many of these women suffer from deep feelings of shame and distress as a result of their loss. They need access to highly skilled social workers and counsellors who are experienced in helping women to deal with the emotional distress it causes, without having to keep telling their life story again and again at each step in the process of accessing services.
In addition to the increased need for a sense of safety and security, there is a pressing need for more gender-sensitive support and staff training. For example, eating disorders are common among women with multiple and complex needs. However, a recent article in Community Care tells the story of a woman who was repeatedly told that her problems with food were due entirely to alcohol abuse, despite the fact that she had been previously diagnosed with an eating disorder.
We also need to think seriously about how the criminal justice system treats these women. Many women with multiple and complex needs end up imprisoned for non-violent crimes such as shoplifting, prostitution or drug-related charges. Women who are imprisoned are likely to be separated from their children and to have further traumatic experiences while in prison. I know that there was a separate debate this afternoon on ending custodial sentences for non-violent criminal offenders. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend because I was speaking in the debate on the voluntary sector; indeed, there seems to have been rather a pile-up of debates on similar issues today. However, I look forward to reading the transcript of that debate, knowing that other noble Lords will have had much relevant expertise to bring.
It should be clear by now that improving the lives of women with multiple needs is part of a wider need to join up more effectively homelessness, mental health, drug treatment, domestic violence, criminal justice and other services, and I am sure that we will hear today about how the troubled families initiative is attempting to do this. It is also an area in which the charitable sector has been making significant progress. As I declared in the register of interests, in the past year I have had the privilege of serving as chair of Making Every Adult Matter, a coalition of the following charities: Clinks, which focuses on working with offenders and their families; DrugScope, which supports drug and alcohol recovery professionals; Homeless Link, a membership body of charities working to end homelessness; and Mind, a leading mental health charity.
One aspect of the coalition’s work is to form a local networks team in localities where those four charities operate. The local networks team then partners with a local authority or other local organisations to develop a plan for how best to co-ordinate the delivery of public services for adults with multiple and complex needs. A good example of this is in Oxford, where the local networks team, in partnership with the city council, met a wide range of local stakeholders to receive feedback on how homelessness services, mental health services and those working with young people could work better together. The next step was to engage the police and public health authorities to continue building this co-ordinated, interdisciplinary network. With such laudable efforts at local level to join up local services, the question must be asked what more central government could and should be doing to improve the lives of the people we are talking about today.
In March, the Fabian Society, in collaboration with CentreForum and the Centre for Social Justice, produced a report entitled Within Reach: The New Politics of Multiple Needs and Exclusions. It highlighted that helping people with multiple needs would require both more collaborative working across government departments and more devolution of power to local level. It really is both/and, not either/or. Recommendations include putting the right financial arrangements in place locally, such as: pooled budgets; allowing local areas to keep savings made through co-ordinated action; and raising new sources of funding, such as social investment. Finally, the report makes a compelling case that national government needs to play a strong role, working collaboratively across departments and between central and local government, including things such as cross-departmental projects, data sharing and pooling of budgets.
In her summing up, will the Minister say what role the Social Justice Cabinet Committee is playing to ensure a more joined-up approach across government in meeting the needs of people with multiple needs, when it last discussed the subject and, indeed, when it last met? If it is not the role of the Social Justice Cabinet Committee to co-ordinate this approach across government, then whose role is it?
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on initiating this debate. However, as she said, it is one of several debates taking place today and some of us have had to choose the one in which we wish to speak.
This is a very important issue. I declare my interest as chairman of Changing Lives, which is a national organisation, although it is based in the north-east. It started as an organisation for the homeless, working almost exclusively, but not quite, with men. Now it is a very different organisation working with clients with complex needs, the majority of whom are women. That has presented the organisation with lots of challenges but has also energised it and, importantly, has brought about new thinking and new ways of working.
I, too, have read the document produced by the Lankelly Chase Foundation which will be important in guiding those organisations looking to work with women with complex needs across the board. I was also involved in some of the early meetings at St Mungo’s which led to its Rebuilding Shattered Lives report, which is a significant piece of work.
When I was Social Exclusion Minister, my department studied what causes people to end up with such enormous problems with which the state hardly comes to grips. We did a scoping study in a north London borough, looking at the people who turned up in police cells, at mental health projects, A&E and housing departments, and found—surprise, surprise—that the same people turned up at the different agencies on different days. They did not turn up at agencies where they had recently upset someone; they went somewhere else. They were looking for assistance but no one was getting hold of the underlying issue. That is one of the things that I want the Minister to think about. These women were frequently labelled as being addicts, having mental health problems, being homeless or whatever, but we need to ascertain who will work with them in a locality to understand what their problems are and to find practical ways to deal with them.
I helped set up one of the very first women’s refuges in Sunderland 40-odd years ago. However, even I underestimated the impact of domestic violence on some women’s lives. It has affected many more women’s lives than we ever imagined. I have read the Troubled Families Programme case studies and they are deeply shocking. Every single case study talks about the prevalence and acceptance of violence. That violence is also seen and experienced by the children in these families. One never actually changes the experience of those families, to which the children are exposed as they grow up.
One of the best things I ever did as a Minister was bring to this country what was called in America the Nurse Family Partnership. We rebranded it the Family Nurse Partnership. The results were staggering. The personnel involved in the partnership work with young women when they first become pregnant on the issues that they will face as new young mothers, and tackle their addictions and alcohol problems. I urge the Minister to go out with some of the nurses. In the second session, they look at the image of the brain and go through what happens. Surprise, surprise, the young women realise that if they change their behaviour with support, the outcomes for them and their children are going to be better. When the child is 15, the outcomes for the mother and the child are phenomenal. I encourage people to look at that. I congratulate the Government on having expanded what the previous Government did on this.
As we do more work with women, we are becoming more convinced that these early intervention programmes are very important and that we need to look at them much more carefully. We have a lot of addiction services and try to work with women in women’s centres in a holistic way, but we have one project that I want to tell the Minister and noble Lords about. It is a residential project for women with their children. They are there for about six months and follow very intensive parenting programmes. They are women who have lost one or more children into care or are danger of doing so if they do not sort out their problems and their addiction. Last week, we had a shocking report about the number of women who continually show up in court, with their child going to be taken into care because of their addiction, behaviour problems and multiple complex needs.
We are demonstrating that you can change behaviour and opportunities. At one level, it is ridiculous because the NHS said it wanted this programme and paid for it. It is now jointly done between the NHS and the local authorities. It started by the NHS not being able to refer people because we work on the abstinence model only, and the NHS kept upping the methadone, which made it impossible for the women to undergo the programme. We think we have now sorted that, and the local authority, without bidding, now talks to visitors looking at the programme and the work that is being done about how much money it is saving and how much better the outcomes are. There are programmes out there. I urge the Government to look at them with more care and to work together—rather than have the rows that I know sometimes go on across government—to begin to change opportunities for these women.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on obtaining this debate. Having taken part in the earlier debate, I am very glad that this debate leads on from it. I am also very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, because what she has just said coincides with the themes of what I was going to say about joined-up government and cross-party work.
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I come at this initially from a criminal justice system point of view, because as Chief Inspector of Prisons, on the first night of my first inspection of Holloway, I was very taken to find a remarkable organisation then called the Bourne Trust, now called the Prison Advice and Care Trust, running a first-night centre in Holloway. Volunteers were asking the women what problems they had. They were, of course, staggering, and they were otherwise unknown to the prison authorities. Women coming into prison brought all sorts of problems which had nothing to do with the daily routine in the prison but which dominated their thinking, such as their children, their accommodation and so on. If there is one Act of the 1992 Conservative Government I would wish to be repealed it was one that was passed just before that Government left office when the then Secretary of State for Social Services, I think, passed a rule that anyone leaving their council property for 13 weeks or more lost it. That period I thought was far too short, not least because of the time people spend in prison. How on earth is a woman coming out of prison with £46 going to restart her life, having lost the property and everything in it, and the children gone? The time allowed used to be a year. I cannot think why it was taken to 13 weeks, when all the advice was not to do so. It was done. Look at the damage that it has caused.
The Chief Inspector of Prisons has drawn attention to the vast number of women with complex problems, in particular mental health problems. More than 70% have least two personality disorders of some kind. That does not mean to say that they are mad, but that there is something impacting on their behaviour, which can be identified. If it can be identified, something can be done. Then there are the 50%-plus who have been victims of domestic violence, and 47% who have attempted suicide. More than 60% have children under 16. There is substance misuse. There are the numbers who have been in care, and so on. Add it all up and it is a pretty complex problem. What on earth can the Prison Service do during the very short time that it has them there, other than identify some of these problems? It can do very little. That is why I am so glad that the noble Baroness included the phrase “local services” in her title. That is why I agree so much about the need for a joint approach. It does not matter where these problems are identified. Their solution is going to happen in the community. It is essential that anyone who discovers any information that can help that treatment is made to pass it on to those who can do something about it.
I am chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, and we recently conducted an examination of the links between social disadvantage and speech, language and communication needs. It was a very revealing report and it entirely endorsed the proposal that every child should have their communication abilities assessed by the age of two, to enable them to engage with education. I hope that that is going to come to something. We found outstanding examples of where the problems of mothers and children were being looked at by people outside the normal structure. For example, in Stoke, the lollipop men and dinner ladies were being trained to identify children who might have problems, which could then be followed up. That was intelligent, because they come into contact with people in a different situation.
I was very interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, said about eating disorders. I am also vice-president of the Institute for Food, Brain and Behaviour, which concentrates on nutrition. We have carried out work both in a secondary school in Dagenham and in young offender institutions, proving that the right mix of vitamins, minerals and fatty acids can improve behaviour and so can improve comprehension. Of particular value, because of the influence that it has on the growing brain, is starting the right nutrition during pregnancy. Here again, one feels that the complex needs are being exacerbated by a lack of complex education for the women. They need to know what is best, particularly in order for their children to avoid their growing up with the same complex needs.
In an earlier debate this afternoon, I appealed yet again for something I have been appealing for since 1995—a women’s justice board with somebody responsible and accountable for looking after the needs of women in the criminal justice system, whether in custody or in the community. I particularly say that now, in view of the new transforming rehabilitation rules whereby people on short sentences are going to be put under supervision in the community.
The number of women on short sentences is proportionately vastly more than the number of men. The attempt by the previous Government to do something about this— the “custody plus” scheme—failed because of the concern that magistrates in particular would take advantage of the fact that people on short sentences would be supervised, and therefore award them short-term custodial sentences in order to get the supervision. There is a danger that that might happen now.
I am worried about the content of the supervision because, bearing in mind how many women have these vulnerable and complex needs, it is essential that whatever supervision they are given is directed at challenging those needs and educating the women to live better lives as a result. It could, therefore, be termed a positive, provided that it is properly orchestrated—and it will be orchestrated only if someone is responsible and accountable for the orchestration. That does not mean a Minister who is overseeing it: it means an official who is responsible for seeing that it happens everywhere, that people are trained to do it and that it is followed up. Bearing in mind the fact that this kind of work will be covered not by the old Probation Service but by people on contract to the new community rehabilitation companies, it is even more important that someone should be put in charge.
Everyone has got to pull together—those in the criminal justice system and those outside—in order to make certain that these women are helped to overcome some of the problems that are exacerbated by their wide-ranging and complex needs.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for keeping this vitally important area high on the agenda. I confess that I was slightly reticent in putting my name down to speak today because it is not an area in which I am an expert. However, I find myself regularly bumping into people who are involved in it and come across it as a matter of real concern for us. Certainly we are discussing a complex subject which affects women in many different ways and impacts on a wide range of agencies—police, health professionals, probation services and statutory and voluntary groups which are working in homelessness, substance use and abuse, human trafficking and so on.
It is interesting that a theme is emerging about the importance of multi-agency working and joined-up thinking, which seems to have caused so many problems in trying to move this area forward. In talking about the topicality of this subject, I noticed a few days ago reports from West Yorkshire Police that it received twice as many calls reporting abuse after England’s first match against Italy in the World Cup, much of which was domestic violence. This is not just a general problem: we see it at key flashpoints. Certainly it becomes more difficult around Christmas and on the very occasions when people want to have a more relaxing time. Indeed, it seems to be those flashpoints that are so difficult.
My personal interest in this area arises from some of the churches in my diocese which are involved in supporting women with multiple and complex needs, not least through raising money, donating clothing and food and in many cases acting as volunteers. The Mothers’ Union also does significant work in this area. Within the diocese of St Albans we have members who are actively involved in contact centres, in the prisons in Bovingdon and Bedford, the Women’s Refuge, the mother and baby home in Bedford and Manor Farm Family Centre in Sandy. Some years ago, my cathedral was one of the main funders in the early years when the St Albans and Hertsmere Women’s Refuge was being set up. I pay tribute to the work of such organisations.
I do not want to use the short time available to describe the problems—they are all too evident and well documented—so I will home in on four areas. First, let me say something about the funding of this vitally important work. It is difficult to get hold of hard evidence but it is fairly clear that funding is declining. Like everyone in your Lordships’ House, I am well aware of the financial constraints facing us in many areas, not least the problems that local councils face. However, it is vital that councils and the NHS maintain a basic level of support, not least because a lot of money going into this area is matched by funding from companies, charities and churches. We cannot solve the problem with just the voluntary sector being expected to pick up these extraordinarily complex problems.
Secondly one of the main problems for women with multiple and complex needs is affordable housing. I know this is stating the obvious but if we do not address it we are not going to get very far. When women are identified as having this need we must find a way to ensure that it is addressed with some kind of housing support, especially in places such as London where rents are prohibitively high and in situations such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, where people are coming out of custody or prison. I do not intend to trespass on the deeply conflicted area of how we find that support, whether it is through rent caps or finding additional funding. However, unless the accommodation issue is sorted out, we are actually immediately moving people coming out of hostels or whatever back into a situation which is much worse than before.
Thirdly, I am aware that there is a pretty vigorous debate on the Troubled Families programme, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned. I have been watching this subject and have asked one or two questions on it in the House. From talking to noble Lords and other people involved, I have picked up the fact that one of the most effective aspects has been the appointment of key workers. Their job is to ensure one point of contact, so that people do not fall between the various agencies, that there is data sharing and that there is a champion who will be a friend. The key is trust: in my own—limited—experience and that of everybody who talks about this, building up a strong, one-to-one relationship is absolutely crucial if we are to move forward.
It is interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, described graphically the way people turn up in place after place for all sorts of reasons. They may be told some blunt truths, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes they are simply passed from pillar to post. The key worker needs to co-ordinate data sharing and so on. We need something similar with those working with women who have multiple and complex needs. We also need to co-ordinate the financial resources as well as the personnel. For example, I was glad that in April last year the National Offender Management Service provided an extra £3.78 million to probation trusts for the rehabilitation of women. It is crucial that this is joined up to make a difference.
In my previous post I had a number of roles but, particularly, I chaired the strategic partnership in Shropshire. I know that, in some cases, partnership working is now being derided but the great advantage was that we got everybody round the table. As chairman, I had to knock heads together but there were occasions when we got various agencies to start putting funding together and thinking, “Rather than holding on to our bailiwicks and saying we are king of our castle, can we put this together and try to find a way forward that will make a real and significant difference to these people?”. This multi-agency work, with key workers or someone similar who could provide skilled help—by gum, we need seriously skilled help—and know their way round the different agencies and can gain the trust of the victims who are suffering is the way to get this level of co-operation.
Finally, I notice, in passing, that there is very wide variation in the number of successful prosecutions for domestic violence in different parts of the country. The statistics are really rather stark. For example—I have, of course, picked some of the most extreme to make the point—in 2013 just 4.2% of reported incidents of domestic violence in the Thames Valley resulted in prosecutions, but in Cheshire it was 21.7%. Would the Minister agree to write to chief constables and the Crown Prosecution Service to highlight these discrepancies and see whether there is either some way to ask people from those areas where it seems less effective to go and learn from those where it is clearly more effective, or in some other way to learn how to achieve more effective rates of prosecution? That may prevent some of this in the first place.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on initiating this debate and thank all the speakers who have spoken. It strikes me that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is multitasking this afternoon with the number of debates in which he is participating. At my count, there are also five Bishops taking part in debates this afternoon. It is absolutely wonderful when they bring to us the value of their experience. I also thank my noble friend Lady Armstrong, who brings huge wisdom and experience to this field.
This debate has shown that, without doubt, we have a very serious problem to address. As several noble Lords have said, women who are homeless tend to have multiple and severe support needs, including high levels of poor mental health, loss of and separation from their children, and drug use. Women who are homeless also progress more slowly than men towards recovery when the services are not tailored to meet their needs. We know also that the price being paid for these shattered lives, as the St Mungo’s report calls it, is huge. It is a huge price for these women, their children, their wider families, their communities and indeed the state because of the resources needed to put their lives back together and support them back into health, work, homes and relationships. Sometimes the price they pay is their own lives.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned domestic violence. We know that domestic violence has a part to play in this complex and sad web. We also know that it is not only an urban problem. It is important to say that. I have the statistics for homeless women in London and, like the right reverend Prelate, those for domestic violence across the country. However, I wonder how many more women will end up homeless or dead because of the cuts to our domestic violence services.
For example, the Gloucestershire Domestic Abuse Support Service has seen a 35% rise in the number of calls and referrals from women and girls suffering from domestic violence in Gloucester over the past 10 months. I also remind noble Lords that three women have been murdered in that county. One of these women was Hollie Gazzard who in February, at 20 years old, was stabbed to death at her workplace in Gloucester city centre by her ex-boyfriend. Another was a 16 year-old, Kayleigh-Anne Palmer, who was strangled and died a few days later. She was pregnant. I pay tribute to the family of Hollie Gazzard who, in the wake of that, have established the Hollie Gazzard Trust, which will help to support and finance a programme to be taken into schools to help educate teenagers on how to identify abuse and subsequently deal with it. Prevention seems to be one of the key things in this debate.
Women make up 30% of the clients of single homeless accommodation projects in 2014. There were 786 women recorded as sleeping rough in London in 2012-13, which is 12% of the total. Around a quarter of the clients of St Mungo’s Broadway are female. I congratulate St Mungo’s on its excellent report Rebuilding Shattered Lives from which I, like other noble Lords, have drawn much of my information. I am aware that this problem and that of supporting families and women would be much worse without the work of voluntary organisations and charities such as St Mungo’s. Indeed, today I was visiting the Ismaili Centre in Kensington and learnt that, next weekend, that faith community in London is collecting and providing thousands of food baskets for distribution among many organisations, including St Mungo’s. As the right reverend Prelate said, local organisations and their work are absolutely vital.
It seems clear that the true number of women who are homeless is probably higher than the statistics show. Women take care to hide themselves when sleeping rough and many more will be the hidden homeless, those living outside mainstream homelessness accommodation, sofa surfing, trapped in abusive relationships, living in crack houses or engaging in prostitution.
The problems that women face in becoming homeless, as the noble Baroness has said, are multiple and complex. Addressing these problems requires concentrated and co-ordinated action across government departments and at a local level. For example, the reports of my noble friends Lady Corston and Lord Bradley have demonstrated how taking an overarching view of complex issues and identifying practical solutions across the relevant services is an effective driver for change. We strongly believe that understanding how to support women to be independent and, importantly, to prevent them becoming homeless would not only be transformative for those individual women but also financially prudent. Indeed, changes to the welfare system have had a disproportionate effect on women who are most likely to be dependent on benefit income, including housing benefit.
The facts are before us and, like other noble Lords, I have some questions for the Minister. In 1997, the incoming Labour Government pledged to end the disgrace of youth homelessness on our streets. They largely did so through a co-ordinated, cross-government national and local effort. Does the Minister think that there are some lessons to be learnt and how that might be applied today?
I echo what the right reverend Prelate said about domestic violence. What are the Government doing to ensure that police forces in the country receive training about how to deal with domestic violence? What are the Government doing to ensure that schools educate young people about domestic violence?
On mental health, mental health services have received a 20% cut compared to other health services. What impact does the noble Baroness think that this will have on the women we are talking about in this debate?
I have a particular concern about women’s centres, which have often been pivotal and played a positive role in co-ordinating services to support homeless or vulnerable women. Funding for women’s centres is guaranteed by the Government for 2014-15, but then becomes part of the decision-making process of the private sector bidders who win probation contracts. I would like some assurance from the Minister that the important work of women’s centres will be protected within this bidding process.
Does the Minister agree with her noble friend that strong national leadership is needed to address women’s homelessness? For example, how is the Minister for Housing working with the Minister for Women to consider the needs of homeless women? How is that being focused across government?
Again echoing a point made by the right reverend Prelate, data are very important here. What data do the Government hold on women’s homelessness and have they been published? Indeed should the DCLG publish an annual report analysing existing data on women’s homelessness, drawing together data from the full range of sources available to them? How will the Government ensure homelessness provision includes gender sensitive issues?
The Troubled Families Programme has been mentioned. It is important because there are lessons to be learnt about early intervention. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, says, it seems likely that that provides us with a useful framework for addressing the multiple needs of vulnerable people. Does the Minister agree, and how will the Government take that forward? How will they apply those lessons?
How will the Government respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham? Given the vulnerability of women in prison and the risk of homelessness, it is important to increase the availability of court diversion schemes to women. Are the Government supporting the work of organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust to improve responses to women in the criminal justice system?
These questions have been raised throughout the debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, should be congratulated on holding her own Government’s feet to the fire on this issue. We join her in doing so. This is a long-term issue and therefore not only this Government will need to resolve it. My Government will also need to address it next year.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Although I cannot say it has been enjoyable—it has been very serious—it is obviously vital to ensure that the services we provide are effective and joined-up, as most contributors have said. Perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, because he appears to be taking part in every Question for Short Debate today. That is a marathon effort.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Many noble Lords have asked about the various programmes and funding streams that are available to tackle these issues and so I will go through some of the current initiatives. I turn first to the preventive services, for which the Government are providing £580 million over five years for homelessness prevention. I congratulate councils on this. Early intervention is very important because it stops minor problems from escalating into homelessness crises. In 2012-13, some 202,000 households were helped in this way.
Many contributors mentioned cross-government working and the Public Service Transformation Network, which is a very important aspect of joined-up thinking in the provision of these services. As a local council leader, I saw many an instance of vulnerable people going to different organisations to see where they could get help. When one failed them, they would move on to the next. On cross-government working, the Government have brought together relevant departments, such as health and education, in order that the Ministerial Working Group on Homelessness can help to identify and then begin to tackle the multiple and complex needs of homeless women.
As I am sure noble Lords will know, the Public Service Transformation Network brings together local and national public service providers. Some of the councils which are tackling the way in which they approach domestic violence include Essex, Hammersmith and Fulham and Surrey; they are exemplars of this kind of public service transformation.
There were contributions about helping women to not only get out of domestic violence or homelessness situations but to turn their lives around by giving them skills and basic training in how to support themselves. The STRIVE programme has been effective in this area. The treatment system works hard to respond to the needs of drug and alcohol-dependent women which, as noble Lords have said, can often be linked to both homelessness and domestic violence. It is alert to the changing patterns of use among women so that it can respond and promote recovery and reintegration.
A big issue that I know noble Lords are concerned about is the fact that domestic violence and homelessness are often linked to each other. Services are configured to meet people’s individual needs, and that is how we try to prevent repeat homelessness. Not surprisingly, the majority of those being helped are women.
Turning to domestic violence, the Government have ring-fenced £40 million of stable funding for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services until 2015. I will get back to the noble Baroness who asked about funding and commitments beyond 2015. I will not go through every one of the various services because to do so would use up my entire 10 minutes and noble Lords would rightly feel short changed. However, I will address some of the issues that were raised in the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, specifically requested a Government response to the Rebuilding Shattered Lives report. It is a lengthy report but, basically, on recommendation 1 the Government absolutely agree that homelessness services need to be more than just about providing accommodation. All the issues that noble Lords have talked about have been acknowledged in terms of joining up services and support and a capital fund is available to improve some of the hostels. There were various contributions about joining up the Minister for Housing with the Minister for Women and Equalities. That has certainly been the case. The Minister for Housing invited the Minister for Women and Equalities to be part of the group considering the report.
A point was raised about a choice between women-only and mixed services for vulnerable women. Local authorities are very sensitive to that. Good local housing authorities should definitely provide the option for women to speak to women if that is what they feel comfortable doing. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, raised the issue of girls, the cycle of homelessness and the risk of underage pregnancy. To a huge extent, the Troubled Families programme—which deals with the problems of children not going to school, offending in the family and drug and alcohol abuse—provides a very good platform to help prevent these cycles of problems that often repeat themselves within families. That programme has turned 40,000 families round. That means that the children consistently attend school, there has been an attempt to get work and issues such as anti-social behaviour have either been dramatically reduced or eliminated altogether. That is about a third of the total. There is a huge task ahead of us and the Government are thinking about extending the Troubled Families programme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, referred to the issue of people repeatedly turning up at different agencies to deal with exactly the same problem and cycle of problems, which I have already addressed. She also asked about the Family Nurse Partnership programme. The Government have announced that they will expand this successful programme to 16,000 places by 2015. The evidence shows that the Family Nurse Partnership can make a real difference to young lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, talked about prisons and supporting women in prison. The noble Lord is an expert in this area and I commend the work he does and has done. The transforming rehabilitation reforms mean that all female offenders—many of whom receive short custodial sentences, as the noble Lord said—are supported through the gate and into the community to help reduce their reoffending. We have set up a case supervision system for women with the most complex needs in the custodial estate with the aim of ensuring that they benefit from the most appropriate interventions and regimes available for their particular needs. We have just completed a three-month pilot of a domestic violence helpline at HMP and YOI Holloway. Women had access to the National Domestic Violence Helpline run by Women’s Aid and Refuge, which gave support, help and guidance to those experiencing domestic violence. Following an evaluation, consideration will be given to rolling out the service across the women’s estate.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of mental health, as did other noble Lords. The Government have committed £25 million to introduce a new standard specification of liaison and diversion services in England to identify and assess the health issues and vulnerabilities of all offenders when they first enter the criminal justice system, as opposed to spotting them as they go along.
I will write to the noble Lord on the Women’s Justice Board, if I may.
The noble Lord also referred to a subject that is very close to my heart—nutrition—and I declare an interest as a qualified nutritionist. It is an important issue that rarely gets an airing but nutrition and well-being are closely linked. I thought I would get that one in.
The right reverend Prelate, whom I hope I have called by his correct title today, alluded to several very important areas. One was domestic violence during the World Cup. Yes, as soon as a World Cup is on, domestic violence has the propensity to increase quite exponentially. We are running a campaign during the World Cup to remind perpetrators of the devastating effects of domestic abuse. Noble Lords may have seen some of those posters around and about. We are also supporting the Women’s Aid’s Football United Against Domestic Abuse campaign, which is working with grass-roots football clubs to highlight abuse and the services available to support victims.
The right reverend Prelate also asked whether the cuts mean that voluntary and community groups are taking up the slack. That is not borne out in reality. Certainly in my experience, we worked for many years with local voluntary and community services to tackle many issues faced by the community, all with service level agreements and funding in place. Certainly, the Government fund and work with St Mungo’s Broadway in order to provide the support that it gives to some 25,000 people a year. The right reverend Prelate also mentioned key workers. It is absolutely crucial that there is an identifiable point of contact. Perhaps I could get back to him in more detail on what we are doing. He also challenged me to write to the chief constables of Cheshire and another local area. I am not far from Cheshire and I shall follow that up.
I have gone over my time. If it is okay with noble Lords, perhaps I can follow up some of the final questions with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I thank all noble Lords again for what has been a very interesting debate.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
Will my noble friend undertake to write to me about my question on the role of the Cabinet Social Justice Committee?
Apprenticeships
Lord Cormack
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to encourage craft apprenticeships.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of asking Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to encourage craft apprenticeships. This is a cause very close to my heart. Perhaps I might begin with an illustration. When I sit at my study desk in Lincoln, I look across to the judgment porch of that great and glorious cathedral. It is currently encased in scaffolding, and there will not be any moment in my life when a portion of Lincoln Cathedral is not encased in scaffolding. That is a vivid reminder of the fact that we need and depend upon crafts men and women for the preservation of our great historic buildings and the building of new great buildings. Far too few of them would qualify for the adjective “great” but, nevertheless, there are some.
Occasionally, when I am looking across to the cathedral, I take out my pocket watch, which was bought by my great-grandfather in 1876 and recently repaired by a skilled watch repairer, and I am reminded that that continuing ticking is dependent upon a crafts man or woman. There is a very vivid reminder—my noble friend the Minister has just reminded me of it—in today’s Times, where there is a picture of the statute of St Peter just being completed. It will be dedicated this Sunday, St Peter’s day. In Lincoln, on 31 March, a wonderful new statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary by a very great modern sculptor, Aidan Hart, was dedicated by our bishop.
I say this by way of background. I should also declare an interest as the founder and chairman of the William Morris Craft Fellowships and as patron of the more recently formed Heritage Crafts Association. I shall devote my remarks, first, to the craftsmanship that the William Morris Craft Fellowship is concerned with and, secondly, to the crafts that the Heritage Crafts Association is concerned with.
We formed the William Morris Craft Fellowships some 30 years ago under the patronage of the late Queen Mother and with people drawn from all the major amenity societies in the country. We did so because we were conscious of the fact that unless we could encourage young crafts men and women—I am delighted to say that many of the fellows have been women—to perfect their crafts and learn others, we would not have people capable of overseeing major restoration and conservation projects. We had in mind a wonderful man called John Baskerville who had just presided over the restoration of Calke Abbey, that great house in Derbyshire which is now owned by the National Trust. Indeed, the William Morris Craft Fellowship gave the Queen Mother Memorial Medal to John Baskerville a few years back for his wonderful work. I am reminded in a letter I received only today from City and Guilds that recently Len Conway, who is the principal of the Building Crafts College at Stratford here in London, has received the Prince Philip Medal.
I pay tribute to all those involved in the fostering and developing of crafts, such as the livery companies of the City of London and City and Guilds itself. However, I can illustrate the immensity of their task by saying that the livery companies have been involved with a wonderful new scheme, which provides 52 places and costs all of £2 million. When I consider that Lincoln Cathedral needs something like £10 million in the next few years for its regular maintenance and repair, it puts this very tiny figure in context.
I turn to the Heritage Crafts Association, which has a membership of some 300 individual crafts men and women, who are mostly working on their own. Some 80% of them are self-employed, their average salary is £19,000 a year and in most cases 100% of the cost of an apprentice has to be borne by a single person. The apprentice is not much use until the end of his or her period of apprenticeship, so a craftsman has to make a very real commitment to take on an apprentice. Although my noble friend who will reply to this debate has been immensely supportive and interested, and tried to be helpful, nevertheless we fall between two stools. On the one hand, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills tells us we are a creative organisation; on the other, DCMS tells us we are a trade association. We do not qualify for any of the funding that the Crafts Council gets because it is exclusively concerned with contemporary crafts.
Yet we are in danger of losing many of our crafts. In the 18th and 19th centuries there was hardly a small village, let alone a town, that did not have resident craftsmen. Whether we talk of clockmakers, watchmakers or silversmiths—remember, there were seven or eight assay officers in the 18th and 19th centuries—every town and city, and many villages, had wonderful craftsmen working very hard. Today in the Lake District, the last of the makers of those wonderful oak baskets that you see in your Beatrix Potter books is over the age of 50 and there is not another to follow him. There is only one maker of pocket knives in Sheffield left, and he is in his late 60s. There are only two or three silver spinners, who make the rims for silver vessels. They are all in their 60s. The three surviving scissor makers are, again, all in their 60s and 70s.
We have to do two things: first, we have to encourage our young people in schools to recognise that the crafts offer a challenging and truly rewarding career, in the broadest sense of that word. We should go out into our schools and colleges, encouraging young people to embrace a career in crafts. In Germany, anybody who wants to become an engineer or craftsman is lauded to the skies. Here there is still that slightly—dare I say it—toffee-nosed attitude towards those who are going to work with their hands. However, you cannot work with your hands unless you have an active and fertile mind. Some of the craftsmen working on Lincoln Cathedral are among the brightest, most intelligent and interesting people you could hope to meet. We need to get this message out into our schools and colleges in a way that we have singularly failed to do up to now.
The other thing is that government has to recognise the supreme importance of our crafts, not just as preservers of the past but as makers of the future. A nation that loses these crafts loses part of its soul. As I illustrated in that reference to the apprenticeship scheme, which I warmly approve of and applaud, the sums involved are not great. There has to be a bigger commitment on the part of Government. I am not talking in a party sense at all, because this has to be a continuing thing. The All-Party Group on Arts and Heritage has flourished over the 40 years since I founded it only because it has worked on an all-party basis. There has to be a commitment from all sides of both Houses to recognise the great importance of what I have sought to say this afternoon.
Therefore, knowing my noble friend’s commitment, appreciating the help he has already given and knowing his skills as an advocate within government circles, I hope that he will be able to give us an encouraging reply this afternoon to show that there is a commitment to the continuation of our crafts and an encouragement of young people to consider embracing them.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for his fascinating contribution and for this opportunity to discuss the important role of craft apprenticeships in putting young people on what can be a productive and satisfying career path. It certainly was that for many of my generation, who served craft apprenticeships in the 1950s and 1960s as engineers, electricians, carpenters, bricklayers, plasterers, et cetera—all the traditional manual trades. It was a working-class rite of passage that helped turn raw apprentices into time-served tradesmen, and of course we were almost exclusively men in those days. Then came the 1970s and decades of decline in manual labour with the contraction of the old industries. However, new options opened up for school leavers with the expansion of our universities and the rapid growth of the service sector. Compared to the new jobs on offer, craft apprenticeships for 16 to 21 year-olds were often five years long and poorly paid. Sadly, the money problem persists. Today, an estimated 30% of apprentices are not paid the minimum wage to which they are entitled. In the Queen’s Speech the Government promised to ensure that all employers respect the national minimum wage levels, and it is particularly important that apprenticeships are made more rewarding.
The decline in the appeal of apprenticeships was evident in the figures that confronted the incoming Labour Government in 1997. After 18 years of Conservative government, the number of apprenticeship starts had fallen to just 65,000 a year. Noble Lords may recall that the Blair Government’s election slogan had been “Education, education, education”, with priority to be given to improving schools and increasing the number of young people going on to university. I offer no apologies for that, as around half of all our young people are now in higher education. However, the Labour Government, of whom I was part, also worked to boost vocational training, and by 2010 they had raised the number of new apprenticeships from that 65,000 to 280,000 a year. In addition, we also raised the school leaving age, which is now 17. That helps to explain why the percentage of young people in England not in education, employment or training—the so-called NEETs—is now at its lowest level for 20 years, down to 7.6% last year. Some 81% of 16 to 18 year-olds are now in education or work-based learning, and that figure should rise again next year, when the school leaving age rises to 18.
Labour now sees untapped potential for training in craft skills and our further education sector. The shadow Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt, cites Chichester College in West Sussex as a model that might be adopted nationally. Chichester College is turning out 100 skilled woodworkers a year. Ten of its students have now set up their own furniture-making businesses, while others have helped local craft businesses expand internationally. Given higher status accreditation as institutes of technical education, FE colleges, building on local tradition or identifying new market opportunities, could also be encouraged to produce craft clusters, such as those in Chichester, offering new skills to those of all ages who prefer to work with their hands.
Both Labour and coalition Governments have made welcome progress in vocational training in recent years, and I echo the eloquent appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The number of apprenticeship starts has risen to around half a million a year. There is now a cross-party consensus that employers must take a more active role, and then we can do even more.
However, in this debate about craft apprenticeships, we should note that the top sector for annual apprenticeship starts is now business administration and law. Next comes health, public services and the care sector, and then retail and commercial enterprise. I make it clear that I make no complaint about these rankings. New jobs in these sectors can be very worth while, and they certainly produce a much better gender balance than craft apprenticeships have ever achieved.
In this sectoral table, engineering and manufacturing together now rank fourth, with 66,000 new apprenticeships a year but, to bridge the existing skills gap across that industry, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers wants to see that number double. Perhaps the most alarming gap in the supply of craft skills is in the construction industry, which is responsible for 6% of our GDP and currently employs 2.65 million people, with the majority of those in south-east England coming from outside the UK to work.
The Construction Industry Training Board estimates that over the next five years 180,000 new construction jobs will be created and that 400,000 building workers will reach retirement age. To fill this alarming gap, the CITB reckons that, in total, 120,000 additional apprenticeships will be required by 2019, about 25,000 new starts a year. That is in contrast to the number of completed apprenticeships in UK construction last year—just 7,000. Back in 2010, a key government policy was to reduce our reliance on skilled migrants. Nowhere is that more evident than in construction. In the recent debate on the Queen’s Speech, I asked whether this issue is getting the urgent attention from government that it so obviously needs. I got no reply, but I hope that the Minister replying this evening can help with an answer.
At a national level, I recommend to noble Lords that the Government look again at another Labour Party proposal, which is to link public procurement to the provision of apprenticeships on larger contracts. Sadly, about half of the UK’s largest companies do not offer apprenticeships. The leverage of public procurement could surely change that. Large companies in regulated sectors could also be required to commit to apprenticeship training as appropriate as part of their contractual obligations.
To conclude, I have no doubt that any ambitious but practical policy which offers more young people a greater chance of a craft apprenticeship will have enthusiastic public support. I now look forward, in particular, to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who will surely create a new Lords record when he speaks in his fifth successive debate in a single afternoon.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, mention of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, makes me feel particularly ashamed of what I am about to say. When I saw the subject of this debate, I thought that I knew what I was looking at, but when I started looking at craft apprenticeships, I discovered that really I did not. It is a very complicated field with a variety of ways in. The apprentice or trainee is often much older; different and confusing levels of funding are available; and we do not really know how to advise people. I came to this debate with one idea—how to give advice to people on how to get into this field, but it is clear that we have a problem there. It is difficult to explain a way in, particularly as, as has been pointed out, craft apprentices tend to be older entrants.
We should give better careers guidance to people, but it is clear that careers guidance is particularly bad for those who are not coming out of schools or colleges. I think it is something that we all do. We say, “What I have done is what everybody else should do”, regardless of whether that is what we need. In academic institutions with a graduate-based teaching foundation, there tends to be a prejudice, with people saying that that is the way that others should go. All of us who have followed that route have that prejudice. We have to fight hard against that, and I do not think that anybody would disagree. I know many people who are involved in trades and crafts who say, “Wouldn’t it have been nice to go to university?”. It is particularly odd at the moment because I feel that crafts, trade, building and working with your hands is so popular. It is difficult to switch on our television sets without hearing the praises of good craftsmen in numerous property programmes—or is it just me who finds those programmes when I am trying to switch on the monitor early in the morning in your Lordships’ House, or indeed, in the evening?
Possibly we are missing the trick. We are not saying that it is rewarding—often financially rewarding as well as spiritually rewarding. If legislation is in place that we shall have listed buildings, there is almost a guaranteed market created for some of the work needed and the fact that we will provide funding for such work. There are jobs, careers and ways forward. As has already been stated, these are careers that are valuable in modern building. They augment and support. When it comes to the finer skills, possibly a few will die out in terms of certain types of trade and certain ways of doing the work. Knowledge of those will at least be valuable for museums. Surely there is an ongoing market, but finding your way through is incredibly difficult. Simplification is needed.
I may be the bearer of a comparatively small brain when it comes to dealing with facts, figures and interlocking things. I was totally lost half way through. I knew that it could be done somehow if you were lucky and the wind was with you, and that you smiled on, but after that I would give no advice whatever. I would not know where to go to get advice. I would not know whether it was a one-stop shop to get even the first comments on this. We must look at the way we have encouraged people to go into craft trades, working with their hands, and how we communicate the value of such work. It is quite clear that this answers many economic questions and issues of value both to ourselves and to society. It will be rewarding to the person and society as a whole.
Making this path clearer and more straightforward is a very important facet of how to get the best out of it. I promised myself that I would not talk exclusively about dyslexia and apprenticeships, but will my noble friend comment on how the new access arrangements are going? It is another cliché that dyslexics tended to find themselves in niches where they did not have to do too much writing. In the past they tended to work with their hands. Telling people how to get through to that point would be extremely helpful. With modern technology, the problems with dyslexia are not what they were if you get the right stuff in front of you and are trained how to use it.
My comments about the disabled students’ allowance should probably wait for next week. We shall, however, ask what the Government are doing to make it easier for those who have problems with literacy, due to dyslexia, to access something that they can do, given that they want a qualification. That is a reasonable question. The real point I am making is how we can disseminate the information and educate the population that these career options and paths are available to them, and how this group can be kept informed.
I could reiterate these points but I do not think that anything would be achieved by that. As for the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, making five speeches in one day, I am still betting that he will be more coherent on his fifth one than I have been on my first.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on obtaining this debate. I am extremely glad that he has given me the opportunity to raise this important issue. It has been an extraordinary afternoon. I am pleased that the time limits of these debates in Grand Committee mean that you do not bore too many people. We have debated subjects of extraordinary interest. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for picking up some of the points that were made, which have triggered further thoughts on my part.
My starting point is a speech by Winston Churchill on 20 July 1910 in a debate on the prison estimates, which are often cited in the House in connection with the criminal justice system. In the middle of his speech are the wonderful words that,
“there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/1910; col. 1354.]
Of course, the purpose of that is to say to those involved in the criminal justice system, “It’s your job to find it”. I have often said in the House that the only asset that every nation has in common is its people, and woe betide it if it does not do everything it can to identify, nurture and develop the talents of all its people, because, if it does not, it has only itself to blame if it goes up the spout.
I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, focused on craft apprenticeships. He rightly referred to the phrase “Education, education, education” used by the former Prime Minister, Mr Blair. I have in my study a monograph written by Glubb Pasha, who noble Lords may remember commanded the Arab Legion. It is about empires. His theory is that empires last for 250 years or 10 generations and are driven initially by ambition but peak when higher education becomes available to virtually everyone, after which people become idle, the ambition goes and they focus on education and not on doing things. Glubb Pasha says that the British Empire lasted from 1700 to 1950, but that is a matter for debate.
The Secretary of State for Justice has just announced that he is going to form new secure colleges for young offenders which will focus on education. This morning I was speaking at a conference and there were a lot of questions about what education actually means. I submit that education does not mean just classroom work but rather identifying someone’s talent and developing it so that they can make use of it as a life skill.
I once spent a fascinating morning with the excellent clerk of works at Salisbury Cathedral when its spire was being repaired. He encouraged young people to learn from the older stonemasons, carpenters and window-makers so that the skills were passed on. A great friend of mine who inherited a house in Dorset had on his land an old building with a collapsed waterwheel which he wanted to repair. There was only one man in Dorset who could do it. He asked him to come and do it and the man wisely said, “I will only do it provided you allow me to bring a young person to learn how to do it because otherwise this craft will die”.
When the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, mentioned a college at Stratford, I was reminded of the occasion two years ago when, as a member of the strategy board of the City and Guilds, I had the great privilege of presenting the prizes to the stonemasons and carpenters. Their skill was incredible. I also presented master carpenter certificates, which go back to the 1480s, to people in their sixties who were being rewarded for bringing on apprentices, which takes me to my last reminiscence. On the wall of my study is a beautiful wall clock that was presented to me when I retired as Chief Inspector of Prisons. It was made in Acklington Prison in Northumberland. The work on it is quite beautiful, including the inlay, because in charge of the carpentry was a master craftsman who insisted that all work was done to the highest possible standard.
At the moment, my elder son is chief executive of the North East Chamber of Commerce. Of course, bringing an area like that out of the recession involves looking in particular for work to employ people. There is no shortage of initiative, no shortage of ideas and no shortage of will to do something. The big problem is skills shortage. The noble Lord mentioned engineers. They need 80,000 engineers, but only 40,000 are available and some of them are ageing. We have let those employers down over the years by not developing people. What we ought to do, as the noble Lord said, is raise the whole status of apprenticeships—craft, building and engineering apprenticeships—because of what they represent in terms of employability.
I come back to my main purpose in speaking in this debate, which is to ask whether this could not be passed on to the criminal justice system, because if you identify talents through aptitude tests, particularly of the young people coming into the criminal justice system, you can then harness those talents. Many of them include just the skills about which we have been talking. We have seen the enthusiasm with which people have suddenly realised that they can do something and the self-esteem that results from that. Taking that on would help not only with rehabilitation but solve the skills shortage problems of employers. It is a question of attitude here, and I think it must begin and end, again, with Winston Churchill saying,
“there is a treasure … in the heart of every man”.
It is our job to find it and then to make sure that it has maximum advantage and is exercised properly.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on ensuring that we debate this vital issue. I probably do not share the same political analysis as the noble Lord, but in a few issues we share an enthusiastic—dare I say passionate—interest that crosses the political boundaries. There are at least three such issues, one of which is apprenticeships. I, too, am a fan of William Morris, a fantastic polymath of crafts and art. Another interest is parish churches, which may seem surprising because I have declared that I am a non-practising Jewish atheist. I have probably put a fair share of my money into parish churches that I have visited around the country. They are, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, reminded us, a wonderful repository of so many craft skills, including stonemasonry, woodcarving, stained glass, silversmith, goldsmith, tapestries—the list is numerous.
Of course, we are surrounded by the enthusiastic genius of Pugin, who ensured that thousands of craftsmen, and probably a few women at the time, contributed to this amazing Gothic temple. You need only to look at the doors. Anybody who has tried to hang a door will know how difficult that is—never mind the carving that goes with it. I have failed in that particular DIY task and given it to others. Sometimes we do not recognise what is around us. Recently they have been repairing the floor tiles—these wonderful medieval tiles, these encaustic tiles. They involve a craft skill in themselves, being remade and relaid in the House. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because it is vital that we ensure that these skills continue.
The numerous funding arrangements available are confusing, and tend to be a deterrent for employers, especially the small, perhaps single, employers who are working in the crafts that I have described. There is probably not one single solution. Many different paths are being created. I congratulate the National Trust whose apprenticeship scheme is growing in this area. Getting craftsmen and women together in something like a group training association would be one of the possible solutions because what often deters people is the administration and, perhaps, some basic training. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that idea. It merits serious consideration, if we want to take away some of that burden.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that he would not know where to go. There is a one-stop shop. We created the National Apprenticeship Service. It may not be a perfect organisation but it is the place to go. I certainly point potential employers in that direction. It has a website and is easy to find.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on his pentathlon of speeches. He said that this was all about skill shortages. There I must part company with him. It is partly about that, but it is also about the lack of employers who are willing to take on apprentices. We still have only about 8% of employers in this country who employ apprentices. We have a long way to go. As I have said before, I welcome the Government’s commitment to apprenticeships. I do not criticise that. There is some innovative work going on with the trailblazers scheme—but we still have not cracked that problem. I would like the Minister to address that. My noble friend Lord Macdonald gave the figures on the construction and manufacturing industries. They are worrying figures. Again, that is partly about skills, but we need more employers in those industries willing to take on apprenticeships. The issue is two-fold.
Then there is the question of the status of apprenticeships. I make no apologies for raising this point again. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made this point about encouraging people to go to university. He is quite right. We still have a situation in which if you go into schools and ask those aged between about 14 and 18 where they are going, mostly they will talk about university. If you ask them if they are aware of apprenticeships, it is very rare that they are—though that awareness is beginning to increase. Smart parents and smart younger students are beginning to realise that the university debt burden of somewhere between £40,000 and £50,000, without a guaranteed job at the end, is a bit of a deterrent. Finding a way to earn while they learn is a pretty smart solution. The status of vocational training and apprenticeships is something we need to work at.
We also need to get schools and colleges to fulfil their obligation under the Education Act to give a wide range of career advice that includes vocational training, as well as the academic pathways. I hope the Minister will tell me that the Government are going to make strenuous efforts to ensure that there is not just lip-service being paid to that idea. It is not about a separate advice service. It is the advice that young people listen to most, from teachers and parents. I have said this before. Getting young people—apprentices and skilled craftsmen—back into schools to tell people about it is valuable. It is that peer-group advice that is so valuable. That is one of the things to which I hope the Minister will respond.
The Minister ought to look at where best practice is—what is going on around the country, where there must be a drive to create more apprentices in crafts and more generally. One should look at those local authorities that are working in partnership with the local employment partnerships and surrounding industry. That ought to be taking place everywhere around the country. My noble friend Lord Macdonald quoted the Chichester experience; there are plenty of others, but it is all about creating a greater volume of apprenticeships.
I have previously mentioned the Government’s desire to talk about the success of apprenticeships, and that is okay, but that will not be the case if we bulk up the figures by including adult apprenticeships. The Richards review asked the Government to consider whether they are, in reality, apprenticeships or are re-skilling and retraining. That is not to say we should not retrain people, but the real challenge for us are those not in education, employment or training. The figures may have reduced but are still alarmingly large.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Macdonald will not mind if I correct him: we did not actually raise the school leaving age but raised the participation age, which is slightly different—that is important. He mentioned that people should be in education, employment or training, and that is what we were aiming at. I thought that that was a smart bit of legislation. I would therefore welcome some comment on that.
I have mentioned group training associations because they are important and could help a problem in relation to heritage and craft skills. But more generally they could help in involving small and medium-sized employers. It would be welcome if the Minister had any evidence on whether the number of group training associations is increasing, which was part of the strategy.
This has been a helpful and valuable debate on one of the most important challenges we face, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to set out what the Government are doing for apprenticeships and to ensure that our craft industries remain an important part of our national fabric. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cormack for tabling this debate, and to noble Lords who have made contributions. I applaud my noble friend’s commitment and passion as patron of the Heritage Crafts Association and as chairman of the William Morris Craft Fellowship.
Before I continue, I should like to express my great admiration for the energy and stamina of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, this afternoon—or it may have been all day. “Five in a row” has a certain ring to it.
Britain leads the world in many creative industries and key skills. The crafts are something that we can be proud of, and I agree that it is important to keep these skills alive, generating employment and contributing to the economy. My noble friend Lord Cormack, in highlighting certain endangered skills, makes a pertinent point about skills developed and honed over many years that need to be passed down to the next generation. This is because we need to safeguard our national heritage. This country’s many castles, churches, cathedrals and museums—not to mention listed buildings—form an integral part of the fabric of Britain. For example, so many gargoyles and friezes eroded by pollution need to be repaired and maintained. Noble Lords will be aware that stonemason apprentices have been working here in this magnificent building doing stone and encaustic tile conservation work.
It is important that young people are inspired in the heritage crafts. It should be an easy sell to persuade people to want to work on maintaining historic and beautiful buildings. We need to promote such careers—and they are careers—as valuable, honourable and rewarding, as my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Addington, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, correctly mentioned. We strongly believe that craft-sector employers have a responsibility to inspire and engage with young people by getting involved with schools and local training providers. The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned the importance of collaboration in this respect.
The National Careers Service provides information and advice on careers in arts, crafts and design. This includes details of jobs, careers, the skills and qualifications needed and a link to representative bodies. It is important that we continue to expand engagement between employers and the National Careers Service to ensure that our young people get the information they need on academic and vocational paths. My noble friend Lord Addington emphasised the importance of this in his passionate speech.
We know that apprenticeships are important: they give people of all ages the chance to develop the practical skills and experience that employers want. Under this Government there are more people in apprenticeships in this country, working for more employers and in more sectors than ever before and covering the whole economy. In fact, as the Committee may be aware, the number of apprenticeships started each year has doubled since 2009-10. A record 1.8 million people started an apprenticeship during this Parliament, as published today. We are on track to meet our ambition of 2 million new apprenticeships by the end of this Parliament, including more young women than ever before.
Reforms are being taken forward by trailblazers, led by employers of all sizes and professional bodies, who are leading the way in developing the new standards for apprenticeships, giving employers more control. We have had a continued focus on apprenticeship quality, insisting that all such jobs are paid, have a minimum duration of a year, including off-the-job training, and meet the needs of employers. The reforms are designed to address exactly the barriers that employers have identified to taking on apprentices. By putting employers in the driving seat on designing the new apprenticeships, skills needs will be addressed. This will make it easier for them to offer more apprenticeships in the future, including through the university technical colleges, thus raising opportunities for, and encouraging greater numbers of, young people to study engineering and science with a practical application. These important points were highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Young and Lord Macdonald.
I am pleased to tell the Committee that representatives from across the craft sector, including the Heritage Crafts Association, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cormack, are fully engaged with the apprenticeship reforms. Significant progress has already been made by the craft trailblazers, with their standard being submitted for consideration this week. More than 350 craftspeople and stakeholders have provided overwhelming levels of support for the trailblazers, and they have taken an innovative approach when designing their standard. They are developing one overarching standard which, I am pleased to say, is accessible to a variety of different craft disciplines. By taking this approach, it will open up apprenticeship possibilities to non-specified craft disciplines which have previously been excluded from apprenticeships.
A wide range of job roles are covered in the draft standard, including—this is interesting—wood turner, organ builder, thatcher, calligrapher, furniture maker, stonemason, cordwainer, milliner, wheelwright and more. They are such wonderful Hardy-esque descriptions.
We are indebted to Jason Holt, who is chairing the craft trailblazer project and championing the needs of small businesses and their engagement with apprenticeships. My noble friend Lord Cormack emphasised correctly that the craft industry is unique in that the majority of those involved are self-employed or work for micro-businesses. He is of course right that this provides particular challenges. We also know that across the sectors there are too many small businesses not engaged with apprenticeships, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young.
That is why we are working diligently with the Federation of Small Businesses and other stakeholders such as the Heritage Crafts Association to ensure that our reforms are small and micro-business friendly. Apprenticeship training agencies and group training agencies can also help small and micro-businesses employ apprentices which, for whatever reason, are unable to commit to employing an apprentice directly.
Putting employers in the driving seat means exactly that. We need more employers to take the lead. I noted the widening of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to the construction and engineering sectors in which certain craft skills are essential. He made some very good points on that front.
We also know that the national skills academy is working with the sector to extend its projects to embrace cultural heritage skills. The Government have also introduced the apprenticeship grant for employers, providing £1,500 payments to encourage and support our smaller employers to take on a young apprentice. The Budget made £170,000 of additional funding available over two years from this year, 2014, in order to extend the grant, which will provide more than 100,000 additional incentive payments that can help exactly the small businesses that are working to keep our heritage craft skills alive. Furthermore, a two-year grant scheme will provide £20 million toward repairs for churches and cathedrals, which have been mentioned today.
I turn to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Addington. Apprenticeships are an excellent opportunity for young people, including those with dyslexia or other disabilities, to demonstrate what they are capable of. In 2012-13, more than 18,630 of those who successfully completed an apprenticeship declared a disability or learning difficulty. I am sure that my noble friend will say that the Government should be doing more, and indeed he makes a good point. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has recently launched a toolkit to help more disabled people gain access to apprenticeships.
Noble Lords asked a number of questions, and I will address as many as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, raised the issue of public procurement. The Government support the appropriate use of apprenticeships in procurement. The process can sometimes deter small businesses and voluntary and charitable organisations, which is why each contract should be considered on an individual basis. Many public bodies in local government already build skills into their procurement process. For example, HS2 will create up to 2,000 apprenticeships over the lifetime of its construction.
The noble Lord raised the issue of apprentices not being paid the national minimum wage. He will know that I have been up at the Dispatch Box on several occasions to address this important point. To reassure him, HMRC investigates all the complaints that it receives through the pay and work rights helpline, and we have a commitment to ensure that all people, not just apprentices, are paid the minimum wage. Our regular announcements naming and shaming those who are not complying with national minimum wage regulations are proof of that. Sadly, I suspect that there will be more of those to come.
My noble friend Lord Addington asked how we better educate the population, both young and old, about the opportunities available through apprenticeships. The National Careers Service provides advice and guidance to young people and adults online, by telephone helpline and face to face in the community. It can handle 1 million helpline calls from adults and 370,000 from young people, and there are 20 million hits on its website each year. In fact, it gives 700,000 people face-to-face advice each year, which I hope will be some answer to his question.
I want to pick up a point that my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made about the City livery companies. It is excellent that they have taken such a lead in promoting apprenticeships. In terms of the buying-in of apprenticeships, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who made the point that the more that they can do to help, the better, because they are the guardians of some of the best traditional skills that we have in this particular country.
I might need to address separately by letter the question from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about administration and the lack of employers willing to take on apprenticeships. His question, “How do we encourage smaller employers to do so?”, is a very pertinent point. The Government have made it clear that we want good quality apprenticeship training agencies to be able to continue to operate once the apprenticeship funding reforms have been introduced. We are also encouraging more and better quality group training agencies.
This welcome debate has allowed me to set out the Government’s continued commitment to apprenticeships and the whole range of activity that is supporting our craft industries.
Lord Cormack
Could my noble friend, for whose reply I am grateful, clarify one point for me? Will those individual crafts men and women, such as those who belong to the Heritage Crafts Association, be able to benefit from funds from an apprentice agency or some other source so that they can afford to take on apprentices, and therefore their crafts will continue into the future? My noble friend referred to this in a way that seemed to give me that assurance, but I would be most grateful if he would clarify that.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend makes a good point. As it is a very specific question, I will write to him with the particular openings and opportunities for funding in that area.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I will keep an eye on the clock and be brief. I have one comment and a couple of questions. On the subject of public procurement contracts, I refer the Minister to the Crossrail experience, where every subcontractor is employing apprentices. There is no deterrent there and no need for one. We are not talking about every public procurement contract, just those over £1 million.
Secondly, the Minister still talks about the total number of apprenticeships. I know that the actual number is true, but it is time we started to disaggregate them so that we deal with adult apprenticeships and then find the total number in the 16 to 24 age range. There has been a decline in these in the past year—certainly for those under 19—and that is worrying, given the number of NEETS.
Lastly, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us how many more Group Training Associations have been created.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We have run out of time, so I will write to the noble Lord to address his issues.
To complete my speech, we owe it to future generations and to the tourism industry to ensure that the physical fabric of our great country is maintained.
House of Lords
Health: Secondary Care
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Masham of Ilton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to help to remove barriers to access to secondary care for symptomatic patients so they are identified and can start treatment earlier.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, GPs act as the gateway to and co-ordinator of patient care. GPs hold patients’ medical records and understand their health history. The GP will be able to work with patients and their carers to make an informed decision about whether a specialist referral is necessary, and to recommend appropriate hospitals or clinics. Early diagnosis can improve outcomes and treatment. We are therefore raising awareness of key symptoms and supporting GPs to assess patients more effectively.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that some GPs are being penalised by CCGs for sending patients on for diagnosis? Is that not totally wrong and does it not cause late diagnosis, which is always more expensive in every way?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that early diagnosis is vital for just about every condition one can think of, particularly cancer. I am not aware that GPs are being penalised. I am very concerned to hear that, and if I may I will take the point she has made back with me and write to her about it. I would be very concerned if that practice was taking place. Particularly on cancer, we are keen to see GPs referring more. Indeed, that is what they have been doing, quite markedly, over the past four years: there was a 51% increase in cancer referrals over that period.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that one of the essential elements for early diagnosis was time—time to spend with the patient and hear exactly what their symptoms are? How does that tie in with the current reports about pressure on GP surgeries and time?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We know that GPs in many areas of the country are under pressure and we know how hard they are working. It was with that knowledge that we agreed with the profession that we would remove from the GP contract for 2014-15 more than a third of the quality and outcomes framework’s indicators, which GPs told us were taking up too much time and resulting in a bureaucratic burden. The aim of that was to free up more time for GPs. On top of that we have the Prime Minister’s challenge fund of £50 million, which will test out new ways for GPs to give access to patients—for example, through innovative means such as Skype and e-mail.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, early treatment is key to improving our low cancer survival rates. Lung cancer remains the biggest cancer killer. It has a 5% 10-year survival rate and 33% of all cases are emergency presentations. What progress has been made on improving early diagnosis?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right. This is absolutely central to raising our performance as a country in successfully treating cancer. We are doing several things. We have piloted a tool to help GPs to identify patients whom they might not otherwise refer urgently for suspected cancer. The tool covered lung cancer, as well as others. Across England, 502 GP practices took part in the pilot. Initial indications are that the tool is extremely helpful. There is also an e-learning tool that offers accredited professional development for GPs. The Royal College of General Practitioners has also identified cancer as an enduring priority. It is working with Cancer Research UK and other partners in promoting models of best practice.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as professor of surgery at University College, London, and chairman of UCLPartners. Better integrating primary and secondary care is crucial to ensuring patient safety, improved clinical outcomes and the most effective resource utilisation. What progress has been made in defining whole pathway metrics for integrated care to best inform rational commissioning of these services?
Earl Howe
Several things are in train. One of those, as the noble Lord will know, was reflected in the legislative reform order that we debated in the Moses Room two days ago. It will cut down the administrative burden of joint commissioning by NHS England and CCGs, as well as the burden currently being experienced by CCGs in joint commissioning between themselves. More importantly, we need to incentivise the system for integrated care, and that is what the better care fund is designed to do. It will ensure that patients receive joined-up care, whether that is in acute settings, in the community or, indeed, from social care.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl will know that a number of trusts like my own, which is Barnet and Chase Farm, are trying to remove the barriers that still exist between providers of secondary care and of primary care. What help can the Government give to make sure that primary care is better funded and reinforced so that people do not have to come into hospital, and so that we have an absolutely seamless pathway of care?
Earl Howe
We have said that preparations for the better care fund in 2015-16 should most definitely include a dialogue between commissioners and providers, and that there should be a whole system approach to incentivising the treatment of patients in the community. Of course, that will involve hospitals such as that of the noble Baroness, which I had the pleasure of visiting this week, informing themselves on how they can assist in the effort to do what we all want to do, which is to see patients treated in the best environment possible.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
At a time when GPs seem to be very budget conscious and worried about everything, can the Minister assure me that there are no perverse incentives that would tend to deter them from making these secondary referrals early? That is very important.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, governance, early diagnosis and visits to the general practitioner are all very well but, as the noble Earl will understand, many cancers such as lung cancer, which has just been mentioned, and pancreatic cancer depend on relatively silent tumours that are not going to be diagnosed on a clinical basis anyway. Surely the need is for markers for these diseases. What are the Government planning to do to increase research in this area, to ensure that we have markers for these diseases?
Earl Howe
Cancer research is a major priority for my department. Investment in cancer research by the National Institute for Health Research has risen from £101 million in 2010-11 to £133 million in 2012-13. However, that is only what my department is doing. As I am sure he is aware, a whole range of work is going on across many different types of cancer, which we regard as a priority.
European Union: United Kingdom MEPs
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent European Union election results, whether they have any plans to co-operate more closely with United Kingdom MEP representatives.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, the Government routinely engage with Members of the European Parliament, particularly with those Members who represent the UK regions. The Government are especially keen to work with those MEPs who recognise the need to respond to voters’ concerns and share our vision of a reformed EU, one that is about openness, competitiveness and fairness.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Perhaps I may point out that as a substitute member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, when I go to sessions, I am briefed by the ambassador. As a Member of the European Parliament for 25 years, I rarely if ever saw our ambassador. It seems that we pay very little attention to briefing our MEPs in situ on what British interests are. Perhaps I may also point out that MEPs are banned from the House of Commons and are not received in a friendly way here. Indeed, only eight of them have passes. Can we try to build a friendlier relationship between this House and our other elected representatives?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, we keep the Government’s engagement with the European Parliament under constant review and we consider all upcoming events. We engage with our MEPs in a number of ways. That may be by direct engagement with Ministers, through official engagement and, of course, through UKREP. In relation to access to Parliament, the decision not to extend pass access rights to UK MEPs was considered by the Administration Committee during the previous Parliament. As I understand it, the decision was made due to pressures on facilities and the absence of reciprocal arrangements. In March 2011, the Administration Committee decided that as these conditions had not changed, the policy of not extending access rights to MEPs should continue.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, Conservative Members of the European Parliament have recently allied themselves with the Danish People’s Party and the Finns Party, which are both by any standards extreme right-wing organisations that are shunned by mainstream centre-right parties in the European Parliament. David Cameron himself shunned them in 2009, but not in 2014. What has changed the Prime Minister’s mind and how does this new alliance strengthen Britain’s negotiating hand in Brussels?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that there are a number of political parties that form part of the alliances and blocs at European level. Indeed, he will also know the Conservative Party’s recent response, concerning that alliance, in relation to the parties in Germany. He will be aware that we take a very serious view of extremism, whether domestically or in relation to political parties with which we engage overseas.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, rather than co-operate more closely with comparatively powerless MEPs, should not the Government try to do so with the EU Commission? Given the current saga over Mr Juncker’s appointment as its boss, should not the Government tell the British people just how much more power the Commission has, with its monopoly to propose and execute all EU law? If the Government do not want to reveal this, could they encourage the BBC to do so? I regret to say that at the moment, in clear breach of its charter, it is adamantly refusing to do that.
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord makes the important point that the European Commission and the President of the Commission have an incredibly important role. That role has most autonomy and has the right of initiative, and the Commission itself plays a quasi-judicial role. It is important for those reasons that whoever leads the Commission is a candidate who commands respect and who understands—this was clear at the last European Parliament elections—that people need a change. All political parties in this House will agree that the process that has been adopted is not one with which any of us here agree.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister perhaps agree that changes in policy should normally be evidence based? If so, could she perhaps list the advantages to either her party or this country of withdrawing from the EPP?
Baroness Warsi
This matter has been reiterated on a number of occasions. In my previous job as party chairman, I had many dealings with the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists. I think that the noble Lord will have to accept that there is change across Europe and that there are many more political parties that are aligned with the view that reform is needed, and that reform goes beyond what some of the parties within the EPP think.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, coming back to my noble friend’s previous answer, is not the real issue that, while our Prime Minister is trying to negotiate critical issues for this country in the European Union, Conservative MEPs have signed up to a group with Alternative für Deutschland, which is a major irritant to Chancellor Merkel? Is that not clearly a national own goal in terms of our own interests and our present relationships?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I think I made my position clear. The Conservative Party’s position on this matter is clear. We have only one sister party in Germany and that is on the record.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, in her initial Answer, the noble Baroness said that the Government are keen to talk to those MEPs who share our views on various issues, including, of course, reform of the EU. Will the noble Baroness perhaps consider that it is equally if not more important to talk to those MEPs who do not share our views on these issues, not just the converted, and to try to build those alliances, which have been perhaps rather lacking in some of the recent government activity in the EU?
Baroness Warsi
I assure the noble Baroness that we engage with MEPs both on an issues basis—for example, we have had MEPs attending meetings with DECC and we have engagement through BIS on direct issues—and, of course, on broader issues of reform.
Drugs Policy
Baroness Meacher
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to contribute to the work of the European Union to prepare for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drug Policy in 2016.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to taking a leadership role in preparing for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, including through our representations in the European Union. Of course, we must work with our international partners to share our expertise and indeed to promote a balanced and evidence-based approach to drugs that is within international drug control conventions.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. On 26 June 2013, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, appealed to all member states to consider “all options” in drug policy in the lead-up to the 2016 UN special session. Yesterday the former UK ambassador to Afghanistan claimed that to put doctors and pharmacists in control of heroin supply in the UK—with tough regulation—will save lives, improve health and reduce crime. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will extend their review of drug policy to include a rigorous, independent study of the costs and benefits of a regulatory regime as proposed by our former ambassador—and if not, why not?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I pay tribute to the work the noble Baroness has done in this field. She has brought to the fore on many occasions the importance of reviewing drugs policy. The Government have taken a broad view of this. If we look at the statistics, it is commendable that drug usage domestically is down and we have seen a greater emphasis being put on helping people overcome drugs issues. Nevertheless, she may well be aware that there is an international comparators report due within the next two to three months, and we will be reviewing what we find in terms of best practice across a range of countries, not just within the EU.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, will the Government support the modernisation of schedule 1 through an evidence-based review process so that the great advances in medical science in the UK and elsewhere can be reflected in the wider availability of drugs for medical use?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I have already said that we are constantly reviewing our drugs policy to ensure that what we do is based on prevention and cure but also on enforcement. Evidence has shown that our current balanced approach is paying dividends and we need to ensure that we do not have a knee-jerk reaction to what is being proposed. I have already mentioned the comparators report, and other reviews internally will ensure that we continue to have a balanced view of this particularly sensitive area.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, the 2014 report from the UN on drugs and crime stated very clearly that the UK has the largest problem—what it described as a hydra-headed problem—of legal highs in the whole of the EU. When one substance is banned, two others appear. This is an extremely difficult problem for the Government, but what action have they taken to tackle legal highs in this country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The best way to answer the noble Lord is by saying that we make those legal highs illegal. As he has acknowledged, unfortunately, the way these drugs are introduced into the market is very clever. Something is a derivative of something which was banned. Then another derivative comes out. However, I can say to the noble Lord that we have banned 350 of what were legal highs and are no longer. We continue to review that process. Indeed, my honourable friend the Minister for Crime Prevention is leading a review and an expert panel to look at how the UK can continue to respond more effectively to new psychoactive substances and legal highs, and how this can be enhanced beyond existing measures.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, we are faced with evidence of the vast increase in drug use, in the scale of the associated criminal economy, and in the costs to society and to the public purse since the passing of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are also faced, as my noble friend has said, with appalling dangers from new psychoactive substances. There is evidence from Portugal and other European countries, some of which the Home Office has been studying, that treating misuse of drugs as a health issue and not as a criminal one yields significant beneficial effects on rates of drug use and health. Why are the Government not responding positively to the challenge which Ban Ki-moon has put to it to conduct a wide-ranging and open debate and consider all options?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I cannot agree with the noble Lord. On the contrary, the Government are doing just that: they are having a wide-ranging debate. I have alluded to the comparators study. Just to pick up his initial points, if we look at drug use in England and Wales, it is down—8.2% in 2012-13. If we look at those people who have to access treatment, he said that there was no focus. That is also down to only five days. The misuse of drugs, and the deaths associated with that, is down. Waiting time is down, and a record number of people are completing their treatment. The Government are emphasising, as I said, prevention, education and enforcement. This is a balanced approach, looking at international comparators, and if one looks at, for example, Sweden, it has zero tolerance, and drug use there is very low.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if we treated drug users as patients rather than criminals, we would have more resources to ensure that every child in every school had a balanced PSHE course that warned them of the dangers of taking up drugs in the first place?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I regret that my noble friend does not recognise that that is exactly what the Government do. We do have a balanced approach, and those people who unfortunately fall under the influence of drugs are treated as patients. I have already quoted the statistics on this. We are seeing a growing number of individuals who go in for treatment completing their treatment. There is a focus on ensuring that we get people off drug use.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, the Minister has said that drug use has plateaued, drug deaths are going down, and all issues related to substance misuse in terms of crime have gone down. Does he recognise that the reason they have plateaued and gone down is the massive investment the previous Government made in the area of drug treatment? That is in real jeopardy because local authorities are cutting drug-misuse treatment services across the country. There is a great likelihood that all these issues will rise again—drug use and crime.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I say to the noble Lord, if he compares last year’s statistics to those of the year before, he will see that they have gone down again. I fully acknowledge the steps that were taken by the previous Government in tackling this issue. This is not about politicising it but about ensuring that we get cure and prevention. The balanced approach that we have taken builds on what has been done, and the statistics demonstrate that, yes, it is a real problem and we must tackle and attack it—but we are addressing it with a balanced approach and that is the right way to move forward.
Pensions
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they propose to announce details of plans to guarantee all retirees face-to-face pensions guidance from April 2015.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Government recently consulted on how best to deliver the guidance guarantee through their post-Budget consultation, Freedom and Choice in Pensions. They are now processing the responses and aim to respond before the Summer Recess of Parliament.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am not reassured. We have a clear case here of a policy being announced and the Government now trying to work out when, how and whether it can be implemented. The Budget Statement was very clear: the guarantee was for “free, impartial, face-to-face” guidance, not the opportunity to attend a mass meeting or have some group therapy. I took the guarantee of face-to-face provision to be an opportunity for those who want or need it to interact individually and directly with another human being. Is that still the policy?
Lord Newby
My Lords, that is the policy. The FCA is working closely with the Pensions Regulator and the DWP to co-ordinate standards to deliver it. In developing the guidance, it is working with consumer groups, the Pensions Advisory Service, the Money Advice Service and Citizens Advice to build on existing good practice. I think that it is fair to say that not everybody will want personal, face-to-face guidance, but to the extent that they do, it will be available.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, for these reforms and freedoms to work, the Government must try to remove some of the mythical mist which surrounds pensions. As the FCA draws up options for the guidance which is to be given, what reassurance has my noble friend had from the pensions and insurance industries that they will support and drive forward these reforms so that the consumer, the owner of the pension pot, is in the driving seat?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Association of British Insurers has produced a detailed response to the consultation that we are undertaking. Within that, it has underlined its commitment to help customers understand their options and enable them to make good decisions. I think that for many people, when the word “pension” is mentioned, a mist descends; so demystifying pensions is a big challenge already. That is why we are devoting £20 million over the next couple of years to getting the new guidance system up and running.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the mist may not be entirely accidental. I remind the House of my interest as the independent director of the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Telegraph reported on 13 June that officials are getting ready to tell more than 1 million people in their late 50s and early 60s that they will not get the full amount of the single new “flat-rate” state pension. The Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, told the Telegraph:
“I think I may have been guilty of oversimplifying the new flat rate state pension ... But as soon as you caveat this type of thing people switch off”.
Will we have the opportunity to scrutinise the communication plan for this scheme to make sure that more mist does not descend in future?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the provisions relating to the guidance will be in the pension scheme Bill when it comes before your Lordships’ House. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity to debate those provisions at great length, to which we on this side look forward.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, is face-to-face guidance the same thing as individual guidance?
Lord Newby
The answer is that it may be or it may not be, depending on what people want to do. One can envisage there being cases at workplace level, where there is a workplace scheme, where it is sensible to start off, for example, by having a collective session followed up by individual guidance. The key thing which we want to underline is that individual guidance will be available. As I said earlier, however, not everybody will want to receive it in the same way.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, the Budget Red Book indicates a bonanza for the Treasury in the next few years as a result of this annuities treatment. This policy could have echoes of the pensions mis-selling scandal of the 1980s, which cost £12 billion. If the Government are not clear and unambiguous that this means individual advice, people will be left on their own and be mesmerised. It is a good thing for the Government, but a bad thing for individuals. The Government need to act very quickly on this.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government are acting quickly on it, and we absolutely agree that this must be seen as a good thing for individuals. This scheme is not being introduced to make a short-term improvement in government finances. I remind noble Lords that a number of countries—for example, Australia, Denmark and the US—already have the kind of provision that we are proposing. The FT recently reported that, when the leading finance and pensions expert was asked about this, he said:
“There’s nothing to suggest that Poms are any more stupid than Australians”.
I agree with him.
Business of the House
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the debate on the motion in the name of Baroness Scott of Needham Market set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Baroness Walmsley to two hours.
Arrangement of Business
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may remind those speaking in the debates this afternoon that they are all time limited. Therefore, when the clock reaches the number of minutes allocated in each noble Lord’s debate, noble Lords should finish their speech, as they have spoken for the allotted time. If a noble Lord is happy to take an intervention, that time will be taken out of their allocation.
Voluntary and Charitable Sectors
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
To move that this House takes note of the role played by the voluntary and charitable sectors.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce today’s debate, and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and my noble friend Lord Newby for selecting this topic on one of two Liberal Democrat debate days. I declare an interest as chair of the National Volunteering Forum, as a trustee of the Industry and Parliament Trust, and as patron of Ace Anglia, which provides advocacy and support to people with learning disabilities in Suffolk, and of Wings of Hope, which is an educational charity focused on India and Malawi. I very much look forward to hearing from the other 20 noble Lords who will speak in the debate. With all due respect, between us we have many hundreds of years of experience in this sector, and I think the insights today will be very valuable.
What makes this sector so vibrant, so flexible, often challenging and occasionally frustrating is its very breadth. Charities such as the National Trust, the RSPB and Oxfam are household names. They have hundreds of thousands of members and significant incomes. There are thousands more tiny local charities set up to respond to particular circumstances, sometimes even the plight of one individual who needs help. There are around 161,000 registered charitable organisations, and an estimated 600,000 which are not registered. However, 90% of charitable income is made by the top 10%. I would not want this morning’s debate to go by without paying tribute to the millions of volunteers and family carers who, often under very trying circumstances, display a quiet daily heroism.
This sector provides both quality-of-life services, such as those of the National Trust, and lifesaving services, such as those of the RNLI and the Red Cross. The Society of Friends reminded me of the important role which charities play in the campaign for change, and how important that is at a time when people are increasingly disengaged from party politics. Of course, as we go into the general election next year, I reflect that most of the political activity which is undertaken in this country is done by unpaid volunteers. We should remember that contribution, too. In some cases, the volunteers provide the service, and in others they raise money so that professionals can do their jobs. Charity shops alone raise around £300 million every year for their organisations.
With this variation, finding the right policy framework for all of these circumstances is very difficult to get right, both for government and for regulators such as the Charity Commission. It also makes it quite difficult for the sector to speak with one voice. I will leave it to other noble Lords with more experience to talk in depth about the legal and financial framework for charities. However, I want to start with a few general comments on that aspect, before going on to talk about volunteering, which is the main thrust of what I want to say today.
The total yearly income of the charitable and voluntary sector is £39.2 billion. That is down £700 million on the previous year, largely as a result of reduced public funding. Despite the recession, NCVO says that charitable giving is holding up reasonably well, although anecdotal evidence suggests that organisations are having to work much harder to raise their money. Voluntary organisations are also reporting an increase in demand for their services, and there is now a real question about how long they can afford to do more with less.
The recent cross-party report, Creating an Age of Giving, referred to a civic core of givers, but it refers to the fact that that core is ageing and shrinking. Investment in schemes such as payroll giving and technology that enables text donations, for example, and the use of social media, have proved to be very worthwhile. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government will continue to provide the seed corn money required to develop such schemes.
Gift aid is really important, but the new small donation scheme is looking significantly underspent. Anecdotally, it would appear that that is because it is just too complicated. Will the Government undertake to see whether that is the case and make changes quickly if they need to be made?
UKCF’s Shine a Light research of December last year found that people are nearly twice as likely to feel confident when they give money locally, as opposed to nationally, that it is actually going to help those who need it most. More than half of them would give more and give it locally if giving was easier and they could see the impact of their donation. That is emphasised by the publication, just this morning, of a report by the Charity Commission on public trust and confidence. It makes the same point about people wanting to see how their money is being spent and the impact.
One area where you can best see that at work is in the community foundation movement. Like most shire counties, Suffolk has a community foundation, which supports a wide variety of charity and community projects throughout Suffolk. By making endowment-giving easy, it has provided a sustainable way to support local organisations. Match-funded schemes such as Community First have been a real boost. I hope that the Government will keep that success in mind and work with the community foundations to see how the schemes might be expanded. Recent evidence is showing an increase in local giving and a more thoughtful model of giving, which is a really important part of building a strong civic society.
Of course, what makes the charity sector is the volunteers. The best estimate is that there are about 15.2 million people volunteering every month, so there is clearly an incredible capacity for volunteering in this country, but there are concerns that the volunteer workforce is ageing. People are working longer, caring for very elderly relatives themselves, perhaps even becoming less altruistic, and it is becoming difficult to recruit new volunteers. It takes money to resource organisations and projects specialising in helping people to access volunteering opportunities, but we need to do that to widen the pool from which our volunteers are drawn. For example, the Access to Volunteering fund, piloted in three areas, supported about 7,000 disabled volunteers to become involved. That brought with it reports of improved well-being and significantly reduced isolation.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with a researcher who was looking into something called micro-volunteering. Partway through, I realise that what she was actually talking about was what I would have called “doing someone a favour”. In today’s disconnected, slightly impersonal world, that sort of thing is dying out. It seems very odd to people of our generation, but there is a huge role for social media, for example, in making those connections between people, because the old community connections are lessening.
It is also important to recognise that the old model, where volunteers would commit a certain amount of time every week and would do so over a lengthy period, is very challenging for a lot of younger volunteers who have work and family commitments. They need more flexible volunteering opportunities. In Suffolk, the 2012 Olympic volunteers have formed a sort of permanent cohort of volunteers who come in and out for all the major events in the county; its success is in its flexibility. New technologies can be really important.
There was a time when the public, private and charity sector all had separate but very well understood roles. The picture is now much more complex and the lines between them are really quite blurred. Some of these developments have welcome aspects, but there are challenges. One of the most difficult issues facing the sector is the use by government of volunteering as part of unemployment policy. As I said before, we can all accept that volunteering can play a really important part in getting unemployed people out of the house, learning new skills and generally increasing their self-esteem. However, there is sometimes a question of compulsion. Someone who is made to volunteer in order to get their benefits is not a volunteer, and we should not call them one. These are work placements, and we have to understand that it makes life quite tricky for the existing volunteers to be working alongside people who are there only under duress.
Secondly, the Government need to remember that charities and voluntary organisations do not have an unlimited capacity to absorb volunteer labour wherever it comes from. There are too many reports of jobcentres simply sending people along to voluntary organisations with no thought as to how the organisation is actually going to use them. The voluntary organisations themselves need enough professional staff to be able to manage volunteers effectively, even when they are welcome.
All this is made very complicated by the increasing use of the third sector to deliver public services. Current estimates are that the contracts are worth just over £11 billion. I am in favour of this development, but we have to recognise that it limits the ability of the charity or voluntary organisation to set its own priorities. What happens then is that gaps in service begin to appear. It also compromises the perception of the public about the charity as independent of government. That has come out very clearly in the report published by the Charity Commission today: when a charity becomes dependent on public contracts for its survival, its independence can be jeopardised.
I shall make one or two points on the question of tendering for public services and the issues facing charities that wish to participate. First, the bidding process is often based on driving down price, which usually means labour costs. Most voluntary organisations do not pay their staff particularly well, but they do want to be fair. They want to pay the living wage and give their staff decent terms and conditions, but it is often difficult for them because they are competing with the private sector, which has no compunction about the use of zero-hours contracts or short-term contracts or with paying less than the living wage. Quite often the third sector is heavily disadvantaged when it comes to tendering. It is not just a moral question; evidence from the Living Wage Commission demonstrates that the Treasury could save more than £3.6 billion per year if everyone was paid the living wage. I wonder whether it is the business of the public sector to be discouraging the voluntary and charitable sector, which treats its workers well, by favouring the private sector.
Too often the relationship between the voluntary sector and the statutory commissioners is “us and them”. The commissioners are very controlling and do not really look at value or service delivery; it is really just about the money. Of course, when budgets are so pressed and when financial survival, territorial ambitions and all these things come into play, we can see why this might happen, but I think it is time for the Government to review it. Government and local government are major commissioners of services from the charity sector, so I support the NCVO call for a review of public sector markets to see whether they are still fit for purpose. A lot more training is needed for commissioners to ensure that when they say that service users’ needs must come first, it actually means something and is genuinely reflected in procedures. That means that we have to talk to the users. That is one reason I became patron of Ace Anglia in Suffolk: it provides advocacy for people with learning disabilities. It is really important to have a dialogue with people when tendering for the services that are going to affect them. Too often, it is either all about the money or it is about a superficial judgment of what people might like. You actually have to talk to people.
Sam Younger, just before he left the Charity Commission, said:
“There is too much duplication in the charity sector and too many charities are inefficient and poorly managed. Too many people set up a new charity without establishing whether there is a genuine need or whether another charity is doing similar work … the result is duplication and inefficiency … especially in an environment where charities are competing for resources”.
That is the dilemma. When you look at it like that, from a strategic point of view, what he says makes absolute sense: there is not enough money to go around so duplication is a luxury that we cannot afford. However, if you look at it from the bottom up, from the point of view of individuals, there are many examples of where, collectively, the private, public and even voluntary sectors are simply failing to meet their needs. When that happens, the obvious response is to set up a new charity. That is why something like 2,500 new charities are being set up every year.
As I said at the beginning, the picture is complex and in many ways is getting more so. However, and I think that we would all agree with this, everywhere across the country we see volunteers, charities and community groups of all sizes taking an active role in addressing the problems of their area, building communities and campaigning for change. They are building a stronger civil society and a new social economy, and we should do everything that we can to help them.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market for bringing to the House a debate of such significance. Its subject touches all our lives and communities. Imagine Britain without scouts and guides, youth clubs or sports clubs. Imagine our schools with no governors, our legal system without the magistracy and our coastline unpatrolled by the brave men and women of the RNLI. Britain without volunteers is not Britain.
When I started the bid for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2003, we knew that we had to get 70,000 volunteers to make our Games not just good but great. That number terrified many people: could we get them, could we get the quality and would they stick with us through the journey? Many of us knew, though, that there would be no difficulty. In fact, we would be heavily oversubscribed time and again. We had more than 250,000 applications, all from potentially great volunteers. We set up centres around the country to ensure that we would get the very best of the best. We thought, “Let’s not call them volunteers; let’s really emphasise the role that these people play”, so we came up with “Games makers”. These people would be the beating heart, the smiling face and the lifeblood of London 2012, and what a fantastic group of people we got together. If you came to the Games and wanted directions, wanted your ticket checked or wanted to know where to get food or how to find your seat, most likely it was a smiling, committed, trained, happy volunteer who gave you that information. They were what made London 2012 what it was, and they were mentioned by the media, the broadcasters and everyone who touched, experienced or witnessed 2012. It was all about the Games makers. Many people planned their retirement to start with a role as a Games maker. What a brilliant way to begin that next chapter of someone’s life, and how fantastic to have the Olympic and Paralympic Games as the first part of your retirement, that next stage of your career into the future. Many of them still cherish those shirts, those trainers and the lanyard. They became a very close family and showed Britain at its very best.
I should like to mention a charity that I am involved with. I am privileged to be one of the ambassadors of the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, a charity established to mark Her Majesty’s 60 years on the throne and effectively to raise £100 million to spend across the Commonwealth to make a massive step towards eradicating avoidable blindness and to put into youth projects across the Commonwealth. Tens of millions of people across the Commonwealth are blind but 80% of that blindness is avoidable. The Diamond Jubilee Trust, under the excellent leadership of Sir John Major, is aiming over the next five years to make a massive impact on helping to make avoidable blindness a thing of the past.
Similarly, we are investing in youth programmes across the Commonwealth. A big scheme is going to be launched in two weeks’ time as so many people across the Commonwealth—some 60%—are under the age of 30. This heightens all the issues around education, employment and social inclusion, particularly in some of the African nations. We are looking to make a massive impact to ensure that the future for all those young people is brighter than it otherwise might be had we not got involved.
As set out in the register, I am also a trustee of the Nick Webber Trust in Malawi—a trust we established after a friend of mine was killed while in Malawi doing pro bono work. I started at my law firm on the same day as Nick. We set up a trust to get involved in legal aid and education. It really demonstrates what can be done with few resources but massive commitment from volunteers. We established the first law library in Malawi. We educate street kids who otherwise would have no education. We were asked whether we could build a new school. Again, initially this terrified us until we realised that the costs were relatively tiny compared with what they might be in this country. It is the effort and the commitment of the trustees and volunteers that has made so much possible in that country. That is the crucial point. Charitable giving, charitable work and volunteering should not, in any sense, be seen as purely altruistic or a one-way street. It is mutually enriching.
In conclusion, I cannot think of a better place to end than with the words of Mahatma Gandhi—we find ourselves when we lose ourselves in the service of others.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for giving us the opportunity to debate a subject so close to the hearts of many of us. I have worked most of my life either in or closely with the voluntary sector, and my interests are declared in the register. I also chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Civil Society and Volunteering. As the noble Baroness has reminded us, the sector plays, and has always played, an extraordinarily important role in our society and that role has never been more important than now.
I want to focus on two aspects of that role, but first I want to remind the House that, when we speak of the voluntary sector, we often focus on the larger organisations—those that have a high public profile, are in receipt of government or local authority grants and provide services under contract or are funded by public donation. With these, we often have the debate about what constitutes a voluntary organisation. Should they always be distinct from, and additional to, what the state provides? My experience as a lottery distributor reminded me how very difficult it is to decide in these times what is actually additional to state funding, and the noble Baroness has reminded us about those blurred lines. The vast majority of charities do not recognise themselves as part of any sector. They are very tiny. They are run off a kitchen table—or in my local village hall—by dedicated volunteers who spend time and their own money for the good of their community and their fellow citizens.
The two aspects on which I want to concentrate my remarks are the role of the voluntary sector in preventive work and in campaigning. Much lip-service is paid to preventive work in many quarters, emphasising the importance of putting in help and support to those in need before their situation reaches crisis point. An example would be a friendship circle or community lunch facility to give the carers of an elderly person who is becoming frail a break, or a coffee morning for those with mental health problems. In each case, such events provide social opportunities, but they also give professionals a chance to see people with potential need, to check that they are taking their medication, to check that they are not going downhill and to ensure that they are making social contacts. In these days, when most local authorities are providing services only to those with substantial or even critical needs, these services are frequently provided by the voluntary sector at very local level.
These services are invaluable, but they are increasingly under threat, especially when contracts are being negotiated. It is difficult to prove their effectiveness, precisely because they delay greater need. When you are filling in all those forms which demand an exposition of proved outcomes, it is hard to be explicit. Customer surveys will show the effectiveness: “That lunch club was my lifeline”, says a user with mental health problems. However, that may not be enough for the commissioners, who are intent on this year’s budget rather than something which may—indeed, will—save money five years down the line. Yet if we do not give priority to these services, as well as funding the innovative services at which the sector so excels, we risk building up greater need for the future.
Turning to the campaigning role of the sector, I take the view that that is one of the most important, but I would say that—would I not?—as I had the privilege of leading the carers movement for some years as chief executive of Carers UK. I think that I can lay claim to the success of that campaigning, since no one had even heard of the word “carer” when we started, and now the 6 million people who provide most health and social care are recognised and acknowledged. Indeed, under the recent Care Bill, they were given rights to which we would not have dared to aspire in those early days of campaigning.
I know from my experience and that of others that campaigning activities not only bring about change but enable citizens to participate in the democratic process. As the briefing from the Quakers reminds us, there are many people who feel disengaged from party politics but who wish to engage in single-issue campaigns. The voluntary sector provides them with a way to be involved in political decisions, be that at local or national level. It is through the voluntary sector that politicians explore and understand key issues for citizens. That is also how many people become more engaged in their local communities.
Obviously, voluntary organisations also have a role in telling the rest of society about what they find with this campaigning work. It is often the case that the organisation seeking to end poverty is the organisation best placed to explain the intricacies of how poverty is caused. Indeed, in much of my experience of working as a campaigner, I have been tremendously aware that not only do people feel passionate about issues, but that the most important role of a campaigning voluntary organisation is to enable those voices to be heard, providing a means, for example, for the carers themselves to speak up and speak out about their needs. That has always been the most effective way of bringing about change.
Indeed, a very recent example of that happened during the passage of the Care Bill, where we changed the Government’s mind about particular issues. How did we bring about that change? By getting the users themselves—the young carers or parent carers—to speak directly to Ministers and to convince them and the Government of what their needs were. I give credit to the government Ministers who were willing to listen and to make changes as a result of that activity. I hope that we will always remember how significant the campaigning work of the voluntary sector is. That is important now and I hope that it always will be, and it behoves us all to remember that and not to try to restrict in any way the campaigning role of the voluntary and charitable sector.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market on securing this debate on such a wide-ranging subject, which offers many opportunities. I declare an interest as a trustee of two charitable organisations: Pennine Heritage and X-PERT Health.
However, I want to talk about a specific charitable endeavour that supports the voluntary sector, and that is the community foundation movement. What is a community foundation? In my view, it is an all-purpose charity, growing by endowment and spending its income but retaining its asset base, unless its income is enhanced by flow-through money that has been given specifically to that organisation to spend.
Let me share with noble Lords my experience. A mere 32 years ago, I served as mayor of Calderdale, based in Halifax and the Calder Valley towns, from 1982-83 onwards. I decided to start an all-purpose fund for my mayoral charity, but I did not do too well at it; with 600 other engagements as mayor it was difficult to get going. On standing down the first time as a councillor in 1990, I decided to do the job properly. Particularly during that period as mayor, I had seen the need for an independent source of money to support the voluntary sector in that community. In 1990, I felt that the important thing was to get a very sound trust board together and I put a lot of effort into getting a sound board in which people could have confidence. We managed to launch that in 1992. It was a huge task. I was able to pass that job on in 1999 and I am now a life vice-president. Happily, it is proceeding competently under different hands. I am delighted to say that, from nothing, there are now resources—endowed funds—of about £8 million and a grant spend of £800,000 a year. That is higher than one would expect because of flow-through moneys.
I did not know it at the time, but the first community foundation in the United Kingdom was founded in Swindon in 1975. By the time I was getting involved in launching in Calderdale, in the 1990-92 period, there were perhaps 10 or a dozen community foundations. Now there are 49, covering much of the UK. Those 49 now have an asset base of £350 million and the latest figures show that between them they have annual grant making of £50 million a year. It is interesting that now in 2014 we are celebrating the centenary of the movement, which was started in America in 1914 in Cleveland, Ohio. There are now 1,700 community foundations worldwide.
What, then, are the important features of a community foundation? Clearly, one is the specific geographical area. The foundations are dependent on donors. Of course donors can and do give for general purposes in their community, or they can highlight specific areas of work, such as the elimination of poverty, sport-related work or work on the environment. They may even have ideas of a restricted locality within their community or age restrictions. Indeed, donors may put on a temporary restriction in their lifetime and leave it to the trustees to decide how the income of their gift is dealt with when they are dead and buried.
A community foundation has the opportunity and ability to subsume other charities where trustees have had enough, got fed up or do not find that there is a cause anymore; they are able to hand over their money to that community foundation. Over the years, a community foundation gains expertise in grant making in that specific community.
Incidentally, I have been amazed at how many letters and sheets I have had suggesting what I might say for this take note debate. I am responding to one of those now. There are people who find administration, investment and regulation a difficulty. The community foundation can cover that, so if someone has some money but does not want all that administration investment regulation, they should hand it over to a community foundation, which can look after it. As I indicated earlier, a community foundation can act as a wonderful agent for flow-through moneys, whether that is through national government, regional bodies or whatever.
In my view, community foundations give a great opportunity for localism, community leadership and enhancing community life. I commend them and their enhancement.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness and her party for securing this debate. We talk in a context in which certainly many of the charities and voluntary and faith groups that I am involved with are in crisis, with rising demand and costs and reduced funding. That context is the ending of the welfare state. I remind the House that when the welfare state was conceived, Sidney and Beatrice Webb saw it as having three charity and voluntary work purposes: to meet basic needs, to bring people into association with each other, and to create partnership and participation. Of course, the welfare state became totally focused on meeting basic needs rather than on the richer political ecology of dignifying people, associating with them and bringing them into partnership. Many of us in the charitable and voluntary sector have got drawn into that game of meeting basic needs through projects.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that there has perhaps been a blurring of roles. I will look at that briefly, because it might open up some possibilities for government, the statutory sector and the voluntary and charitable sector. From my experience of working in the charitable and voluntary sector, one basic problem that has caused a blurring of roles is the relentless, remorseless enforcement of the business model, right across the board. Of course charities needed a business model—we can all find caricatures of charities that were a synonym for inefficiency and muddle. However, that model has been so relentless and monochrome that it has blurred the boundaries and undermined where the energies of the charitable and voluntary sector ought to be, because of all the compliance. I hope noble Lords will not misunderstand me; I am not saying that we do not need the standards of business, but that we need more space and flexibility than the model allows us to have.
It is the same in this new post-welfare state world. In the voluntary and charitable sector we try to work with the statutory sector, for instance. That sector came out of a tradition of public service, where you treat people as citizens and neighbours. However, the people I try to work with are obsessed with targets and delivery of plans, and, again, they lack the spaciousness and flexibility to deal with what is on the ground because they are trapped in a very narrow business model. That makes it difficult for us to create the synergy and partnerships that a post-welfare state needs. We ourselves—the charitable and voluntary sector—have bought into that, and have run our projects and got our grants on the back of the welfare state, operating in that way as efficient businesses.
I remind noble Lords of what the charitable and voluntary sector can bring, which needs a certain freedom, allowing for basic business efficiency. I have the privilege of being a trustee of Christian Aid. Following the Webbs, we meet basic needs with local intelligence, because we are alongside people on the ground. We dignify people as people, not as clients or customers, and draw them into partnership and participation. However, the great thing about the faith is a faith in people that is not limited by economic efficiency. There is a desire to take risks for the sake of people beyond the economically efficient.
We do not look just to our neighbours but to strangers. We are not just interested in economic viability but in what is morally right. That is where the energy of the charity sector comes from, and why there is that great British tradition we have heard of—not because it is economically efficient but because it is morally right. When 150,000 of us from Christian Aid knock on doors over one week each year, we do not present people with a business plan to sign up to. We open their hearts and hopes for a better world and a better partnership with those who are less well off. We need space and permission to deliver that, and not to be crushed by compliance to a foreign model.
During the winter the cathedral in Derby, where I work, has had to give a lot of time and energy to making our space available for homeless people to sleep in the building overnight. That is not very economically efficient, or easy for us to manage. But people on the streets who are homeless are in desperate need, and we have to find a way of doing it.
I have been involved in the work on the Modern Slavery Bill, and I have come across an amazing Roman Catholic organisation called Rahab, which works here in Westminster and in Kensington, where there is the largest off-street sex market in the country. The Roman Catholic sisters provide care, support, hope and partnership with the most vulnerable. They work in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and with the EU, where they get funding—and they bring something unique and precious that those agencies cannot provide. The statutory authority and the police cannot provide it, and neither can the EU. We need that kind of partnership.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is on the Front Bench, because he and I often debate such issues, and he has a sure touch for understanding where people like me are coming from. I ask him: what is the role of government, of course, in ensuring good practice and business standards, but also in trying to give the voluntary and charitable sector the freedom and flexibility to make our particular contributions? That is the germ of a new political ecology, a new inclusivity, a new appeal to hearts and hopes as well as to economic efficiency, and a new localism that people will buy into. I think that that is in the Government’s interests, and I would love the Minister to advise us how they can encourage that, and bless it in some way.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Scott for this debate, which is timely in so many ways. First, there is the nationwide remembrance of the world-shattering events of a century ago. When, on 4 August 1914, Britain declared war on Germany, the Army consisted of 730,000 men, many of whom were territorials. Three days later Kitchener urged all men between 19 and 30 to enlist. Shortly thereafter he promised that volunteers would be able to serve alongside their friends. Childhood friends, football teams and workmates responded to this call. In one week 1,600 City workers joined the Stockbrokers Battalion and 1,500 Liverpudlians joined the King’s Regiment. Within a month 50 new pals battalions were in training. Those men were all volunteers. Conscription for single men aged 18 to 41 was not introduced until March 1916.
It was not just men who volunteered. Those left behind—women, children and men who did not meet the criteria—had to make enormous contributions. There was no National Health Service, no social welfare organisation and no state financial aid. The wounded came home to be looked after by family, friends and neighbours. Today, hundreds of young people give service as cadets, while other individuals join the TA, giving valuable assistance to regular and armed service forces—and it is people and personal commitment that I want to touch on today.
State aid does not replace everything that volunteers can do in all aspects of living. As my noble friend said, the charitable sector includes over 160,000 registered charities, employs around 1 million people and has a turnover of some £38 billion each year. Some 42% of those charities have an income of less than £10,000, and only 25% have an annual income of more than £100,000. Today I do not intend to talk about the larger charities, but I do take the opportunity to register my concern about the six-figure sums that some are paying their chief executives.
I wish to focus on two Leicester charities, and here I should declare my interest as president of Young Leicestershire and as a canon of Leicester Cathedral, among other interests I have declared on the register. Young Leicestershire is an organisation that works with young people and youth groups. It has a lively website which is easy to access with lots of information about joining the clubs and good articles with news of events it is organising. Articles are posted, such as, “What my youth club means to me”, “What we do and why we do it” and “A helping hand”. As one volunteer who does tuck shop duties said, “I like working as a volunteer as it gives me the chance to train in youth work and gain experience. My children love it, too, as we can do it as a family”—her words, not mine.
Hundreds of individuals give freely of their time and energy. Without volunteers, clubs could not keep going. But life has become more complicated, as the right reverend Prelate has just touched on, when helping and encouraging youngsters. Today volunteers often have forms to complete, CRB checks to be taken and training to be given. I hope that in raising standards, the requirement of greater accountability—necessary though it is—does not put people off becoming involved in the first place. While volunteering in Leicestershire has grown with the clubs over many years, Leicester Cathedral faces an enormous problem that many places would be glad to have. The normal annual visitor headcount has been around 30,000 a year and the cathedral has been very grateful for the warm welcome and dedication given by its present volunteers. However, after a certain discovery in a city car park, our visitor numbers rose to 150,000 last year. It considers that the reburial of Richard III within the cathedral will see a further rise in visitor numbers, and more help is needed.
Leicester Cathedral is dedicated to the effective use of volunteers for the promotion of its mission as an Anglican cathedral and for the benefit of the volunteers themselves. Much thought has been given to the best way to attract greater numbers of volunteers. The cathedral needs more welcomers and guides. In its generic agreement it includes a description of what support a volunteer can expect from the cathedral—matters such as training, induction, safety, insurance cover and out-of-pocket expenses, to give just a few. Volunteers in our case have to be over 18 and have a DBS check, which is normal.
I have touched on only two organisations whose challenges are very different, but neither could operate without massive input from volunteers. I have not spoken about others involved in fundraising for charities who respond to special appeals, who work on committees or who give their time to supporting people within their homes and local communities. The traditional way of volunteering is alive and still busy, but the young access calls for help via the modern media, and more flexibility and thought should be given to ways of attracting the young.
Whether you are young at heart, or just young, volunteering is important today. It is not a one-way road. I believe that individual volunteering is most valuable as a foundation for friendship. Those who work together helping others are usually the first to help each other. Those who work to raise funds in all weathers, locations and neighbourhoods have crises to overcome and problems to surmount, and shared laughter carries them through difficult situations of their own. Today’s debate reflects this, and I am very grateful to my noble friend for making it possible.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate and I declare an interest. I work with two consultancies which work very substantially with charities and local authorities.
The key issue facing the Government, the private sector and the voluntary sector could be summarised as the need to ensure that there is economic growth that benefits all parts of society, that we have effective public services that are responsive to people’s needs and that we have strong, united, resilient communities. That is the task for all three sectors. The measure of any organisation that is doing its job is that it knows the unique difference that it makes and that it can prove the progress it is making towards its objectives. In the context of thinking about public services, I want to focus on the specific things that Government can do to help voluntary organisations and local authorities in the tasks they have ahead of them.
The first thing the Government need to do in their programme of work is recognise that the key role that charities can provide in public services is the prevention of problems that usually, at a subsequent stage, wind up at the door of statutory services. It is incredibly difficult to prove that one has prevented something from happening. Thanks to the work of people such as Norman Lamb and Paul Burstow, we are beginning to recognise the importance of that in the NHS and social care. The challenge for this Government and other Governments is to set out their own central policies and outcome targets for government services, which include prevention outcomes that can perhaps be delivered by central government or by state organisations, but perhaps more effectively by social enterprises and charities. When he comes to sum up, I wonder whether the Minister could talk about how central government might do that.
The second thing the Government should do is to highlight the issue of commissioning and procurement. The way in which public services are procured has a profound effect on communities. In many communities it is still the case that the public authority is one of the biggest employers and determinants of growth. It is therefore of extreme importance that commissioning of services is done in a way that is beneficial to the social, economic and environmental needs of the local community. I am sure the Minister will know that EU procurement rules are being changed to enable far greater concentration to be put on the social and economic value of services. Can he say what the Government are doing to ensure that all public authorities understand that they now have this new flexibility to get greater social value in their area? Can he undertake to ensure that all public authorities realise that the Public Services (Social Value) Act came into force in 2012? It could have a profound impact as it gives local authorities leeway to ensure that price is not the sole determinant of a contract. They can take into account other factors and in certain circumstances can favour local providers, charities and social enterprises. This is a politically important development and it has so far been woefully underestimated.
The next thing the Government should do is ensure that the current high level of trust of charities that exists in the minds of the general public is maintained. The Government can do that in two ways. First, they can ensure that the Charity Commission—the regulator of the sector—continues to be an effective organisation that enjoys the trust of the sector and the public. Can the Minister update us on the programme of digitisation of the Charity Commission, which I think was announced last year? Providing relevant and up-to-date data on what charities are doing is a key and fundamental part of that trust. Can the Minister also talk about enabling the whole sector, including small charities, to become digital by default? There is complicated legislation covering how charities ought to be accountable, but the greatest thing that could be done would be to require them to set up a simple website containing their governing documents, annual report and most recent set of accounts. If that was done, we would not need an army of staff at HMRC going over these accounts as any member of the public could tell what a charity was doing and whether it was living up to its ideals.
Charities remain one of the most transformative forces in society. The key role of a charity is to transform the world around it, both its community and the public authorities. I want to talk about just one campaign being run at the moment which I think is leading the way and having a tremendous effect. The Alzheimer’s Society’s Dementia Friendly Communities programme is revolutionising the way we deal with people who have one of the most difficult conditions with which to live. I will just say this to noble Lords. In a couple of weeks’ time, I hope that they, like me, will be watching the Grand Départ 2014 of the Tour de France as it leaves Leeds. It is going to be a dementia-friendly event with lots of people with dementia who, on what I hope will be a sunny day in Yorkshire, will be remembering the happy times they had as cyclists in their youth, surrounded by those who feel confident to have them there as part of their day. That is what charities can do when they have the will.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, my interest in charities and my work with Christian Aid, Save the Children and Care International are recorded in the register. I thank the noble Baroness for this opportunity, and I have learnt a lot from what she said about charities today. I would like to speak about one particular aspect of charitable campaigning which was highlighted by a recent attack on Greenpeace in India. It raises issues for us both here in the UK and in Europe.
The Intelligence Bureau in India is perhaps the world’s oldest intelligence agency. It comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs in Delhi, but it also reports directly to the Prime Minister, rather like our own intelligence agencies. On 3 June, it published a report accusing Greenpeace and NGOs in general of subverting India’s economic development through their campaigning activities. Activists from Greenpeace and other NGOs had, the report said, targeted nuclear power plants, uranium mines, coal-fired power plants, farm biotechnology, mega-industrial projects, hydroelectric plants and extractive industries. This had amounted to a negative impact on GDP growth in India of 2% to 3% per annum. The report identified seven sectors or projects that had been stalled because of NGO activity.
More than that, the bureau said that NGOs receiving foreign donations from countries like the USA, the UK and Germany were “anti-development” and were opposed to national projects such as Gujarat’s special investment regions, the Narmada River interlinking project and the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor project. And it gets worse. Foreign donors, says the report,
“lead local NGOs ... to build a record against India and serve as tools for the strategic foreign policy interests of the Western governments”.
Greenpeace and other NGOs have already denied this and say that they have complied with all the regulations. They maintain that they campaign quite legitimately on issues of public interest. The Narmada Dam was a major issue some years ago, as noble Lords may remember, but such campaigning by civil society is the sign of a healthy democracy. The NGOs argue that they are already scrutinised via the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010, which requires prior notification and reporting of all foreign donations. Over the years there have been assaults on NGOs in different states. I can remember one in West Bengal where foreign funding was banned altogether under the then Chief Minister. These are serious charges from the Intelligence Bureau. If Greenpeace is taken to court, there could be consequences not just for that organisation but for any international organisation that is linked with the indigenous NGOs. There has been a flurry of reaction among NGOs and academics and in the media, some in protest, but some admitting that not all NGOs are perfect. It might be time for the new Government to look again at the Act and tighten up its implementation.
Inevitably there will be some who see the Intelligence Bureau report as a manifestation of the incoming BJP Government’s policy under the new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Modi’s election campaign was bitterly opposed by groups representing ethnic and religious minorities who fear that they may become a target for Hindu politicians. However, this is unlikely since the gestation of the report dates far back into the time of the previous Congress Administration under the previous Prime Minister.
Much of the concern behind the foreign contribution Act was about foreign funding of private NGOs that support individual election candidates. This is a subject that we have recently discussed at length here with regard to our own election spending thresholds. However, if the Modi Government come in behind their Intelligence Bureau, as a new broom among the NGOs, there could be a problem for other non-governmental development projects such as our own DfID has supported in the fields of environment, roads, water and sanitation, education and health, and poverty reduction. Admittedly DfID is winding down its programme in India, but the Intelligence Bureau could also turn its attention to the work of British NGOs engaged in legitimate partnerships with local campaigns on human rights issues such as the rights of Dalits and religious minorities, both of which could be regarded as foreign interference.
I am looking forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because like him, but on a more minor scale, I have some experience of local campaigns in India. I know for a fact that NGOs can and should sometimes fill a vacuum in the absence of government or any legal authority, or in any situation where government is inept or incapable of meeting humanitarian need. I sincerely hope that the work of NGOs, whether in India, Britain or anywhere else, will be stoutly defended, especially when they may be the only avenue of justice for a given community.
Perhaps the Government could help me to relieve these fears here and now, if their intelligence is good enough. Are the Government aware that India’s Intelligence Bureau is accusing Greenpeace and others of undermining India’s development? Does the Minister recognise that there could be consequences for international funding of development projects in India? What steps could the Government take to defend the interests of British and international NGOs such as Greenpeace, and will they reiterate their support for campaigning charities in general?
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the value of networks of NGOs. Among aid agencies, one example, Bond, now brings together about 400 overseas aid organisations which are able to respond rapidly to humanitarian disasters as well as to support smaller development agencies. As Bond says, effectively tackling global poverty and inequality requires complex solutions, and it is critical that there is a spectrum of organisations active in this sector. This richness and joint expertise worldwide should be celebrated.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I begin by adding my thanks to my noble friend for having given us the chance to debate this important topic. Some noble Lords will be aware that I was the official reviewer of the Charities Act 2006, which gave me the chance to see at first hand the fantastic work being done by the sector. I have no doubt about its value to our society.
I should like to underline two points that my noble friend made in her opening remarks. The first was on the dangers of the indiscriminate referral by jobcentres of individuals to charities. The reality is that too often it seems that the jobcentres are trying to fill a quota, with jobs being offered, and not thinking about what the charities need, important though charities can be in finding a way back to paid work. The second point she made was about tendering and contracting. I think she underestimated the risk-aversion among commissioners. Too often they are prepared to go to the large firms and not think about the more innovative small firms.
I want to focus my remarks on social investment. Noble Lords will be aware of the concept of social investment, whereby foundations and/or individuals do not give their money outright to a charitable endeavour but lend it or invest it, and they hope to get their capital back, maybe with a modest return. It has a very wide range of applications and obviously it is particularly relevant when considering proposals that contain an element of payment by results.
Social investment could be a game-changer in many ways; first, by encouraging big charities to use some of their investment assets. There is £126 billion-worth of investment assets among registered charities so a very small percentage of that diverted to this endeavour would be extraordinarily helpful. Secondly, and equally importantly, it gives wealthy individuals a chance to put something back, and we could easily see people who have an interest in a charity giving it not only money but effort, time and commitment and thereby improving its performance and work.
I hope the House will understand why I was very attracted to the possibility of developing the concept of social investment and why my report contained a number of recommendations as to how we might achieve it. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that the concept is in its early days so we need to be careful not to create too high expectations of what may be achieved. Importantly, the next stage is to facilitate social investment, not impose it.
However, facilitation will require a shift of approach by a number of bodies for which risk-aversion is the default option. These bodies include the accountancy profession, the actuarial profession, investment managers, charity advisers and the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority. It will also require an entirely different approach from HMRC, which today has refused to give a clearance in advance to social investment schemes. That means that a charity has to go through the whole procedure of creating and setting up the scheme before it knows whether or not it will get the charitable breaks it requires. My noble friend on the Front Bench could act as Dyno-Rod in trying to deal with this problem, if only to follow the example of the Internal Revenue Service in the States, which offers blueprints where charitable permissions have been given so there are examples that charities can follow when they start to create their schemes.
All this will depend on us creating the right overarching legal framework. My report made a number of suggestions as to how this could be achieved. I am extremely grateful to the Government for having accepted most of them and having passed them to the Law Commission for consideration. I am equally grateful to the Law Commission for having written an exceptionally clear and concise consultation paper on social investment. The consultation period closed last week, on 18 June.
So far, so good—but there is one fundamental problem that, if not addressed now, could undermine all this good work, and that is the knotty legal definition that lies at the intersection of public and private benefit. Noble Lords will have seen in the briefing papers from the Library that charities must always act for the benefit of the public. So how does the concept of social investment fit into this, since it offers a financial return to lenders or investors, albeit at a modest level?
The law currently gets round this by permitting a level of private benefit where this is “necessary and incidental”. However, in my review I came to the conclusion that the word “incidental” did not offer sufficient protection for social investment proposals and recommended that it should be replaced by “proportionate”. I regret to say that the Government rejected this proposal. I quite understand the dangers of changing long-hallowed legal terminology and the potential unintended consequences that may follow. But if my noble friend on the Front Bench asks his officials to pass him a copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, he will find that the definition of incidental is:
“Occurring as something casual or of secondary importance; not directly relevant to”.
I do not see how this possibly fits with social investment returns. They are certainly not casual, nor to the investor or lender are they necessarily of secondary importance, and they are certainly directly relevant to. By contrast, proportionate is defined as:
“That is in (due) proportion (to); appropriate”.
As part of its consultation on social investment, I draw the Law Commission’s attention to this problem, but I fear that it will conclude that it is outside its terms of reference. I am, therefore, asking my noble friend to commit to taking this issue away and giving it a thorough re-examination.
To conclude, I have explained that the social investment movement has the capacity radically to improve funding flows to charities. It would be a tragedy—and I mean a tragedy—if it were to be stillborn because of an unduly narrow legal interpretation of the word “incidental”. I am not alone in this: I am supported by Bates Wells Braithwaite. My noble friend Lord Phillips, who was a senior partner, has given me permission to quote from its report to the Law Commission. It states:
“We believe that re-modelling the private benefit test solely in the case of social investment so that the private benefits can be reasonable and proportionate will be essential for English and Welsh charities to engage in this type of catalytic investments ... we are strongly of the view that a reform as proposed by Lord Hodgson would make a radical difference to the likelihood of the social investment market developing positively in the UK”.
I hope that my noble friend can help.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, like a considerable number of Members of this House, I have been privileged to spend a great deal of my life within the voluntary sector. I have worked as a professional and a volunteer and as a trustee. I am still very much involved in the trustee role. With that experience, I know that there will be literally—and this is no exaggeration—thousands of people in this country who would be very happy to know that we are debating this issue. For that reason, I think we should warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for having given us the opportunity.
I have become convinced that an essential pillar of a healthy society is a vibrant civil society, of which the voluntary sector is a crucial part. What has impressed me repeatedly, and has impressed me more and more, is the quality of people involved in the voluntary sector. I keep saying that I find that professionals are in many senses volunteers because countless professionals are working without calculating for a moment the number of hours they are putting in and are doing things which are way beyond the demands of any formal contract.
The volunteers increasingly want to be professionals. They want their work to be effective. For that reason, the importance of good administration and effective structures within the sector are crucial. We must not, however, allow ourselves to get—if I may put it absolutely bluntly—into the mindset that somehow the success of a charity or voluntary organisation depends upon its demonstrable business effectiveness. It must be effective, but it is about far more than being a business. A business has the basic discipline of profitability. Voluntary societies are not primarily about profitability. As the right reverend Prelate has put it so well, they are about a complex inter-relationship with society in a host of different ways.
There are two points which I want to emphasise. The first is that I am very glad that progressively over the years, under successive Governments, there has been much more co-operation between the voluntary sector and Government. That is very important. I think the enlightenment of successive Governments in seeing the importance of this and supporting it and putting more resources into it is to be wholly welcomed. But there is a danger. Voluntary societies must be alert to the process of co-option. They are not, and should not, be part of the formal state structure. Unless they are to betray their birthright, they are about being a catalyst in society and a challenge in society, all the time. If they allow themselves, consciously or unconsciously, to become dominated by anxiety about whether a government contract is going to be continued so that the organisation can continue, and organising their affairs in such a way that they do not threaten or undermine that contract, they will have lost it. Of course, co-operation is essential, but it must be on the terms of the charities. They are there to be a challenge and a catalyst.
I do not think that I am oversimplifying in saying—it was particularly during my time as director of Oxfam that this thought began to crystallise very clearly with me—that advocacy is not something that charities do in addition to their voluntary work; I became convinced that advocacy was an essential and inherent part of the voluntary service.
Let me finish, as I like to do, with an anecdote. I was in Latin and central America when horrible things were happening there. It was a very ugly, sinister time. I was talking with a very courageous bishop in Mexico, the Bishop of Chiapas, who was always in trouble with the Government because he kept standing up for the poor. He was a wonderful bloke. I asked him whether he had a message for me to take back to my colleagues and friends in Britain. He said, “Yes, I have. First of all, you are inclined in voluntary agencies to talk about equality. How far are the people with whom you’re working really your equals, or how far are they the indispensable objects for your institutional needs?” I still wrestle with that problem frequently; it is a very real issue. Secondly, he said, “In these sorts of situations, you can’t be neutral. You have to identify”. Thirdly, he said, “For me, solidarity is the real meaning of charity. What do I mean by solidarity? Be it within the family, the community, the nation or internationally, it is identifying with the people whom you claim to be serving”. He was so right, because so often in political life we talk about the poor and the excluded, and we talk to them. But how often do we talk with them and for them? That is the crucial role of charities in our society. From this House, we should send out a message of encouragement and good cheer for all that they are doing.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and all speakers for making this such an interesting and informative debate. I declare my interest as chairman of the charity, Near Neighbours, and as an ambassador of the Angelus Foundation, which deals with legal highs.
I begin by quoting Sir Stuart Etherington of the NCVO, whose words strongly reflect some of those that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Sir Stuart wrote:
“A thriving and diverse civil society is a hallmark of effective democracy—where people can come together around the causes they care about and make a difference … an active … voluntary sector is a vital element of civil society”.
Since the 1960s, the number of charities has grown very steadily and, as we have heard, at least 2,500 organisations register every year. There are currently 2.5 voluntary organisations for every 1,000 people, or one voluntary organisation for every 395 people. When the statistics are expressed in that way, it really gives a sense of the enormity of the sector.
The New Philanthropy Capital report, Mind the Gap, which was published in March 2014, showed that over half of the respondents questioned about the role of charities felt that charities should be about helping communities. I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, refer to the UK Community Foundations, which does such enormous work. I was going to mention some of the aspects of its work which have already been covered. It is very heartening that the UK Community Foundations has shown a renewed interest in community philanthropy, and through its work it has enabled local philanthropy and giving to increase by some 15% per annum through the recession.
Charities and the voluntary sector are dealing with increasing demands and reduced resources, but of course this is natural in an economy which has not been growing at the rate at which it did in the past. Charity and voluntary sector organisations are increasingly in the mainstream as providers of services, which again is not new. This was also very much the case before 1997. There is also a change of focus from large, publicly funded charities to many much smaller, locally based ones. This is creating massive organisational change in the sector, which I believe to be only in its early stages, with a long way to go.
During my time in local government, I saw massive change in the culture associated with the voluntary sector. I well remember many battles with the local CVS, which felt at the time that its sole purpose was to be the voice of political opposition. The sector was generously funded by my council, by many millions of pounds. However, when there was any suggestion of the need for efficiency or measurement of outcomes, the sector felt that those certainly should not have to be any of its consideration. Fortunately, such views are a thing of the past, and the sector now works very closely and productively with both local and national government.
The introduction of the commissioning of services from the voluntary and charitable sector has brought a huge cultural change. I learnt an awful lot from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about social investment, which is particularly interesting. The schemes he discussed would be very positive for the voluntary sector. At the moment we are seeing an increasing shift, whereby charities which are asked to provide services are being required to prove the results before they receive payments. This can often create a conflict with the way that charities currently work. Many charities do not feel that a target-driven culture is always the most effective. While I do not agree with everything said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, I suggest that there is a need for more sophisticated methods of deciding what good impacts are, and how they should be funded.
Charitable organisations working in deprived areas often struggle to recruit staff or volunteers, due to a lack of capacity in their local area. This lack of skills, knowledge and confidence hinders the very good work that often goes on. Investment in capacity building can make a very big difference in helping communities stand on their own feet. Rates of formal volunteering are said to have peaked in 2005, when 44% of the population indicated that they had volunteered once in the past year. That had declined to 39% in 2010-11. However, the Community Life Survey in 2012-13 suggested a rebound in volunteering to 2005 levels.
Research from the Church Urban Fund shows that half of all users of community-based charitable services come through local churches of all types, which is approximately 10 million people per year, or about one-fifth of the population of England. Churches are locally focused and locally networked. They make an enormous contribution to the flourishing of our neighbourhoods up and down the country. They rarely receive the recognition that they deserve. In their social action, churches often work with very difficult issues.
Here I must mention the charity I referred to earlier, Near Neighbours, which I have the privilege of chairing. It has supported the establishment of more than 500 local projects, working to bring people together across ethnic and religious differences, at a very local level in some places. The key objectives of Near Neighbours are social interaction to develop positive relationships in multifaith areas and social action to encourage people of different faiths or no faith to come together through initiatives that improve their local neighbourhood. Much of the work involves young people from our most diverse and deprived areas. The Feast in Birmingham is one such group supported by Near Neighbours. The charity promotes positive relationships between Christian and Muslim young people. The Feast is empowering young people to become peacemakers and spearhead social change.
As we have heard, it is difficult for charities to keep up to date with frequently changing policies, such as non-recoverable VAT, and so on. There is much we can do to simplify the system; simplification would be good for all of us.
Charities and voluntary organisations increasingly co-operate with each other, and that is a good thing. We should all thank them and commend the valuable work that they do in all our communities.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Scott on securing this vital debate and declare an interest as president of the National Children’s Bureau, vice-president of Relate and chair of the Making Every Adult Matter coalition of charities.
I share the view of other noble Lords that we are very fortunate in this country to have such an active and vibrant civil society, whose reach extends into nearly all aspects of British life. We are also fortunate to live in a very generous country—the sixth most generous in the world, we are told—and rightly pride ourselves on the public-spiritedness of our citizens. The examples of Britons rallying behind a good cause are too numerous to count, but the tremendous success in fundraising for the Teenage Cancer Trust by the late Stephen Sutton—a young man who died so tragically young but provided such inspiration—speaks volumes about that generosity of spirit.
My focus today is less on what the charitable and voluntary sectors do than on how they do it and, more specifically, what needs to be done to ensure that they have the means to carry on their vital roles. I particularly draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to the recommendations of the Growing Giving parliamentary inquiry, whose report, Creating an Age of Giving, was published two weeks ago. The inquiry benefited hugely from the excellent chairmanship of David Blunkett. Along with Andrew Percy MP, I had the privilege to co-chair the inquiry.
The inquiry was established following the publication of research commissioned by the Charities Aid Foundation showing that fewer households are participating in regular charitable giving—just 27% in 2010 compared to 32% in 1978. It also found some marked changes in the demographics of giving. The share of donations coming from the under-30s fell from 8% in 1980 to just 3% in 2010, while contributions made by the over-75s rose from 9% of all donations to 21% over the same period. The implications were clear: charities are relying on donations from an increasingly narrow and ageing segment of the population.
Of course, the recent recession has not helped. Young people in particular have seen their disposable income reduced, which makes it increasingly difficult for them to donate. However, that is not the full story. Crucially, the platforms that allow people to contribute have not kept pace with changes in daily life. Although digital donating is progressing, continual reform is needed to unleash the potential of digital giving. It is those and other structural factors that the report sets out to tackle.
The central conclusion of the Growing Giving report is that action must be taken to diversify our so-called civic core—the 9% of the population who are currently responsible for two-thirds of all donating and volunteering. For one thing, it is just unsustainable. Just a fortnight ago, newspapers were reporting on the National Trust asking too much of ageing volunteers, a concern that must apply more widely, given that one in three members of the civic core are over the age of 65.
It is obvious that people have different capacities to give time and money at different stages of their lives. The stand-out feature from our evidence sessions, which I want to underline, was the palpable desire of people of all ages to give more of both their time and their money. Our focus was on practical ways of creating a culture of giving, embedding charitable activity into everyday life, from school to retirement.
It is clear that a commitment to social action is still thriving among our young people. Nearly three-quarters of 16 to 24 year-olds report that they have volunteered in the previous year, and almost 80% of young people agreed that they should give up some of their time to help others—hence the recommendation of our inquiry that UCAS forms should provide a section in which university and college applicants can detail their charity work, volunteering and commitment to social action. The report also had a raft of recommendations on how schools, colleges, universities and charities could better work together.
We can all sympathise with the pressure that people come under when they are trying to balance work with family life, and it is understandable that volunteering and other charitable activities can be some way down the list of priorities of working people struggling to make ends meet and bring up a family. However, it became clear to us that employers are not yet creating enough opportunities for employees to connect with charities in the workplace.
One of the most straightforward ways of giving at work is via payroll, but 45% of PAYE employees are still unable to give through their pay. Moreover, many companies that offer payroll giving are failing to make their employees aware of that. In some cases, even the HR department was unable to say whether the company provided payroll giving. Clearly, employers have a key role in raising the availability and visibility of payroll giving, but the report also urges the Treasury to look into the incentives in place for employers to provide matched employee giving schemes, which tend to be highly valued by employees. I was personally struck by the fact that simply mentioning the matching of donations has been found to increase response rates by 71% and average donations by more than a half.
Finally, I turn to the older generation. For many, retirement provides an opportunity to give time to charitable causes. However, according to the Royal Voluntary Service, nearly one in five pensioners want to do voluntary work but have not found the opportunity to do so. It is for that reason that our report calls for post-careers advice for the newly retired, a service along the lines of the financial advice that the Government are already planning to provide to people once they reach state retirement age.
My overall point is that a thriving charitable and voluntary sector does not emerge spontaneously or sustain itself indefinitely. As I said at the start of my remarks, as a nation, we already have the social conscience and enthusiasm for giving; what is sometimes lacking is the practical mechanisms that allow us to do that on a regular basis, irrespective of our age or circumstances. The recommendations made in the report of the Growing Giving parliamentary inquiry are practical steps that have the potential to make a real difference. I therefore urge the Government to consider the report’s recommendations carefully and ask my noble friend in his summing up to indicate when we might expect to hear the Government’s response.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my charitable interests as set out in the register, and also draw attention to the fact that I am not the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who has kindly agreed to exchange our speaking slots so that I am free to take up my Woolsack duties later.
We should all acknowledge and celebrate the long-standing and unique contribution which the voluntary and charitable sector has made in this country. We would be incalculably poorer without it. However, debates such as this—and I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for having secured it—provide us with an opportunity to go beyond gratitude and celebration and think about how the sector might be enabled to play an even greater and more significant part in our society in the future.
At their best, the voluntary and charitable organisations that I know have three qualities, which are even more valuable today than they have ever been before: first, they are trusted, and often very much more trusted than the statutory sector; secondly, they are innovative, at a time when we need innovation and new ideas more than ever; and, thirdly, they can help release the potential of individuals in our communities, a potential which exists and which we need but which so often can go unrealised. However, I believe that the role they play could be even further enhanced and their impact increased if the Government, the Civil Service and other parts of the statutory sector, which hold the real power and resource, worked harder to capitalise on those strengths.
The sector, for example, is still, in my view, too rarely involved early enough in the development of new policy and is still too often seen as a delivery vehicle, and one which can receive less resource than equivalent public sector agencies to do the same work. There is still too little evidence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, of social value commissioning, whereby commissioners take wider social benefits into account when making decisions about contracts. The statutory sector can still be slow to engage in genuine local partnerships to provide services for public good, as if somehow fearing a loss of hegemony. If the priority is to deliver quality, client-centred services with less resource, as I believe it is and should be, then we all need to be less concerned about protecting our power base and more concerned about sharing power for the benefit of clients.
If we say that the voluntary sector is a true partner then, at a very basic level, it would be good if we consulted the sector at an earlier stage when considering legislation or secondary legislation. I sit on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and it is a concern of ours that government departments are not good enough at the moment at consulting those who really understand the issues.
Where might the voluntary sector therefore focus its efforts in the future? The answer, of course, is that the sector has proved very adept at identifying gaps in services in the past and I am sure that it will in the future. We should be careful not to be too directive, but I offer four thoughts for the future, none of which is particularly original.
First, I think that the sector could play a more significant part in regulating, inspecting and holding to account statutory services. I applaud the way in which the Care Quality Commission intends to involve what it calls “experts by experience” in its inspections. I say this because the danger is that regulation has become too introspective, too process driven and, most of all, too dominated by bureaucrats. The way we regulate and inspect our public services should put clients to the fore and I believe that our voluntary sector can help to ensure that that happens.
The second issue—I am certainly not the first and I will not be the last to say this—is that the sector needs to be adequately resourced to offer independent, reliable advice and information to ensure that the public can make the right decisions in the face of major changes to our benefits system, our pensions system and legal aid. I guess that I really need to declare an interest in that my wife runs Citizens Advice, as some noble Lords will know. Many vulnerable people find it increasingly difficult to understand and therefore to access services to which they are entitled. The legislation and secondary legislation is extremely complex and the forms, frankly, are often beyond me.
Thirdly, I would like to see the sector play a crucial role—it does; it could do more—in developing local communities so that they build the capacity to offer support to those who are suffering, for example, mental health breakdowns, relationship breakdowns, dementia and loneliness. We have become a society which is too dependent, in my view, on the state. I believe that we should be building the partnerships I referred to in order to ensure that communities themselves play a part in self-support.
Finally, the sector can provide alternatives to failing public services, with judicious investment. Of course, it is not a faultless sector. Others have referred to this. Some voluntary organisations could collaborate more effectively to use their scarce resources. Some, frankly, have come to the point where they have outlived their natural life. It is not a perfect sector, but the overwhelming majority of voluntary sector organisations are jewels in our crown and we just need to help them to shine a bit more brightly.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, what a difference 2,000 years can make, from when Jesus Christ enjoined the charitable not to let their left hand know what their right hand was up to in the matter of charity, to the contemporary world, where, in the West at least, charities and the voluntary sector are an integral, very public and almost institutionalised part of how we choose to live now. I shall concentrate both on the good that the charity and voluntary sector does and on the less than good that parts of it do. For, increasingly, once threats from poverty and violence are diminished in the most disadvantaged countries in the world, the way we live in the West, with the voluntary sector enhanced and enhallowed in the way we go on, is exactly the way they want to organise their lives as well, as soon as possible, developing civil society as they achieve peace, security and recovery.
Our Prime Minister and others on the United Nations high-level panel face what to do next in respect of developing post 2015 the millennium development goals, to which so many charities and voluntary organisations give so much. He, and we, can look for advice from many bodies. I shall concentrate on one; the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, which I warmly support. CAFOD, as it is known, is of high reputation; it is a member of Caritas International, a global network of more than 160 organisations working to enhance international development—for example, by educating many people in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as by helping in times and places of extreme need, as the organisation is doing this very day in South Sudan.
My take on CAFOD—not what it tells me, but my understanding as an outsider—is that it does this in a highly cost-effective, low cost-to-income ratio way, with none of the six-figure salaries for CEOs that some charities these days seem to permit or bestow. CAFOD, as a co-chair of the Beyond2015 coalition, will, I am sure, give most practical advice on what to do next, building on one of the central tenets of Roman Catholic social teaching, which is always and everywhere to be involved in partnerships and always and everywhere to promote subsidiarity; doing things that can be done closest to the people who wish them to be done and who will co-operate with organisations. This is because churches, all-faith groups and groups who have no faith at all are often best placed to reach the poorest in countries where civil society, government structures or social care are weak. The voices of people in this situation should inform the United Nations in its next steps, as research on individuals in need and listening to their voices in a report recently produced by CAFOD so clearly demonstrates.
This issue involves all-faith groups. Interfaith work is so important, as the recent trip to and work in the Central African Republic aimed at promoting peace and stability there shows. This involved the organisations Islamic Relief, Muslim Aid and the Muslim Charities Forum, and CAFOD worked with them. Such good work is something to applaud, but such manifest good is, indeed, unusual and, alas, not always universal. This theme brings me, with regret, to some less than good examples of charities and voluntary activities which can damage not only their reputation but the sector generally. Here I switch from developing countries to the United Kingdom.
My little list would include the following. First, there are those salaries for a few charitable and voluntary sector CEOs, which to some seem very high. Secondly, there are allegations of extravagance and excessive use of expenses in the charitable sector, as with the current furore over a senior Greenpeace executive regularly commuting by air over distances such as 250 miles, with the unfortunate subsequent reports of Greenpeace volunteers concerned about this, about expenses and about waste cancelling their own Greenpeace donations. Thirdly, too many organisations are tipping their campaigning activities over the edge from campaigning about poverty, say, into the politics of poverty pure and simple. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Judd: one of the central roles for charitable and voluntary organisations is advocacy, but there is a clear difference between advocacy and campaigning.
Fourthly and lastly, some charities employ or incentivise, through a commission-on-money-raised basis, street workers in groups badged as charity workers stopping the general public. These are not the real volunteers that we know on poppy days and flag days. A lot of people do not like this, all the more so because such people in what I think of as the “stop and raise” trade are vigorous—trending abrasive—in their style towards collecting in the street. I think that they could learn from the average charming and smiling Big Issue sellers that we pass on the streets outside. In any event, a talented young full-time charity worker was telling me last night that not only does her own organisation refuse to use such people because of these reputational issues but such street workers do not promote the sustainable repeated long-term giving that is in the interests of charities themselves.
My noble friend Lady Needham—I beg her pardon; Needham Market has one of my favourite churches with its magnificent roof, and I often visit it when I am there. My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market told us that there are some 2,500 new charities a year. When there are so many new charities, there is always the risk of wrongdoing, corruption and things going wrong; we must not deny that. If the Charity Commission needs extra powers to investigate, it should be given them. I strongly support the Charity Commission chairman, William Shawcross, in what he does to root out the dodgy, reinforced as he will be from next Monday, 30 June, by the commission’s brand new CEO Paula Sussex, with her impressive record.
The charitable world must realise that it is going to become more and more the focus of examination and demands for transparency, and rightly so in the interests of the poor and others in need of help. I also sometimes think that the voices of those in the charitable world about their own could and should be louder when things go wrong.
Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this debate. It is important to recognise the work done by these organisations. Work nowadays is more important than ever. Everyone knows that we have an ageing population. Often there are older people who are alone and isolated, and they need help. The excellent volunteers provide that necessary assistance. Not only that, the organisations and their volunteers bring to the attention of the Government issues affecting older and disabled people—things that they feel need to be put right.
A recent case concerns the change from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. Many disabled people are confused and worried about this change and the reassessment that is apparently required. The volunteers are there to help and reassure people who are troubled. Counsel and Care reports that it is receiving many requests for help from vulnerable people on those matters.
I myself have had reason to be grateful for the assistance provided, in particular by the Alzheimer’s Society. My sister has recently been diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. She is a retired teacher, a widow living by herself. The organisations have been so helpful, arranging for her to be seen regularly, checking that she does not feel alone and isolated and arranging for her to be taken out and to lead a fairly reasonable and civilised sort of life, despite her illness. I am very grateful to the Government for their recent statement to the effect that they understand that dementia sufferers have to have more support. I believe that they have reached that decision as a result of the excellent campaign run by the Alzheimer’s Society, which in fact is having a meeting in this building next Monday as part of its continuing campaign.
There are also voluntary organisations that do very good work for individual members, but their value is rarely acknowledged. I am referring to trade unions, which between them have 6 million members. A lot of the work is done by volunteers. Of course unions have the obligation to represent their members’ best interests but they also provide a range of individual benefits to members. In an era when employment rights have been disappearing as a result of government policies, it is necessary that legal assistance should be provided to individuals, and this is what many unions do. Under current legislation, such assistance is not available for employment issues as a result of the introduction of what we now know as LASPO, but unions provide that assistance to their individual members. They are involved in training and education, providing support to those who may have missed out earlier in training and educational chances. Ruskin College, Oxford, supported by the unions, has provided higher education to many, including some parliamentarians. The Government should be more willing than they appear to be to consult the unions. This happens in Germany, to the great benefit of productivity and industrial progress generally.
I have referred mainly to issues concerning older people and disability, which I know something about, but I have also been involved in the past with a number of excellent organisations concerned with children. For a number of years I was a trustee of Save the Children, an organisation that does magnificent work, particularly in Africa, for families living in terrible poverty. I am very proud of the work that I have been involved with in that respect and I am sure that many of us are aware of some of the work that that charity has done.
I thank my noble friend again for introducing the debate. It has revealed a fair amount of knowledge and experience on the part of Members of this House. I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to what we have all been saying as we continue to press for these organisations, which we all support, to receive the respect that we think they deserve.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for calling this debate and for her excellent opening speech. I associate myself with everything that has been said about the variety of charities and the wonderful work that they do.
I shall concentrate on a single point in what I hope will be a brief contribution. I want to issue an invitation in the interests of clarity and understanding. I preface this invitation with two points. First, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Policy Exchange think tank, my involvement with other charities as in the register of interests and my history of working with charities and as a patron and trustee of them. My experience has made me fully aware of the scope and limits of political activity under charity law.
Secondly, I recently interviewed the author Anne Applebaum about her excellent book The Iron Curtain, and she explained that in the first months after the Second World War the Soviet-backed communists allowed some political liberty but made sure to control the institutions of civil society. They recognised these bodies as the most important guarantors of freedom and the strongest challengers to the hegemony of the state. The lesson taught, of course, is that we must jealously protect the political rights of the voluntary sector, but it is also that it is disproportionate to respond to every discussion of the regulation of charities and voluntary sector campaigning as if it involved the imposition of east European-style dictatorship, as I fear is sometimes the case.
This brings me to my invitation. When I joined this House, a measure was being considered that limited the expenditure of voluntary bodies on election campaigns. This modest proposal brings all campaigners in line, at least to a limited extent, with the restrictions on candidates themselves. It prevents someone setting up the Schmonservative Association and spending whatever they want defeating a Labour MP. Instantly this was called a “gagging clause” even though broadly the same provision for a political party was called “a sensible limit on election spending”. The provision has continued to be referred to in this way. I wish to demonstrate my respect for the concerns of voluntary organisations by attempting to establish how much truth there actually is in the gagging allegation, which would certainly be serious if proven. Since lots of public affairs people associated with the voluntary and charitable sector will be watching this debate, I invite any of them and any other charity or voluntary body which believes it is gagged because of the new law to write to me. To be clear, I want them to do so if in this election year they have specifically been prevented from an action that they can carefully describe—I am looking for actual and not hypothetical examples—as being gagged. I wish to establish whether any such gagging ever takes place, whether indeed the action being prevented is against the law, which I believe it rarely will be, and whether those few against the law are simply reasonable spending limits or unreasonable limits on free speech. I look forward to hearing over the coming months—or possibly not hearing—and I will let noble Lords know the outcome.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein. I had the privilege of joining your Lordships’ House in the same intake as the noble Lord. His three-minute maiden speech was one of the best I have heard—in fact, it was the best I heard from that intake—and his contribution today was equally thought provoking.
I, like other noble Lords, congratulate my noble friend Lady Scott for very ably and very clearly outlining the breadth of this sector. She gave us examples of how charitable and voluntary endeavour enhances and saves lives, of how the economy has improved and of the impact from just doing someone a simple favour—or microvolunteering, as perhaps we are now supposed to call it. Other noble Lords have referred to charity legislation and the need for reform, or how the sector as a campaigning force has made an impact on the economy, on health and on social policy. My noble friend Lady Barker outlined brilliantly the much better legislative framework now being put in place and the opportunities that, if used correctly and properly, that can bring overall to society. You cannot play a role in public life, even a limited one as I have, without bearing witness to this opportunity.
I declare my interests as a director of a charitable theatre, the Eastgate Theatre and Arts Centre in Peebles, which adds great benefit to the creative and cultural life of Tweeddale. It is interesting that not too much has been raised in this debate about the creative and cultural sector, yet the volunteers and charities in those areas make a profound impact. I am patron of the Borders Carers Centre and, among many other activities, I am a guiding ambassador in Scotland. I was rather confused as to why I would be a guiding ambassador, given my lack of experience as a Brownie or a Guide, but nevertheless I recognise, as others have, the huge breadth that this sector provides.
However, I want to address a different part of the role played by volunteering, perhaps different from what other noble Lords have raised in today’s debate. I have not the eloquence to do it justice, but in essence I want to speak about something that is very special to me and others who have the great fortune of having an affinity with the borderland area, with those jewels of the crown in the hilly land of the Borders that inspired Scott, Wordsworth, Turner and Buchan. This summer, these jewels will be shining—the towns and communities of West Linton, Peebles, Innerleithen, Galashiels, Selkirk, Melrose and Lauder, all of which I had the privilege to represent. All follow the silvery thread of the Tweed and then up to the ancient and royal burgh of Lauderdale. Those towns have profoundly strong communities, forged through many hundreds of years through the border wars. Noble Lords who are aware of the common ridings can imagine those hundreds of riders crossing the Tweed, during those years of conflict, on the way to police their town boundary or imagine witnessing the 350 mounted horse men and women galloping up the common land of Lauder to make sure the burgh flag was returned unsullied and untarnished and peace was secured.
Now, these are not the ghosts of the past. The riders will bear witness today, this summer, in the festivals of the common ridings, which are Europe’s largest equestrian events, organised and funded not by the Government, the tourist board or the council but by local volunteers. With the utmost professionalism, young men and women will represent their communities and their towns, working with members of the community up to the most senior in age. With the highest professionalism, they will represent not only the community but also the life of the towns that they will celebrate—celebrating place, comradeship and identity.
On Saturday I will be proudly wearing this tie, which is of shepherd’s check, which was the very first tartan in Scotland—when you see some of these fake, made-up ones from Victorian times, they mean nothing. This comes from the wool from the black sheep, woven with the wool from the white sheep, as was the case 700 years ago. It was adopted because of the textile heritage of Galashiels, and those involved in the Braw Lad’s Gathering will be wearing this. In the textile, the warp of the land and history and the weft of the community and people are brought together—from the committee members, who will do all the necessary bureaucracy and paperwork to ensure the event runs properly, to the marshals, who ensure that the 350 riders galloping through the town, which many might think would contravene some health and safety regulations, happens without incident and with safety, through to those people who will offer support leading up to and beyond the festivals. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, mentioned the Games makers, but we have had games makers for many generations to make sure that these huge festivals are operated to the highest standard.
Those people know that volunteering makes their community a place not just where they live but where they feel alive. Their motive is not financial or political. They are not operating under a legislative edict or a political mandate, but they know that they have inherited rich traditions that they wish to keep alive for future generations. The impact on others is their motivation. I am proud to be able to use my place in this Parliament to thank them for that.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for introducing this important debate. It is good that we take a good hard look at what is happening to the voluntary and charitable sectors in this country. It is difficult to get a full measure of this diverse and complex sector of the economy, but in my travels around the country you get an impression at least of what is going on.
Times are hard for the third sector, and sometimes it can all feel so relentlessly utilitarian nowadays. It can all feel so heavy as charities are drawn into the relentless struggle to raise funds, apply for bids and, of course, go for contracts with the state. Those of us who have danced with the dinosaur-like structures of the state for too many years to count have witnessed its effect upon virtually everything it touches—turning virtually everything it engages with into a pale reflection of itself.
I was involved in the early days of the housing association movement when it was being developed by leaders in local communities. At that time, these local leaders had real aspiration about the quality of design and radical ideas about the kinds of houses they wanted to build and the kinds of communities they were in business for. This energy and enthusiasm of course attracted the interest of the state, and many well meaning people were seduced by the lure of the state and its promise of large-scale and much needed investment in the movement. Slowly, step by step, with one piece of necessary legislation or red tape upon another, this lean, dynamic voluntary group of organisations was dumbed down, straitjacketed into well meaning policies and frameworks, and somehow in the process lost the sense of life and fun and risk-taking that were at the heart of their business. Somehow, these crucial human factors were lost in the drive for order, fairness and equality. It sounds a bit like the NHS—a similar story, I suggest.
For housing associations now to take up really imaginative and radical schemes—and there are some—it is often despite, rather than because of, the funding and regulatory regime they find themselves caught up in, so much so that many associations, I fear, increasingly look and operate as pale reflections of their past. This bureaucratisation, caused by the state and not by business, so often leads to a loss of the human touch. Yes, they do community development and are often sentimental about their relationships with residents, but they have lost the driven, entrepreneurial flair that brought them into being in the first place.
I am reminded of this because I gave out the community impact awards last week at the National Housing Federation, and here I must declare an interest. At this event, I saw some fantastic people and projects, but they were at the edges of the operation of these giant organisations, not at their centre. Residents and local people are not some addendum; they should be the core business. The £300 million housing company, a charity, we built in east London is radical. We created a resident-owned business and used our capital investment over the past two decades to trigger social and economic activity in some of the most challenging housing estates in east London. Twenty years later, the evidence is there for all to see in a £1.7 billion regeneration programme. Just look at the quality of the gardens we have built—they would be quite at home in Kensington and Chelsea. A deliberate strategic decision we made in Poplar 20 years ago was to stay and focus in this one area on relationships with residents and quality development, and not to try to expand across the country here, there and everywhere. We chose, in the words of the song, not to be “everywhere and nowhere, baby”, a policy too favoured by successive Governments.
In this bureaucratic, contract-driven world, a game which I have played many times, I worry that the cultures we are now creating in this sector, far from being free, adventurous and radical, innovating and challenging the logic of the systems of government, are instead in danger of losing their spark—in danger of being a bit too responsible and a bit too dour, certainly too public sector, and with a need to have more fun.
But what does fun look like? Well, at a project I am chairing in Blackheath at the moment—I declare the interest—last Friday we opened a beach with sand, an amazing picture of a Victorian pier as a backdrop, deck chairs, drinks and fairground music, 100 miles from the sea. This week it has been packed with children playing in the sand and parents sunbathing and chewing the fat with their neighbours. The project was brought together in a matter of weeks and I have, to date, seen no sight of a health and safety policy—oops! I am sure we have one.
I remember some years ago in Bromley-by-Bow having a bad day when a particular planning decision had not gone well. Instead of bemoaning our fate, two of us got into my politically incorrect yellow MGB sports car and set off to try and buy a castle in Kent. My colleague had heard it was on the market and we wondered why we should not try to reconnect the East End with its long association with this county through hop picking. Actually, we nearly did the deal until someone with rather more money than us stepped in at the last minute. This experience was followed a few years later with the offer of a manor house in the Cotswolds by the then dean of Westminster Abbey, which at that time housed a charity that had got into considerable difficulty. We had learnt something from the castle experience. We took Stanton Guildhouse on, and today it is a self-sustaining social enterprise used by business leaders, families and thousands of inner-city residents from across this country—here, again, I must declare an interest.
If, with the best will in the world, we lose this spirit of fun, innovation and enterprise in the third sector, what is the point of it? What difference is it bringing to our communities? Yes, we have to live with the world as it is, but how we do it and how we live within it really matters. What sort of charitable and voluntary sector organisations are we creating? Are we bringing new life and innovation to communities across this land, and a spirit of fun and energy, or are they in danger of becoming a pale reflection of the state and of what already exists?
I encouraged residents at the housing association awards evening to take more control, to remember where their association had come from, to take centre stage and build entrepreneurial cultures and not play at the edges—to live dangerously or not live at all. If we are to renew the life of this country, how we do it really matters and the spirit with which we come to the task will make or break us. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government plan to do in practice to ensure that charities do not simply become clones of the state?
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for raising an issue which is so important to the sustenance of a compassionate and generous society. I am a trustee of a number of charities and draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. However, I will talk specifically about a group of charities, and tens of thousands of volunteers, who care for one of the most vulnerable groups in our society: the animal welfare charities that do so much to help care for our nation’s animals.
I accordingly make a declaration of interest as a cat owner. I am with Charles Dickens, who said:
“What greater gift than the love of a cat?”.
It is a gift I can return today by speaking a little about the challenges faced by those charities such as Cats Protection, at whose selfless work I marvel, caring for abused, sick or stray animals.
We are of course a nation of animal lovers: 13 million households have pets, including 9 million dogs and at least 8 million cats. Aside from the pure joy of a loving relationship, pets play an important role in the development of our society. At the start of life, children taught properly to care for an animal—often by the animal charities and their volunteers—learn important life skills about the need to be compassionate to those who are vulnerable. As we grow older, pets, particularly dogs and horses, provide physical exercise which is important to general health—perhaps I should have got myself a dog rather than a cat. Later on in life, animals play an absolutely vital role in providing companionship to the elderly.
On the other side of the coin, deeply regrettably, so much of what is wrong in our society, whether it be bullying in schools, anti-social behaviour or social deprivation, is intimately bound up with instances of animal cruelty, one of the most despicable of all human acts. Concern for animals is one of the foundations of a civilised society.
Of course, most animals are loved and cosseted but, tragically, not all of them are. That is where the voluntary and charitable sector steps in, tackling cruelty, finding caring homes for unwanted animals and educating the public about animal care and welfare. The leading charities in the sector, household names such as the RSPCA, Cats Protection, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, have been playing a vital role in looking after vulnerable animals for many generations, and I take the opportunity of this welcome debate to pay tribute to them. Volunteer support is absolutely crucial to these great organisations, as we have heard from so many other noble Lords. Cats Protection, for example, has over 9,100 volunteers across the UK, working alongside around 500 full and part-time staff. The estimated value of that volunteering is around £60 million a year. Each year, those volunteers help care for 194,000 cats and kittens, rehoming and reuniting around 46,000 of them, and deal with 24,000 feral cats through trapping them, neutering them and returning or relocating them.
It is the same story across the board in this sector. Volunteers working for the Dogs Trust help to care for 16,000 dogs in a national network of rehoming centres, while last year the Blue Cross army of 2,600 volunteers put in 320,000 hours of hard work looking after more than 40,000 sick, injured and homeless pets. It is absolutely fitting in the debate today to honour all those volunteers, many of whom are in full-time jobs, with family commitments and animals of their own to care for, who work so hard to look after vulnerable animals. They are worth their weight in gold.
The scale of the challenges those charities and their volunteers face is enormous, as the economic downturn from which we are now emerging has taken its toll. The number of animals abandoned last year, according to the RSPCA, was up by nearly 60% since the start of the economic problems, while RSPCA inspectors had to investigate over 153,000 complaints of cruelty.
However, it need not be this way. In his introduction to the recent PDSA report in 2013, The State of our Pet Nation, its director Richard Hooker said:
“So many problems that are seen by animal welfare organisations across the UK are entirely preventable. People continue to make misinformed choices at every stage of their pet ownership journey, and consequently pet welfare is being compromised”.
Now for my tiny little bit of advocacy, led in this direction by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Parliament and Government can do a lot to help these charities and their volunteers cope with what is a growing animal welfare crisis. I will highlight three things: education, regulation and funding.
First, over the long term the best way to tackle the problems animal charities and their volunteers face is for better education of young people. How much more optimistic the long-term prospects for animal welfare would be if all children understood the five welfare needs of animals. The charities themselves do a great deal in this area already. For instance, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home talked to 13,000 young people in 10 London boroughs last year. However, animal welfare needs to be a mainstream educational issue, and I urge the Government to look at making it part of the national curriculum in primary schools.
Secondly, we need to try to ensure that the statutory rules and regulations governing animal welfare, particularly relating to the breeding and sale of pets, are kept up to date. Legislation in this area is over 60 years old and is contributing to the animal welfare crisis by making commercial breeding and sale of pets too easy in a digital age. I hope that is another area that the Government will look at.
Finally, while animal welfare charities of course rely on voluntary donations, grants and legacies, there is a case for more seed-corn funding from Defra for community education projects of the sort piloted in inner London in 2012 to help the neutering and microchipping of dogs. As we have heard, the charitable sector itself can provide time, expertise and volunteers, but there is also a role for government, particularly in view of the wide range of public policy issues that are bound up with this area.
Shakespeare wrote:
“How far that little candle throws his beams!
So shines a good deed in a naughty world”.
Today has been our opportunity to applaud all those extraordinary volunteers and charities whose good deeds and selfless acts of generosity shine in a way that makes so many lives better.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, like everyone else I thank my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market for instituting this debate. It is entirely my own incompetence that I am speaking in the gap, having failed to put my name down in time.
I have spent most of my professional life in the charity world. My firm, Bates Wells Braithwaite, spends most of its time in that world and it has been a privilege and a pleasure to have been so immersed in all that is charitable—large, small, all sorts, all conditions. I had the lucky chance last month to speak about charity to a senior Minister of the Chinese Government and her delegation. They were absolutely fascinated and, indeed, gobsmacked when I explained the range, depth, reach and historicity of our charity sector. I am hugely proud of it, as all of us are. In many ways it is our greatest achievement and gift.
However, it is in danger. It is in danger in terms of the values of our society, which has never been so commercialised, so self-centred, so—how shall one put it?—wholly immersed in pursuit of material things. Of course that is a huge generalisation, but I suspect all noble Lords will know what I mean. As to the values of today’s commercial world, we need only look at the shareholders—the ownership group—to see how totally divorced they are from the values of charity.
Compared with charity, the difference is striking. As we all know, charity exists—we just need to look at the law—for exclusive public benefit. That is not some idle phrase; it is the truth. Trustees of charities are unpaid. We must never underestimate the independence of charities. I say to the Minister, although I do not think he needs it said, that we must maintain that independence at all costs. We must also avoid pretending that actually we here in government can do much about the real, grass-roots health of charity.
As I have said, that health is not good. We have had indications today from different speakers that young people in particular are not taught to understand their place in this complex world of ours; to be citizens. There are some good recommendations in the CAF report. If we look at the examples that we set as leaders of our society, the rich—because they are glorified today—and the senior business and professional people are failing abysmally, compared with my years of growing up, to provide an example to young people and to our society about what our role as people of public spirit should be.
We are not walking our talk. We have only to look at the City now: I would be surprised if one in 10 main board players in the City or senior managers—including in my own profession of solicitors—was directly engaged in giving of their time. When it comes to example, time is more important than dosh. It is a tragedy, because not only does society lose but they lose. The joke about charity is that it is not charity at all: you get back far more than you give. Everybody would say that. The rewards of engaging with all sorts and conditions of men and women are simply incalculable.
Finally, I want to draw us back to caritas. Charity comes from caritas, which means love. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and many others who have spoken have touched on that point. It is central. We need much more love in this society of ours.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, first, as other noble Lords have done, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for putting down this Motion for debate today.
Secondly, as I intend to make reference to work taking place in Lewisham, I bring to the attention of the House that I am an elected councillor in Lewisham and that it grant funds a number of organisations in the borough. I also refer noble Lords to my declaration of interests in respect to the charitable and voluntary organisations I am a member of.
Also at the start of my contribution I pay tribute, as have other noble Lords, to work done all over the United Kingdom by the charitable and voluntary sectors. They provide an excellent example of how strong our civil society is and how valuable volunteering and charitable work is to life in the United Kingdom today, as my noble friend Lord Judd referred to.
It is no exaggeration to say that whole areas of policy development, practical delivery of solutions, work on community cohesion, the solving of problems on the ground and making things better could not happen without the charitable and voluntary sectors. It is true to say that they were doing that job long before the words “the big society” were ever mentioned.
We can trace the roots of the charitable and voluntary sector back to the Age of Enlightenment and the beginnings of charitable and philanthropic activity. Clubs, societies and mutual organisations began to flourish in England. In 1741 Captain Thomas Coram, appalled by the number of abandoned children living on the streets in London, set up the Foundling Hospital to look after these unwanted orphans in Lamb's Conduit Fields, Bloomsbury. This was the first such charity in the world and served as the precedent for incorporated associational charities everywhere.
I was pleased to see today that the Charity Commission released the independent research conducted on its behalf by Ipsos MORI, and that it showed that public confidence in charities remains at a high level and that only the police and doctors are trusted more. It was interesting to read that people wanted charities to explain exactly what they had achieved and 96% of respondents wanted charities to provide the public with information about how they spend their money, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, highlighted. It is certainly important for charities and the wider voluntary sector movement to be very transparent, clear how money is being spent, and to be able to demonstrate that they are providing good value for money.
The voluntary and charity sector movement is funded in a variety of different ways. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know that donations from the public to charitable causes was at 57% in 2012, which equates to 29.5 million adults donating on average £29 each. In recent years, donations have remained around that figure, with perhaps some divergence from it. In Lewisham, where I was recently elected to the council, the authority has managed to maintain a grants budget, which this year is £5.9 million, and work undertaken by the authority estimates that every £1 in grant funding brings in an additional £4 of external investment and earned income to the borough. In 2012-13 the authority commissioned £32 million-worth of services from the voluntary and charity sector. Other noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and my noble friends Lady Pitkeathley and Lord Judd, explained exactly the added value that the charity sector brings to its local community. The sector receives funding from a variety of sources, which include individual donations, grant aid, tax and other reliefs where eligible, legacies, targeted campaigns and donations for businesses, in addition to being commissioned to do work.
You cannot always quantify the value and work of the charity sector in money terms alone, and in some cases it may be impossible to do so. That was illustrated for me a couple of years ago, when I attended a reception in your Lordships’ House that was hosted by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon for the then WRVS—now the RVS—where we heard from some of its volunteers. One man told us that he had a great volunteering job. He took his elderly friend shopping twice a week, and they always stopped off in the pub for a pint on the way home. It is hard to quantify what he was doing in pure monetary terms, but he was helping his elderly friend to live independently in the community he had lived in for many years, to maintain his contact with the outside world, to go to his local pub and meet his friends. That volunteer was able to check that his elderly friend was looking after himself, and if necessary he could alert the relevant authorities if he thought there were issues that needed attention.
Many other organisations and people provide a similar function in keeping people connected with their local community. I have seen for myself excellent examples of this from faith groups such as the Overend Methodist Mission in Cradley and the wonderful Ackroyd Community Centre in Crofton Park, with its Elder People’s Support Project. That is a linchpin of the local community there and does just the sort of things that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley highlighted in her contribution. The devastation caused by loneliness and isolation is difficult at any age but is particularly difficult when you are elderly, as my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden highlighted. Although I said that it is hard to quantify in monetary terms some of the work the charity sector does, you could come up with an estimate of the additional cost to the state if the voluntary and charity sector did not undertake those vital tasks that I have just outlined.
I have also seen at first hand the detailed policy work that is undertaken and how that informs government thinking. There are the grants some charities make to enable cutting-edge medical and other research to take place, and the work the sector can do to bring about changes to government policy by mounting effective campaigns and producing evidence-based research. Diabetes UK, along with other charities, did that very effectively with the campaign it ran to ensure that children with long-term conditions can expect to get an agreed minimum level of support at school. That enables children to remain at school and learn with their friends, and not find themselves excluded through no fault of their own. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the Lib Dem Benches, along with many other noble Lords, will recall the debates we had on that during the passage of the Education Act in the previous Session.
When charities and the wider voluntary sector run campaigns they can be very effective, and sometimes irritating to other interest groups, politicians and Governments. However, all noble Lords will be aware that charity campaigning has changed lives for the better. For example, a coalition of 200 UK charities and faith communities came together and formed the Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign, which secured commitments from the G8 leaders to provide funding for global initiatives to tackle child malnutrition and clamp down on tax avoidance.
However, I caution the Government to be very careful; just because they do not like something that an organisation is saying, it does not follow that it is running a political campaign. They should not get themselves into that position. If there are problems with recently passed laws, I hope that charities will write to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, and take up his invitation. Local government in general has a very strong commitment to the voluntary and charity sector. In Lewisham we have found it important to maintain a strong independent sector that can act as a critical friend to challenge public sector policy and delivery. We recognise the key role the sector plays in building civic participation, providing a voice for seldom heard residents and providing community intelligence to the authority, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby highlighted in his contribution. There is also a recognition of the great diversity of the sector and the need always to ensure that you are engaging with small and emerging groups as well as large and established ones. In addition, there is a recognition of the sector’s potential to take risks and innovate and of the fact that the voluntary and charitable sectors have been key delivery partners for a wide range of targeted initiatives.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby highlighted, in these times of austerity and cut-backs the voluntary and charitable sector has seen increased demands for its services and has had to deliver more with less, absorbing costs and meeting the challenges it has been presented with. The social sector tracker published by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations highlights the perfect storm that the sector faces. It also identified that 61% of charities argued that central government policy had a damaging impact on their work, as opposed to the 15% who cited a positive impact.
In responding to this debate, can the noble Lord tell the House what has happened to the big society? It was a big theme in the Conservative manifesto and is in the coalition’s programme for government. The Prime Minister told us in February 2011 that it was “his absolute passion”, but today it has vanished, swept under the carpet, never to be mentioned again—except by opposition spokespersons who ask, “What happened to that once-key initiative?”. Can the noble Lord confirm that the Government are willing to listen to suggestions about how we can further support the sector?
Yesterday, when I saw the reports of Wonga’s disgusting behaviour and how it treated some of its customers, I wondered whether there was a way that any fines imposed on it or other financial institutions that broke the law or regulations could be ring-fenced and invested in supporting the credit union movement or charity sector work on debt relief. I hope that the noble Lord will take that away and respond to it as well. In conclusion, I again pay tribute to the work of the voluntary and charity sectors in the UK and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for enabling this debate to take place today.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, as I expected, this has been an excellent debate. As I came here I thought that it would be very difficult to respond to comments from noble Lords, many of whom know a huge amount more about this sector than I do. I have learnt a huge amount from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in particular. I remembering him taking me through the evolution of regulation and charities law from 1601 onwards. I hope that he noted the recent remark made by an eminent lawyer, that charities law had been asinine since 1601. As we all know, charities law has evolved to cope with charities changing their view of what they should do, which remains a contested issue. I speak on behalf of the Government when I say how grateful we are for the work that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has done, both in his statutory review of the Charities Act 2006 and in his contribution to the Civil Society Red Tape Taskforce. The Government hope that he will continue to play an extremely valuable role in that area.
When I went to east London to look at the work which a local Baptist minister, Mr Mawson—the noble Lord, Lord Mawson—had done, I also learnt a huge amount about local initiatives and local activity. When I first learnt about community foundations I went to Calderdale with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and was enormously enthused by the work which the community foundation there is doing and the way in which it is able to galvanise local philanthropy. I repeat what I said the previous time we debated this issue. Oversight of the voluntary sector is the sort of role which the House of Lords in its current composition plays very well. We ought to have regular debates on aspects of that area, because it is one on which the Commons does not focus very well. As the voluntary sector begins to deal with different challenges, we should look at how well it copes.
I start with some very broad issues about the importance of this area. We are now reaching a point where there is a degree of consensus across all the political parties in this country about the importance of striking the right balance between an open society, a free but regulated market, and a strong but limited state. We can all argue—and that is the place for democratic politics—about exactly how that balance should be struck: how large the state should be, how large a proportion of the economy it should control, and how large a proportion of national income it should take. Those are all difficult issues that we must grasp, but we all now understand that the state cannot do everything, that the welfare state cannot provide everything, and that a state that is too strong impoverishes its citizens. In an open society, we need active citizens who are not too dependent on the state.
I have done most of my politics in Huddersfield, Manchester and Bradford. I remember particularly, when I was a candidate for a central Manchester constituency, arguing with local authority officials who were quite sure that they knew what was good for the people of Hulme better than the people of Hulme did. The people of Hulme sat around and had things done to them, and played very little part in managing their own affairs. Many of us have spent time in those big inner-city estates, and know the problems that that has led to. Part of what the Government have been doing with community organisers and the National Citizen Service has been getting back into those communities the idea that people are better off if they do some things for themselves. We all now know from all sorts of psychological studies that people who feel they have some control over their own lives, and play some active part in their local community, are happier and more fulfilled in their lives.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby talks about the end of the welfare state, but I simply do not recognise that concept. Indeed, in some ways the welfare state is expanding. Health reform in the United States is becoming embedded, and I suspect that that will not be reformed. The biggest democracy that has resisted that element of the welfare state is now embedding it. However, we recognise that the welfare state, if simply left, would expand to crowd out all other elements of public expenditure, and would then crowd out the private aspect of the economy as well.
To be maintained in its current state, the National Health Service needs an income that grows larger and larger each year. I am particularly conscious of that at the moment, having just had a new hip, and having discovered how many other people in my generation have also had a new hip. That makes me realise to what extent that sort of thing, as we all get older, is leading to the strains on the welfare state as publicly funded. I hope to make 97 at least, and the strain on the state from my state pension, my travel pass and various other things will also contribute to the problems of the welfare state.
Yes, we are all committed to the continuation of the welfare state, but we recognise that it has limits, that it is bad for us to be too dependent on the state, and that the voluntary sector alongside it has a great deal to contribute—including, of course, to the National Health Service. Just think about how much money is raised for medical research and other dimensions from the voluntary sector, and the excellent initiatives such as those that the Government have been supporting—the growth of dementia volunteers and King’s College Hospital volunteers to relieve the pressures on local hospitals. That is all part of what we must do to ensure that the welfare state continues to maintain its functions.
I follow the debates of such bodies as Policy Network and Policy Exchange, and I recognise that they are all discussing these questions. We cannot depend entirely on the state. Twenty years ago, when I was working for the University of Oxford, I was helping to raise funds for a range of international initiatives. Someone from a Dutch university said to me, “It’s actually very difficult to raise money for universities from the private sector in the Netherlands, because when you approach a possible donor he thinks, ‘If this were a good idea, the state would already have paid for it,’ so the fact that you are asking for a private donation makes people think that it’s not a very good idea.” But when we went to the Swiss, they understood. With a more limited attitude towards their state, they understood that it was a good idea to have both voluntary funding and state funding for higher education. One of the reasons why British universities are better than those in a number of other European countries is that they have both state and private funding.
We have heard a lot of comments on central state funding and local activity. I think that there is a consensus that we have become too centralised, in the UK as a whole but above all in England, and that decentralisation—both from Whitehall to local authorities and, as far as possible, from a relationship between large national charities and the state to one in which local authorities and other local bodies relate to local charities—is healthier. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, talked about the relationship between big charities and central government. Having stronger local authorities dealing with local voluntary organisations is a desirable state of affairs. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, who talked about the role of Near Neighbours within a number of local communities. There are many examples like that. Local giving, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said, is easier to make a case for—local actions and local campaigns. In Saltaire we are just embarking on local horticulture, imitating Todmorden and others. That means growing local food in spare ground and making it available to people who do not have their own gardens. There are all sorts of local activities that we should be helping to support.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked what had happened to the big society. My answer to him is that a great deal is happening. I regret that the Prime Minister uses it less than he did, but I am extremely happy that the Labour Party is now accepting many of the Government’s initiatives into its own campaigns. I was a sceptic about the National Citizen Service myself when it started. It was a Conservative scheme that I was not entirely convinced about—but I became a convert as soon as I visited my first National Citizen Service scheme. I am happy to see that the Labour Party now proposes that that service should be extended. That means that all parties now accept that it is a highly desirable development.
I was equally sceptical about the Conservative proposals for community organisers when they were first made. But now that I have seen community organisers working in Bradford and Leeds, I am persuaded that that is a way of helping to energise shared local action within local communities that all of us, from all parties and perspectives, should be happy to support. That is what is happening on the ground, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is as impressed with it as I have been.
We have talked about the problems of youth engagement, but there is quite a lot of encouraging evidence that young people are becoming more engaged in local volunteering. The National Citizen Service has certainly helped, and it appears that young people are keen to get engaged where they are given the opportunity to do so. I recognise that, as one or two noble Lords have said, community work placements can muddy the water, but part of the philosophy behind such placements is to give people some experience of working with others and for others, which in itself is a self-motivating experience.
There has also been much talk about elderly volunteers. We are all aware of that aspect. I have promised my wife that when I retire, in a few years’ time, I will go into voluntary service. I am very proud that when my mother finally stepped down from her last voluntary role, as chair of an old people’s home, she was herself older than a substantial number of the people living in the home. This is not an entirely new idea. The elderly fit are now very much part of those who hold voluntary action of different sorts together.
We have talked a lot about fundraising and funding, state contracting, and provision of public services. Of course, there is a problem with state funding of the voluntary sector, because public funds have to be publicly accountable. That carries with it a level of bureaucracy that does not exist in the same way with private donations. There must be accountability for public funding. The Government are, however, carrying through a number of useful experiments. There are social investment targets to fulfil, and so on, as well as social action proposals and Community First funding, which help to encourage the sector to innovate.
As I have come to terms with different elements in this sector, I worry about the parts of the voluntary sector that are over-dependent on public funding. If a voluntary organisation is dependent on the state for most of its funding, it ceases in some ways to be an entirely voluntary organisation. That seems to me a large issue for the future.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend and shall be very brief. He said some very nice things about me and I am very grateful to him for that. I do not want to bite the hand that feeds me, but before he leaves the issue of social investment, will he give a commitment to look at the wording of “necessary and incidental” and “necessary and proportionate”? Without that change there is a real danger that this important movement may be stifled.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance and I will be in touch with the noble Lord later in terms of what precisely the answer is. We have asked the Law Commission to look at the content of social investment by charities within the confines of charities law, and I will come back to the noble Lord on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about the JustGiving report, to which I trust the Government will respond in good time. Payroll giving has developed a good deal. I am well aware from one or two members of my family who work in the City that payroll giving has spread across the City. It is a useful contribution from those who can afford to pay. We all also need to focus on philanthropy in our unequal society. That is the sort of thing that I hope archbishops and bishops will be saying loud and clear. When I think of those within the community I particularly recall the contribution that the Sainsbury family has made in all sorts of ways to medical research, the University of East Anglia, the National Portrait Gallery, et cetera, with the money it inherited. I regret that we have not seen from the City and the financial sector as much in the way of philanthropy from those who have been lucky and successful enough to give back to society what they have gained economically. I hope that we will hear from others on that theme.
A large number of other issues were raised. In terms of campaigning and advocacy, there should be a natural tension between society, the voluntary sector and the state. That is unavoidable. The last thing we would like is a voluntary sector that always said the state was good. I grew up in the Church of England, and it seemed to me that it was far too close to the powers that be. As a boy I would sing:
“The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate”—
not something that I assume the Church of England sets as a hymn very often these days. Thankfully, Churches now see themselves as unavoidably criticising the status quo. Voluntary organisations, of course, should be doing advocacy and campaigning. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that I am not sure that I do see a clear difference between campaigning and advocacy.
When I was doing the consultation on the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, I met the Alzheimer’s Society, which told me about its dementia campaign—an absolute classic of a campaign—to raise public awareness on an issue to which society, the state and the media had not been paying sufficient attention. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, talked about the carers campaign that had very much the same effect. That is precisely one of the many roles that the voluntary sector should have.
However, we all understand also that there is a point at which campaigning and advocacy becomes political in a partisan way, and therefore approaches a boundary over which campaigners should not step. I know Charity Commission paper CC9 almost off by heart now. CC9 is relatively clear and therefore the challenge made by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, is one that is unlikely to be offered.
Lord Patten
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. Is he satisfied that the Charity Commission has all the necessary and relevant powers to deal with the issues of political campaigning to which he is referring?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am satisfied that it has all the powers that it needs. The Charity Commission is now very stretched. Its budget and therefore its staff were cut. Digitisation would help a great deal to make it easier for the Charity Commission to do its job, but the role of the Charity Commission is an issue that I know the new chairman and the new chief executive wish very much to take up with Members of both Houses of Parliament, and I encourage others to take that further.
On the question of regulation, I have been the trustee of two musical charities which dealt extensively with children, particularly primary school children. I am conscious that a certain degree of regulation is useful and necessary for charities. That is another argument that we will continue to have in this respect. On the international role of charities, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, touched on the problem of Greenpeace in India. It is not only a problem for India or for Greenpeace. Those of us who follow what happens in Russia, Sudan, Nigeria or Saudi Arabia know that the foreignness of some non-governmental organisations is something that those concerned with sovereignty have great concerns about. We do our utmost to support both those working for voluntary organisations and those working for civil society organisations in more authoritarian countries. I am not suggesting that India in any way is authoritarian but there are many other countries in which this becomes more difficult. That is one of the issues with which the Government are concerned and with which Foreign Office embassies are much concerned.
I am conscious that it would be impossible to cover everything in this debate. I merely want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for introducing it, and all those who have contributed. I say yet again that this is the sort of debate that this Chamber does well. The future development of the voluntary sector is an extraordinarily important part of maintaining an open society and an open democracy. It is an issue to which this House should return regularly.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I made some remarks about the disgusting activities of Wonga and suggested that maybe the fines levied on it and other companies could be used for charitable activity in the credit union movement or the financial sector. Will he confirm that he will write to me on those matters?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I would be happy to write to the noble Lord. I should, of course, have said that the whole credit union movement, with which I know the noble Lord is much concerned, and the role of the churches in supporting the credit union movement are classic examples of how valuable our voluntary sector can be.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I thank each one of the 20 contributors to the debate whose contributions have been thoughtful, wise and, above all, rooted in experience. What has come out is that, despite all the challenges there is still an essential optimism for the future of the sector and its importance. We have given the Government much to think about and I hope that they will reflect seriously on the points that have been made.
They say that charity begins at home. I wonder whether collectively, as an institution and organisation, we are doing enough here. Parliament is one of the largest employers in London and I have tried for two years to set up a volunteer system for our own employees, and have had no traction with that. Perhaps other noble Lords might like to help me. I am not sure that we do payroll giving. I do not know whether we are collectively setting the example that we should, despite all the good work that I know we all do individually.
Education: British Values
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote British values in all educational establishments in the United Kingdom in the next year.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I remind those speaking in the next debate that it is time limited. When the clock reaches three minutes, noble Lords should finish their speech as they have spoken for their allotted time. If a noble Lord is happy to take an intervention, I am afraid that the time taken up has to come out of their allocation.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, first I thank all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate. Following the so-called Trojan horse scandal in Birmingham and the subsequent Ofsted inspection and reports, our Education Secretary of State commanded that every primary and secondary school should promote British values. The Prime Minister went on to say that we should be “more muscular” and less “bashful” about asserting our national identity. The Prime Minister said that every child in Britain should be taught about Magna Carta, the foundation of all our laws and liberties. I hope the teaching of Magna Carta will be better than that which the Prime Minister himself received. Noble Lords will recall that he had a bit of difficulty recalling Magna Carta on American television. I am sure an understanding of baronial rights and regulation of fish weirs and moneylenders can be made as relevant today as it was then.
As a direct result of the Ofsted reports into Birmingham, new clauses have been added to the model funding agreement for academies. It now stipulates that governors should demonstrate “fundamental British values” and gives the Secretary of State powers to close schools if they do not comply. These British values include respect for the law, for democracy and for equality, and tolerance of different beliefs. Of course, we have to be a little bit careful and not think we are the best in the world in our values. We have only to look through our own history to see recently how discrimination ripped through our country, how it affected gay people, how there was slavery and even the burning of people for their religious belief. Values are not set in concrete or stone; they change.
Both the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 prohibit discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and religion, and today in Great Britain these liberal principles have never been in doubt. British individuals may identify themselves in different ways, but the notion of British identity is multifaceted and inclusive. British values reflect the pride we feel as a nation when we see a multicultural and ethnically diverse population working together to protect our democratic ideals and ensure that every child has access to the best possible education, regardless of their background. We cannot deny that the elements of Britishness stated by the Secretary of State are complex and open to interpretation. However, these intentions should not be written off as a pipe dream. We must not assume that such values lie out of our reach.
My previous experience as a teacher in a large inner-city primary school has highlighted to me the importance of citizenship education and its role in helping to shape future generations of young people and young adults. Citizenship education and improved political and social awareness are crucial to help youngsters understand one another. Education should be about not prescribing values or abiding by arbitrary morals and customs but being part of a respectful community of discourse on topics that affect us all. It is my firm belief that citizenship education is no different.
The Prime Minister expressed his desire for the Government to start inculcating British values in the curriculum. Having considered that, I find myself slightly bemused to see that academies and free schools—roughly half our secondary schools—can choose not to teach the subject at all and that routine Ofsted inspections do not review it. As a consequence, its omission goes overlooked in a majority of our schools. That needs to be reconsidered urgently. Our schools need clarity that citizenship must be delivered effectively under the national curriculum and will be inspected routinely—perhaps even with no notice, if that proves an effective tool to ensuring accountability—as part of the broad and balanced curriculum that every child deserves.
What happened among a few Birmingham schools does indeed raise a number of educational issues, which we have debated on many occasions in your Lordships’ House. Does it really make sense for some schools to be given the power to choose what they teach? Is not the curriculum too important to be solely in the hands of individual schools? Our inspection regimes must be universal and up to the mark. The Office for Standards in Education has to be the guarantor of quality; Ofsted’s reports must be the key to understanding how schools have performed. The suggestion that grade 1 schools might be exempt from inspection is dangerous. No school, however good, comes with a guarantee of permanent success. Standards can and do slip. Some 31% of schools graded “outstanding” in an inspection do not maintain that standard in the next inspection. Indeed, as we know, one of the Birmingham schools received an “outstanding” Ofsted inspection.
I was interested to read in an article written by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, in the Guardian:
“In truth, both the old model of local authority control and the new model of autonomy are flawed – and events in Birmingham should make us face up to it. Three organisations had the responsibility to spot and prevent failure in the Trojan horse schools – the Department for Education, the local authority and Ofsted. They all failed”.
I do not feel that being British or respecting British values is something that can be prescribed. The best way to unite Britons is to gain a mutual understanding and respect for each other.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
On that point of the people of Britain’s mutual understanding and respect, can the noble Lord explain why the wording of the Motion calls on Her Majesty’s Government to promote British values in all education institutions—presumably including colleges and universities—throughout the country, when Her Majesty’s Government have no control over education in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, as a result of devolution?
Lord Storey
I am glad the noble Lord raised that point, because it is something I have said on a number of occasions. In actuality, when we debate education issues in this House, we talk only of the education service in England; we do not talk about Wales or Scotland. It would be nice to have a debate where we learn from some of the examples of the Scottish and Welsh education systems. For example, Wales, which is often derided in this House for some of its failings in education, is up to the mark on careers education and counselling. I am sure there are such issues in Scotland. I very much support and agree with what the noble Lord has said.
As I was saying, children should at a young age achieve an understanding of each other through citizenship lessons. The idea of citizenship is based on mutual respect, which the Government have vehemently championed in recent weeks. These sentiments are based on tolerant, helpful and liberal values. In your Lordships’ House we engage in respectful and meaningful discussions. That is why we must encourage our young scholars, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, to do exactly the same.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Storey on obtaining this debate and thank him for what he has said. Last week I suggested to my noble friend the Minister that it would be a good idea, in the year of Magna Carta’s 800th anniversary, to have a charter of British values to which all schools should be invited to subscribe. What are those values? They are of course based on the rule of law, of which Magna Carta is itself the foundation: freedom of thought; freedom of belief; freedom of speech; mutual respect and tolerance. One could add to that. Above all, they should teach all young people that everyone has responsibilities as well as rights.
I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Storey talked about citizenship education. As my noble friend the Minister knows only too well, I have spoken about this for quite a long time and I have seen him about it on a number of occasions. I would like all our young people to go through a citizenship ceremony when they leave school, having performed some community service in their area, whether it be dealing with the old or the young, or working for the National Trust—the list is endless. I would like all our young people to leave school with a sense of being part of a community and having a sense of community obligation and belonging. I would like that to be signified in a ceremony they all go through. If the Minister says, as he has hinted to me in the past, that it is difficult to do that right across the country, at the very least we should encourage it and consider having pilot projects. I believe the inculcation of a sense of real belonging is something so many of our young people lack.
It has often been said that the real poor of the present century are those without hope. What we must seek to do is give them hope, and one of the best ways of giving hope is by providing a sense of having roots, of knowing where they belong and what they can do.
In the final seconds I have left in which to speak, let me also suggest something I raised last week but which my noble friend slightly dismissed. While one could not make it obligatory, I would encourage all schools to fly the flag. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland they should fly two flags, and in some of our counties—my own county of Lincolnshire has a flag—they should also fly that flag. The flag or flags should be outside the school as a symbol of pride and belonging, of being part of a thing greater than oneself; that is, part of the community of which one is a part.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords,
“There is something rather unBritish about seeking to define Britishness”.
Not my words, but those of the Secretary of State for Education when he was merely Michael Gove MP in 2007. But that was then. Now academies have to demonstrate fundamental values which the Department for Education has helpfully defined for them. I welcome that change of heart.
I was part of the previous Government, who sought to encourage a vibrant sense of national identity through promoting British values in exactly the sort of way that I was delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, just espouse. The profound changes we are living through—great global migrations of people and capital; social, cultural and economic flux—inevitably create pressures on identity, our sense of ourselves and our sense of belonging. We thought it was important to encourage a dialogue about our national identity primarily because it is so important to many people. If there was no national process to discuss it in ways that included everyone on these islands, it would leave a vacuum, and into that vacuum could well flood sectarian and even poisonous views. We believed it was important to do everything we could to encourage cohesion and assert what binds us together rather than what divides us, and we believed that a cohesive and inclusive national identity is rooted in the values we hold dear.
But values on their own are abstract. Every modern democracy will espouse the values articulated by the Department for Education’s recent ruling: democracy, respect for the rule of law, equality and tolerance. What roots our identity in these values is the way they are mediated through our institutions and history, and their expression in this way can be contested. Different people will interpret that history and what it says about our values differently. Our institutions evolve and how they evolve reflects the way those values inform a changing society. So we believed that the articulation of British values had to be driven by the British people themselves. We started a deliberative process involving representative groups of people across Britain to discuss the issues of values, identity and belonging. This process was paused in 2010 and I regret that it has not been recommenced by the coalition Government.
They have now discovered the merits of fostering British values, but they have adopted what I think is a mistaken way of doing so. Instead of an evolving, inclusive discussion that is driven by the British people, the Government have suddenly produced the sort of top-down formulation that the Prime Minister used to oppose when he was in opposition. In 2009 he said:
“Britishness ... grows and evolves from the bottom up. It can never be defined by one motto or one politician”.
I agreed then and I agree now, but instead of such a bottom-up formulation of Britishness, there has been a panicky fiat from the top which has been rushed out apparently to deflect attention from an emotionally incontinent spat between the Department for Education and the Home Office.
What consultation has there been about these values? Are these fundamental British values as set out in the model funding agreement meant to be exclusive of others or can others such as justice, fair play and freedom of expression be added in? The Whip is looking anxious, so I will come to an end very shortly. What is going to be the test for whether the stipulated British values are being promoted effectively? What are the Government going to do to ensure that this initiative is an inclusive one and does not alienate and exclude sections of our society? I hope that the Minister can reassure your Lordships’ House that his department can answer these basic questions.
This has been a sadly inadequate way to approach an issue of such importance in our national life. I hope that this debate, on which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is to be congratulated, might prompt the Government to do better in the months ahead to promote a constructive and inclusive debate about the values that bind our country together.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, unlike the previous speaker, I am deeply sceptical about teaching “British values”. Some that have been suggested are the rule of law, human rights and parliamentary government. But these are no longer special British values. We largely drafted the European Convention on Human Rights, but the Conservatives are now trying to get rid of it. We championed parliamentary democracy, but now it is the referendum which is trumpeted as the ultimate expression of democracy. That, of course, is the doctrine of Rousseau, the hero of dictators and autocrats. I prefer the British tradition of Locke and Burke.
We were once praised for our courtesy and readiness to listen to others, but in many respects Rule Britannia has been replaced by Rude Britannia, such as at Prime Minister’s Question Time, for example. The organised shouting and jeering makes Millwall fans look by comparison like a convention of bishops in Lambeth Palace. Nothing could do more to destroy respect for Parliament.
The invocation of national values is part of our current obsession with national identity. That is a very elusive concept. Tony Judt, the last of the social democratic philosophers, asked what it meant to be a Jew if you were not religious and detested the policies of the Israeli Government. He decided that he was a non-Jewish Jew. Jonathan Miller famously observed that he was not a Jew; he was just Jew-ish. As for being English, and the same could be said for being British, this was summed up long ago by Daniel Defoe as quoted in that splendid book by Robert Winder entitled Bloody Foreigners:
“Thus from a mixture of all kinds began
That heterogeneous thing, an Englishman …
A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction”.
A nation at ease with itself does not have to search for an identity or assert it. Let us teach “civilised values” instead.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Storey for securing this timely debate. Education is extremely important to me. My personal coat of arms reflects this. It contains the motto “iqra”, which means “read”. It also shows a peacock holding two quill pens with a row of books. I should add that I have a business as well as an academic background, and for many years I was a visiting lecturer. I chair the Conservative Muslim Forum and we look at issues that relate to Muslim communities in this country. I have held meetings with Muslim leaders and associations on the subject of education and I have spoken at events. I have also written on this subject.
We are taking positive steps to deal with the education of Muslim children. The Muslim faith and British values are not two separate things; in fact, for most British Muslims, they are the same. I believe it is vital that these values are at the heart of our education system and indeed of the way of life of all those living in this country. The importance of education for the betterment of society is something that is also highlighted by both the Holy Koran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who asserted that for Muslims to fulfil their role of serving humanity, they must acquire knowledge for the common good.
Education is a tool that should be used to assist with integration and social cohesion. Going to school gives children the opportunity to create and develop bonds of friendship across different racial and religious groups that will help them to flourish in the future and thus become valuable members of British society. We should be grateful for the religious freedom that we all have as British citizens. The Muslim community cannot operate in a bubble, away from the rest of society. That spreads ill feeling and stops Muslims from flourishing here. This great country is a land of opportunity and one that I am proud to be a part of, but it is only through integration that we can make the most of the opportunities of this land.
As well as high grades and good qualifications, our children should come out of school as good citizens and well-rounded human beings who are a benefit to society as a whole. We must prepare teachers, imams and parents so that there is a clear understanding of how to promote both Muslim and British values. With this in mind I am totally supporting the establishment of courses at the University of East London for the training of Muslim teachers and imams. Our educational practices should follow moderate lines. We must not allow extremists to hijack our beliefs and pass them off as something that they are not. We must prepare our children for successful careers that will benefit them, their communities and the country at large.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Lab)
My Lords, in peacemaking projects, interfaith dialogues and multinational businesses with which I have been involved, when people adopt universal values rather than exclusive ones, and respect others, better outcomes are achieved for all.
For me, mindfulness practice is helpful in working across varying and sometimes conflicting cultures with different values. This practice connects me with something greater than my habitual self, puts me into a place where compassion and empathy come to the fore, values come before self, and I am better able to see and understand other peoples’ points of view. I am not saying that I am always successful in this. Mindfulness is complex to define. It is essentially an experience. Jon Kabat-Zinn at the University of Massachusetts simply puts it that:
“Mindfulness means paying attention in a particular way; on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally”.
The successful Mindfulness in Schools Project is a collaboration between psychologists at Oxford, Cambridge, Exeter and Bangor universities. They have developed a curriculum and a classroom-based introduction to mindfulness for teenagers that adapts mindfulness-based stress reduction and cognitive therapy into PHSE lessons. This is called dot-be, which stands for “stop, breathe and be”. It is an eight-week course written by teachers for teachers. This curriculum has been translated into eight languages and is now being taught in 38 countries—and not only in traditional school settings, but also in pupil-referral units, young offenders’ institutions and even to gang members. Nearly 1,000 teachers internationally have been trained, 800 of them in this country. Evidence shows that even short periods of mindfulness practice reshape the neural pathways and increase the areas associated with kindness, compassion and rationality, and decrease those involved with anxiety, worry and impulsiveness.
Similarly, the Inspire-Aspire values programme has worked with 75,000 10 to 15-year olds around the London Olympics to enable them to reflect on and apply the Olympic values of excellence, friendship and respect, and the Paralympic values of courage, determination, equality and inspiration. They believe that whatever we define as British values, these values should be more universal and shared among different cultures. Inspire-Aspire is now working with global citizenship, focusing on the Commonwealth Games, and has engaged 52,000 young people this year in over 30 Commonwealth countries.
Both these programmes are greatly loved by pupils, teachers and parents. A systematic review found that when these types of programme are completed with sufficient intensity, using properly evaluated material and to a high enough standard, they increase children’s emotional well-being, behaviour and academic achievement, all by more than 10%. The programmes also have a huge database on youth and values with thousands of young people across the UK. Can the Minister ensure that Her Majesty’s Government support these important independent education programmes that champion universal values?
Noble Lords may also wish to know that we now have an active and vibrant All-Party Parliamentary Group on Mindfulness. Every Tuesday on the Estate, Chris Cullen, the cofounder of the Mindfulness in Schools project, runs mindfulness classes. Peers, MPs and Staff—96 of them already—have taken part, and enjoyed and benefited from them. There are a few places left for our course that is starting in October.
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, time is short and I will run through the thoughts that I have.
From the beginning to the middle of the 1980s, an inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minorities was set up. It was called the Swann Committee. Its report had some quite startling conclusions, although I am sorry to say that it has not been much used. First, there was the question of faith schools. At the time we had only Catholic, Anglican and Jewish schools. The Swann Committee suggested that even these should be phased out. The reason for Anglican schools was that they were the only ones that provided education for poor children. The reason for Jewish and Catholic schools was that many schools did not take Jews or Catholics. All that had changed and there was no longer a particular need for faith schools, so they should be phased out.
Learning from the example of Northern Ireland, everybody felt that it was not a good idea to separate children. But what are we doing now? We are separating them ad infinitum: between this faith and that faith. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, says that children should be taught faith values. They can be taught faith values, but at home. They should be taught faith values in their churches, temples and synagogues. This is not the schools’ job to teach faith. It is the schools’ job to teach non-faith values: values that are universal. That has been mentioned and it is the way forward.
For me, some of the things that the faiths have done are completely unacceptable. People might say that this is not written in the Koran or that something else is not written in the Bible, but you are doing it, either because you do not know it or because you do not care about it. Discrimination against women is rife in Muslim culture. This is not written in the Koran, but everyone is doing it. If that is going to happen in a faith school, girls and boys are going to be taught separately, which is already a negation of British values.
As for gays, are we going to “string them up”? That is also a total negation of British values. Many Muslim countries have brought in the death penalty against gays. We have to be extremely careful about faith-based teaching, and whether it is or can be acceptable. I am sorry to say that for me it is not.
Catholics do not believe in contraception. What kind of world are we living in? This is the 21st century, and girls cannot have contraception? In Africa, the Bishop of Kampala has told everybody that there cannot be contraception, that it is a sin and if you use it you will go to hell. All right, they are going to hell—but what about those children who are being born and have nothing to eat?
I am sorry. My time is up. I have a lot more to tell your Lordships, but I cannot.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the think tank, British Future.
I could not agree more with the commitment by the Secretary of State for Education,
“to ensure that all schools—faith and non-faith—make sure that children are integrated into modern Britain”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/2014; col. 269.]
I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Storey’s debate explicitly states that this should be for all educational establishments, universities as well as schools, private as well as state-funded. But I regret that this discussion is against the backdrop of the issues in Birmingham and so soon after the often acrimonious debate around whether Britain is a Christian country.
British values have been left for too long in the “too difficult” box and we stir only when there are headlines about gender segregation in universities and have a feeling that that is not quite right. The increase over the past 15 years in the messages and ideas from all over the world that we can receive via our smartphones means that this debate is long overdue. Of course, it is difficult to pin down British values, but failing to agree on everything does not mean that we will not agree on some things. Whether others share our values does not dilute their Britishness.
I have two quick examples. Women are equal citizens in our country, exhibited by equal pay; voting rights; being on the board of a FTSE company—for the first time in our history there are no all-male FTSE company boards; staying at home with your children, or working, or doing both; and having equal access to our courts. Some girls grow up within rural or religious communities where women’s roles are assumed. The role of British values in education, practically, is to show girls that there are other options for them—then, they choose. I am not naive about the community or cultural barriers that there are to exercising such a choice, but unless these girls are shown those other roles, we know that the choice that they make to stay in assumed roles is no choice at all.
Secondly, there is the issue of choice in religious identity. As chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on International Religious Freedom I have accidentally picked up evidence that the freedom to change your religious beliefs is not as widely embedded in our society as I had assumed. A report from a lady within a black Pentecostal Church community, who wants to become a humanist but is not at liberty to convert, broke all my stereotypical thinking on that issue. The United Kingdom promotes freedom to convert in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and broadcasts such values via the BBC World Service. So why do we not do the same in our education system? We must stop assuming that values are somehow picked up by osmosis. They need to be taught, promoted and defended. Two world wars won us the freedom to have this very debate on British values and it is time that we used it.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I fear that the attempts to define and perhaps codify British values will be as difficult, and ultimately as successful, as trying to nail jelly to a wall. If we are looking for a definition of values, it is important that it is inclusive and cohesive. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, did not seem to quite get the point that I was making earlier about the very title of this debate, which suggests that due consideration has not been given to the various constituent parts of what is currently the United Kingdom, and which I fervently hope will remain the United Kingdom on 19 September this year. I refer to the casual approach, which almost says that England is Britain and Britain is England, that antagonises a lot of people in other parts of the UK.
I will give an example that will perhaps seem rather trite to noble Lords: the World Cup. I am a Scot domiciled in England, married to an Englishwoman, with a son who is therefore half-English. I bear the English football team absolutely no ill will and indeed I hoped that they would do well in the World Cup. But then I sit down and watch the game. Just before the game, the players line up and what happens? I hear “God Save the Queen”. I am sorry, but “God Save the Queen” is not the national anthem of England. It is the national anthem of the UK—play it at a ceremony at the Olympic Games. But at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow next month, English athletes, who will probably win more medals than anybody else, will have their medals put round their necks after “Land of Hope and Glory” has been played, not “God Save the Queen”. There is an English national anthem. Whatever the English people want as a national anthem is up to them but I am sorry, it is not “God Save the Queen”, and that shows that greater thought has to be given, in this example and indeed others, to the inclusivity of the United Kingdom if we are really going to put together British values.
Baroness Flather
I am very interested in the national anthem. I am not sure that it relates exactly to the values in schools. If Scotland wants its own national anthem to be played on Scottish occasions, it is for Scotland to work for that, but it is not about values. Values in schools concern all of us, not just this country or that country.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I always listen to the noble Baroness very carefully and I enjoyed her recent contribution but I am not talking particularly about schools. We are talking about British values; it does not relate just to what is or is not said in schools. The point I am making is that, if we are going to have British values, it has to be much wider than that.
In closing, I will comment about Magna Carta apparently being mentioned as the centrepiece of any attempt to put together British values. I think that is strange, not least because, to come back to my original point, Magna Carta was a very English—not British—document. I will simply quote from the commentator Owen Jones, who wrote very recently about Magna Carta, highlighting the fact that the values of many people in Britain are diverse, quite apart from whichever part of the country they originate from. Mr Jones said:
“Here was a charter imposed by powerful barons—hardly nascent democrats—on the weak King John to prevent him trampling on their rights: it didn't satisfy them, and they rose in revolt anyway. It meant diddly squat to average English subjects, most of whom were serfs”.
Yet this is on what we are proposing to base a discussion around fundamental British values. I end where I began: I think it will prove to be a fool’s errand.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for putting this debate on the agenda and for his excellent introduction.
As a lifelong educator, I am at a loss to know what British values are. I would very much like to teach them but I have not found them yet and I have lived in this country for 40 years. No doubt I will come across them at some point. It seems to me that the values that have emerged from today’s discussions are actually very much to do with toleration. Perhaps we should move on from toleration. It is the fact that we are being tolerated that undermines many of us who are otherised by this label of toleration.
I was educated in Iran by Catholic nuns at a Catholic school—although, like my noble friend, I do not approve of religious schools. What actually happened was that in our school we had Jews, Christians, Muslims and Baha’is—girls of all religions and none—and none of our religions ever defined who we were. We were all Iranians together. To this day, in spite of the Islamic Government, Iranians celebrate the new year, which is pre-Islamic, going back to the Zoroastrian days. Our calendar is not Islamic because it is solar and not lunar. In my childhood we also celebrated Christmas. We celebrated every religious occasion we could find. Christmas was held at my uncle’s house, with my German aunt and her Russian mother presiding over the events.
It seems to me that the way forward is not by insisting on defining what British values are or are not. However Britishness is defined, it may well otherise people, and that includes those young men who were very good, who got all the A-levels, who were doing good studies, but who felt excluded. I suggest that this House should vote for us to celebrate differences. There are so many wonderful ways of doing things and we could all be part of it. So let us please abandon Britishness and accept that differences are wonderful and it is nice to have curries as well as roast beef.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I support the view that modern British values should be promoted in educational institutions. In our times, one traditional British value—namely, tolerance—has perhaps been given particular prominence, tending to cast others into the shadow. As a result, different lifestyles, beliefs and cultures have developed and expanded in our country to an extent that would have astonished previous generations.
Enriching though diversity can be, it has flourished at the expense of social unity and cohesion. This is especially risky at a time of historically unprecedented levels of immigration. It is late in the day to seek to redress the balance but not, I hope, too late. The rebuilding of social unity and cohesion—what old-fashioned Tories like me call one nation—can proceed satisfactorily only if a firmer understanding of the other British values that complement tolerance is resolutely fostered. That requires action in our schools along the lines that the Government are wisely, if belatedly, proposing.
I declare an interest as president of the Independent Schools Association, which represents some 320 smaller, less well known but extremely successful schools. Like the 900 or so other schools that belong to associations that form the Independent Schools Council, of which I am a former general secretary, they are now subject to regulations which require them to encourage pupils to respect the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law and individual liberty, and show mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.
The government requirements place tolerance exactly where it should be: within a set of values that are demonstrably British and give due emphasis to other vital aspects of our historic traditions. They are useful to ISC associations, whose member schools in England account for a higher proportion of minority ethnic pupils than state schools: 28.7% compared with 26.6%—a telling statistic and an indication of the significant contribution that those schools are making to social mobility. The enforcement of the regulations in question at ISC schools is the responsibility of the Independent Schools Inspectorate, which is wholly independent of the schools it inspects and has hitherto enjoyed the full support of Ofsted, by which it is monitored. Again, I declare an interest, having helped establish the inspectorate under the previous Government. I am informed by the inspectorate that every school that has been inspected since the new regulations came into force in January last year has been found to be in compliance with them. The inspectorate is in possession of useful evidence as a result of its pioneering work in this area, which could prove helpful to the maintained sector.
I hope that the spirit of partnership will prevail. As a result of his chairmanship of the Independent/State School Partnership Forum, my noble friend the Minister knows all too well how seriously so many ISC schools take it. I hope, too, that the Independent Schools Inspectorate will be able to continue its work in a spirit of partnership and not have change forced upon it, which some say is now the Government’s intention. The inspectorate as presently constituted can be relied upon to play a major part in helping to encourage and promote British values.
Baroness King of Bow (Lab)
It gives me great pleasure to rise to the Dispatch Box for the first time to discuss an issue as important as this. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on securing this debate, and I completely concur with his views on citizenship education.
Everyone in this House agrees that British values around the rule of law, individual liberty and tolerance have helped create one of the oldest and most successful democracies in the world. I think what we are a bit less agreed on is the tacit implication that if we had a better understanding of British history and, say, Magna Carta, we would sort out poor school governance in Birmingham. That is a little bit of a caricature, but not much, because shared British values should be instilled by example, not diktat. In sending out that diktat, it seems distinctly un-British, even Orwellian, to tar an entire community—in this case, the Muslim community—with language taken from counterterrorism strategies. This is what happened recently.
Underlying this debate is an extraordinary turn of events. I find it truly extraordinary that a self-confessed neoconservative like our Education Secretary, Mr Gove—who rails against the tyranny of centrally planned economies—is the man who has devised the most centralised schools bureaucracy this country has ever seen. The absolute nonsense of the Secretary of State thinking he can run thousands and thousands of British schools from his desk in Whitehall has been a shambolic failure. The people it has failed most have been children, parents and also the teachers in this small minority of schools which have none the less displayed appalling governance, overt gender discrimination and financial irregularities, and were unduly influenced by a conservative religious minority.
What is the answer? It is a combination of the following four areas. The first is to end centralisation and introduce local oversight. Does the Minister agree with Labour’s proposals for the introduction of school standards commissioners? I am going to scrub that question—obviously the Minister is not going to say that he agrees. However, does he agree that the Conservative proposal to bring in eight regional commissioners will not actually provide that local oversight and therefore does not remedy the problem?
Secondly, where discrimination is found towards girls, gay people or religious groups, let us turn to that trusty British value: the rule of law. Don’t start talking about terrorism prevention, just enforce the Equality Act 2010.
Thirdly, we need schools to offer a broad and balanced curriculum. Does the Minister support Ofsted’s proposal on this? Fourthly, should we not reflect on the wisdom of removing the responsibility for schools to promote community cohesion?
So, yes, let us learn from our past, but the relevant history is not Magna Carta. It is fantastic that our baronial forefathers slapped King John about a bit and put him in his place, which became less divine and more democratic. Well done, House of Lords. But today the relevant history is not from 1215; it is from 2001 and the publication of the Cantle report.
What happened recently in Birmingham was that state schools became de facto faith schools; and faith schools, while often delivering excellent academic results, have sometimes unintentionally become places that increase de facto religious and racial segregation. This is all far too sensitive, and well above my pay grade, especially given that it is the first time I am rising to the Dispatch Box—but we need to deal with this problem. I hope the Government will do their homework, get it right, become less ideologically driven, reintroduce local oversight and put the needs of children first.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Storey for securing this important debate. I would also like to thank other noble Lords for their valuable contributions.
On 15 June, to mark the anniversary of Magna Carta, the Prime Minister wrote about these values. He described their roots in our most vital institutions: our parliamentary democracy, our free press, our justice system and our many church and faith groups. The Prime Minister highlighted the important role these institutions play in helping to enforce British values.
Another great British institution is our school system. We have a long and proud commitment to provide access to schooling, regardless of one’s background. Our schools have always recognised that promoting and embedding good values is essential to delivering high-quality education. We should celebrate the excellent work done by many of our schools. We must also recognise and respond to the public’s demand for greater assurance and higher standards in every school, whether independent or academy, free school or maintained. The Government are determined to put the promotion of British values at the core of what every school has to deliver for its pupils. I welcome the opportunity to close this debate and to set out how we intend to achieve this.
I will also describe the requirements and accountability measures already in place. It is important to recognise that these are not measures invented anew but are relevant to the work started in 2011, when the Prevent programme introduced our description of British values. Independent schools and academies and free schools must adhere to the independent school standards. Critically, the standards refer to the expected values and ethos of the school as assessed according to its offer of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.
On Monday, 23 June, we launched a consultation on the wording of the independent school standards that will actively require schools to promote principles that encourage fundamental British values. I hope that all noble Lords who are interested, including the noble Lord, Lord Wills, will respond to this consultation. We are also proposing a new requirement that teaching and curriculum practice must not undermine these values, and we will be consulting on this.
Lord Wills
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I think the question of consultation is fundamental, and I wonder whether he could tell your Lordships’ House what consideration the Government have given to deliberative processes involving the British people themselves in this consultation rather than waiting for the usual sources to send in the usual things to a government consultation.
Lord Nash
The whole principle of consultation is that it is deliberative and that people will respond. I hope they do. As I said, it is not being rushed out, as the noble Lord implied. British values have been part of the policy framework since 2011, when they were introduced as part of the Prevent strategy. Since 2013 standards have required schools to encourage pupils to respect the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. The words are “mutual respect and tolerance”, not just “tolerance”. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, made this point and I will certainly take it back. It is important that our advice to schools is clear. To promote ideas or systems of thought at odds with these values would be failing to meet the standard.
These requirements provide a sufficient lever for action in cases where an attempt is made to undermine British values. The new title wording suggested in the consultation will do more to challenge rigorously those schools paying lip service to these duties. We will expect these changes to come into effect from September this year. They will apply to all independent schools, academies and free schools. We must secure the same standards in maintained schools. As with the independent sector, we are building on responsibilities schools already have to fulfil. Maintained schools must promote the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of their pupils so that they are able to participate positively in society. They cannot promote partisan political activities and must present balanced views to pupils. Importantly, they must promote community cohesion.
Under the citizenship curriculum, maintained schools are also required to teach pupils about a range of subjects, including democracy, human rights, diversity, and the need for mutual respect and understanding. I heard what my noble friend Lord Storey said about the vital importance of citizenship. As important, if not more important, for getting a real grasp of British values is to study history, in order to understand what Daniel Defoe was on about in the quote that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and to understand, for instance, that we are an island made up of a number of countries with a long history stretching back over several millennia of immigration.
While academies and free schools are not, as my noble friend Lord Storey said, subject to the same curriculum requirements as maintained schools, the trust running the school must deliver a broad and balanced curriculum and will be bound by the legal requirement to actively promote fundamental British values. As I trust noble Lords will acknowledge from the published coverage of the Birmingham academies placed into special measures, the Secretary of State will not hesitate to use his powers to consider terminating a funding agreement with an academy trust that cannot secure the required improvements.
Inspection is the primary means by which individual schools are held to account. Noble Lords will note that academies and free schools are inspected under the same section 5 framework as maintained schools. I know that noble Lords will be pleased to hear that 24% of free schools inspected have been adjudged to be outstanding—which, contrary to what reports suggested, represents a remarkable success, particularly as those schools were inspected after only four or five terms.
Spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is already part of section 5, but it allows inspectors to challenge only the most serious failures. Inspectors are already advised to look for evidence of pupils having the skills to participate in modern Britain, to understand and appreciate a range of different cultures, and to respect diversity. We will look to improve the consistency with which this is applied.
Now is the time to raise the bar so that all maintained schools, academies and free schools share the same goal of promoting British values. That is why, as the Secretary of State confirmed on 9 June, the department will review its own guidance to schools so that they are clear about our expectations. We are already talking to Ofsted to ensure that those same expectations are reflected in section 5 arrangements.
On what my noble friend Lord Storey said about grade 1 schools being exempt from inspection, they are not exempt and will be inspected if there are areas of concern; for example, if their results suffer or if there are particular complaints.
My noble friend Lord Cormack talked about a citizenship ceremony. I am sure that the events of Birmingham will enable us all to reflect on what more we can do to produce a more coherent and integrated society. On flying flags on schools, I am always pleased to see the flag so prominent when I visit America. It is sad that, if I were to put a union jack outside my own house, people would think that I was a member of the British National Party, and that the only time one sees flags is when a football match is on. It is also sad that very few students in our primary schools could describe the make-up of the union jack beyond the cross of St George.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Sheikh that education should be a tool of integration. We will not be able to call ourselves a truly successful society until we have a much more integrated society—and, sadly, we are some way short of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Stone, talked about mindfulness. I thank him for his insightful and interesting comments, and for his commercial for the mindfulness classes. The values that we are asking all schools to actively promote are not exclusive. As I understand it, mindfulness chimes a very loud chord with me. I believe that children and young people should be taught about concepts such as mindfulness. Such concepts can be very powerful, particularly for children from scattered home lives. We use a similar approach with a number of our more challenged pupils at my own secondary academy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, made some powerful points. Of course, it is for all schools to ensure that the sort of beliefs to which she referred have no place in our society.
My noble friend Lord Lexden made some supportive comments, for which I am grateful. He knows how highly I value co-operation between the independent and state sectors.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady King, to the Dispatch Box for the first time. I agree with her on the importance of sharing by example, but she should not underestimate the seriousness of the events in Birmingham, about which I obviously know a great deal more than other noble Lords, and their wider implications. She should also be aware that both the free schools programme and the academies programme are proving great successes. Academies are performing much more strongly than other maintained schools.
The noble Baroness referred to Labour’s proposals for 50 regional bureaucracies. We believe that breaking the country into eight regional schools commissioner areas is appropriate. I note that there seems now to be a consensus that we should not go back to local authority control—even Ed Miliband said that in the other place only a few days ago—but creating 50 bureaucracies, each with its own staff, would effectively take us back to a local authority-controlled system.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
Will the Minister care to confirm that there has no been local education authority control of schools since the 1980s? They have had responsibilities and all sorts of things to do, but the use of the term “local authority control” negates the work done by predecessors of the Minister such as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and Lord Joseph. Local authority control is non-existent and has been for decades.
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right. I shall seek to ameliorate my language in future on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady King, also made a point about the rule of law. The rule of law is already among the British values that all schools have to enforce, and all schools must teach a broad and balanced curriculum. None of the 21 schools inspected in Birmingham was a faith school.
I hope that all noble Lords will see the sense of what we are proposing. The changes that I have described will for the first time create a consistent expectation that all schools will promote British values. It will no longer be possible to avoid challenge if a school is only paying lip service to the requirements. The planned inspection arrangements will ensure that those who fail to meet their responsibilities will be held to account and, as we have shown in Birmingham, we will take swift and decisive action where necessary.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that our proposed measures are vital. As my noble friend Lady Berridge said—I am grateful for her support—just because we may not agree on everything does not mean that we cannot agree about a basic set of British values for which all schools should be held to account. Without an understanding and respect for our shared values, we cannot expect any young person to play a full part in British society.
Children and Vulnerable Adults: Abuse
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To move that this House takes note of the measures being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to prevent and address the abuse of children and vulnerable adults.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I remind those speaking in the next debate that it is time limited. When the clock reaches seven minutes, noble Lords should finish their speech, as they will have spoken for their allotted time. If a noble Lord is happy to take an intervention, I am afraid that the time taken up will have to come out of their allocation.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this very topical debate today and look forward to hearing what all noble Lords have to say about this important matter.
I believe that this is basically a humane country, and public tolerance of any kind of abuse of vulnerable people has diminished enormously over the past few decades. But I am afraid that we have a problem and it could be growing. Today, we have heard evidence in the Lampard report of the failings of the system to protect children and vulnerable people within the NHS from the foul predations of Jimmy Savile. I trust that, when we have had time to digest the report and the other reports that are under way, we will be able to give due time in this House to discuss the lessons learnt. In the mean time, we know we have a problem with sexual and physical abuse of children, older people and disabled people. We hear of new cases every week. Of course, the law forbids this sort of behaviour, but, sadly, it does not prevent it happening, and the effects on victims last a lifetime.
The figures are disturbing. The UK’s latest report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child admitted:
“The number of children in England who were subject to a child protection plan increased by 47% between 2008 and 2012”.
This is the same percentage increase as that recently reported by the NSPCC in cases of emotional abuse being reported to the police. I welcome the Government’s plans to clarify the law on that in the Serious Crime Bill.
Last year, the Children’s Rights Director consulted children in England receiving care services and found that 10% felt that they were not enjoying their right to be kept safe from all sorts of harm. Last May, the National Crime Agency reported that a new threat has emerged on the internet. While the number of static images of child abuse remains stable, there is a sharp rise in live streaming of videoed child abuse and paedophiles’ use of the “hidden” or “dark” web. These sites do not emerge when one is using normal search engines and are therefore not easily detected. These people are unscrupulous and clever and we need more resources to catch them. I was pleased to note that, following government initiatives, the Internet Watch Foundation is now able proactively to seek out criminal content and, thanks to funding from a number of UK ISPs, has tripled the number of staff engaged in finding and destroying such imagery.
Recent high-profile cases, as well as that of Jimmy Savile, have shown that there are others who have got away for years with abusing children or vulnerable adults. In some cases, nobody knew about it apart from the victims. They did not have confidence that they would be believed or that anything would be done, and therefore did not report it. In some cases of elder abuse, the family has resorted to placing hidden cameras in the room, in order to prove the unacceptable treatment of their elderly relative by those charged with caring for them.
However, in most of these cases there were suspicions. Indeed, in some cases professionals looked into the issue and wrote reports, which were then ignored. This tells me that we need a massive culture change. Many serious case reviews indicate failures to protect, failures to report abuse or act upon reports, and failures of professionals to communicate with each other and with the authorities. I suppose that it is inevitable that we focus on failures, but while we lament those we must remember and applaud all those who care for children and vulnerable adults in a professional and compassionate way. I do believe that attitudes are changing, and it is hard to believe that the reports from Rochdale, which at the time were not acted upon, would be ignored today. The culture has changed, but my question today is whether it has changed enough. I do not believe that it has.
So I now pose three questions. Are we doing enough to prevent abuse happening? Do we know enough about how and why it happens, and what works in other places? Are we doing enough to deal with the perpetrators, and bring justice and support to the victims?
Perhaps I could deal first with prevention. Prevention involves providing training and qualifications, screening staff and volunteers—in the way that Jimmy Savile was not screened—and ensuring that children and vulnerable people know their rights, and know where to go for help if they are attacked. Prevention also involves decent child protection services, and proper therapeutic treatment for perpetrators, so that they do not do it again.
I have always felt that a child is his or her own best protector. We can do what we can to protect a child, but we cannot sit on her shoulder all the time. This is why it is so important that children are taught in every school, through a balanced PSHE course, how to protect their own personal integrity and how to keep safe, including in their use of the internet. They also need to be taught what a healthy, non-abusive relationship looks and feels like, and who to turn to in case of fear or of actual abuse. I believe that this is every child’s right.
Schools need proper oversight from Ofsted of their safeguarding policies and practice. Indeed, Ofsted is the only statutory body given specific responsibility for ensuring that schools keep children safe. Unfortunately, the methods and infrequency of Ofsted inspections make that difficult to do—my noble friend Lady Sharp will speak in more detail about the shortcomings of the inspection system. Then we need to provide decent children’s services. I have every sympathy for cash-strapped local authorities and social workers with large caseloads, and I support the policy of giving freedoms to local authorities to spend the money locally in the best possible way for them. However, I am very relieved that, after careful consideration, the Government have announced that they will not allow authorities to delegate children’s safeguarding services to profit-making organisations. It is vital that there is no chance of the profit motive being put before the welfare of a child.
We must then minimise the opportunity for perpetrators to reach vulnerable children. Here, the DBS checks, formerly called CRB checks, and training for organisations in safe recruitment practices are vitally important. Many organisations have found to their cost that DBS checks alone are not enough, as they only identify those who have offended before, and are no use against first-time offenders or those who are clever enough to avoid detection. There has recently been some streamlining of the system, and the numbers being barred have fallen. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister how that new system is working. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, will have more to say about this.
Many serious case reviews have highlighted failures of professionals to communicate. I believe that there is a very strong case for some common training elements for those working with children, so that the professionals understand each other’s perspectives, and are more likely to communicate with each other during their career. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation has an excellent programme called Stop it Now! to raise awareness about the dangers of child abuse, and to help those who are concerned about their own sexual proclivities to avoid offending. Such preventive work is to be applauded, and we need more of it.
In the case of care of older people, it is training, qualifications and proper oversight that is needed. Families need to know what quality of care is being offered to their elderly relatives. I was therefore delighted to read in a Parliamentary Answer last week that regulations will soon be introduced to allow the CQC to take robust action against providers that do not offer an acceptable quality of care, and will produce ratings of care quality to provide users with a fuller picture than they now get. Will my noble friend the Minister comment on these plans? I would also like to ask why a Law Commission recommendation to streamline disciplinary codes covering more than 30 health and care professions has been shelved by the Government. It seems to me that such arrangements could act both as a deterrent and as an effective measure for dealing with wrong-doing.
I turn now to knowledge of abuse. Knowledge means doing research about causes and about what works, bringing information together and disseminating knowledge of best practice. Knowledge also means ensuring that those who know what is going on report the facts to the authorities. I have been informed by lawyers who acted for dozens of Jimmy Savile’s victims that the most shocking revelation of all was the number of victims who had reported what had happened at the time to someone in their institution, only to be ignored and their claims covered up. One girl in Stoke Mandeville told a nurse what Jimmy Savile had done, only to be told, “You’re making a mountain, you silly girl. Do you know what he does for our hospital?”. That is why I believe that we need mandatory reporting, which would make it a new offence for those in a position of caring to fail to report knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse in a regulated activity. By “regulated activity” I mean schools, hospitals and so on, as defined in Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, although the definitions would need amending to exclude such confidential helplines as ChildLine and Stop It Now!. This has been done successfully in Australia, so I do not believe that it would be a problem here.
We would also need to deal with patient confidentiality, such as when a child discloses information to a doctor. The fact is that many of Savile’s offences took place in schools, hospitals and prison institutions, where vulnerable people and children should have been able to rely on being safe. Fortunately, we now believe children better than we used to. However, in many cases, in order to secure a conviction we need the corroboration of adults who know what has happened. Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, knows this well, which is why he supports this change in the law. Victims universally support such a change, and tell us that it would not prevent them from reporting the abuse themselves. Indeed, they would be encouraged to do so if they knew that the person to whom they confided was obliged by law to do something to make it stop.
Often ChildLine advisers will encourage children to report the abuse to a trusted adult. In that situation, the child must be able to have confidence that, if they do so, their disclosure will be properly dealt with, and no concern about reputational damage would get in the way of that adult doing the right thing by that child. The only way they can have that confidence is to make failure to report abuse an offence. The intention is not to put people in prison but to change the culture, and I believe that it would help workers to report abuse if they saw it as a public duty and not as telling tales. There is also considerable public support for this. In a recent independent poll of the public, 96% of people supported it.
We also need more research about how mandatory reporting is working in Australia, and I call on the Government to support a current application to the Nuffield Foundation to fund such a research project. Its aim is to identify barriers to identification and reporting by teachers of suspected child sexual and physical abuse and serious neglect, and to identify effective practice. This would fill a declared gap in the DfE’s research portfolio.
Of course, mandatory reporting would apply not just to teachers. I also support the call from 88 MPs, led by Tim Loughton MP, to ask the Home Secretary to set up a Hillsborough-style inquiry into organised sexual exploitation of children. We need to restore trust in the system by learning the lessons of all the cases that have come to light, rather than just having the present drip-feed of information.
Finally, I come to my third question. Justice involves encouraging victims and witnesses to come forward and ensuring that they are treated properly, so that they can give their evidence clearly and consistently. Justice for potential victims also means that perpetrators are given programmes to tackle their perversion and ensure that they do not commit more crimes. Without those programmes, those imprisoned may well go on to reoffend after release. We are not protecting children if we allow that to happen.
I was recently privileged to sit on a commission of inquiry into child sexual abuse, facilitated by Barnardo’s. It became clear from the evidence that we heard that there was a lot of good practice, but a great deal more needs to be done. I support all the recommendations in our report, which would help the police and the justice system to support young witnesses and enable them to help to bring their torturers to justice. My noble kinsman Lord Thomas of Gresford and my noble friend Lord Paddick will deal with those issues in more detail.
Finally, as an honorary fellow of UNICEF, I must support its calls for improvements to the Modern Slavery Bill in relation to trafficked children, child pornography and child prostitution—although I abhor the use of the latter term and would like it removed from the legislation. There is no such thing as a child prostitute.
On this day of shocking revelations of how we have let victims down in the past, I look forward to hearing from my noble friend about how the Government plan to improve their protection of vulnerable people, young and old.
Lord Eden of Winton (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for securing and introducing this debate. I congratulate her on her constructive and knowledgeable speech, which has once again shown how much she knows about this subject, how much she has studied it and the leadership that she has given in trying to cure some of the evils she has highlighted.
She talked a lot about the abuse of children. I want to focus today on vulnerable adults, the other party to this compendium debate. Noble Lords will be aware that on 14 May, earlier this year, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege introduced an important short debate entitled, “Elderly People: Abuse”. All the speeches in that debate should be read again, and they are wholly relevant to the context of our debate this afternoon. I want to highlight some of the points made in a number of those speeches.
I start with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, in which he highlighted the importance of avoiding turning a safeguarding policy into a mechanistic exercise. Each person who is vulnerable or the subject of care should be treated as a unique individual, and the carer should be alert and have developed powers of observation. Although the pressure on the person concerned is undoubtedly great, they should appear to be unrushed. Above all, those who look after elderly, vulnerable people should not be on autopilot. I also agree with what the noble Lord said: that the human qualities of care and sharing should never be forgotten or lost from view.
In that same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, warned against institutions with what he called a tick-box culture, which can be very inhumane and impersonal. In this context, I ask the Minister whether she can indicate any progress with care certification of the individual carers. I would also like some system for evaluating the quality of individual care homes. We do that regularly with restaurants, and we all know the star system. Why cannot we have something similar with care homes, so that we know the degree of quality of each home?
In that same debate, the speeches that really resonated with me were those made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, caring for vulnerable adults is not a simple easy matter. As we all know, the old can be very obstinate and difficult. I especially think of people such as me, who cannot hear very easily. Hearing loss often leads to frustration, and that frustration can so readily become aggression. I hope that people will learn that if the person who is slightly deaf cannot hear something, they should not start shouting, because that really makes it worse. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg was right when he said how,
“difficult and taxing, both physically and mentally, the job of caring for elderly people really is”.—[Official Report, 14/5/14; col. 1910.]
What we hope to see, I think all would agree, is that, whenever possible, people should be able to stay in their own home. That requires regular visits when help is needed. An emergency call button is a useful form of assistance. Support needs to be given to family members, who often give dedicated and—I emphasise—voluntary work. I am aware of a 102 year-old lady who lives on her own and is looked after by regular visits throughout the week by two of her nieces, one of whom is over 80 and the other over 90. Both have to travel quite a distance to get to her and they do it selflessly, week in and week out.
Lastly, and most important of all in ending what is really unthinking abuse of vulnerable people, is education, particularly of the younger generation. Other cultures are more fortunate, in many ways, than our own. We have lost the cohesion of completeness of family circle. This was highlighted in the speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I am lucky: I have 12 grandchildren; they are all young, all loving, all patient and all tolerant. They all communicate and are all great fun and they are all over the world. However, for many people, for those older than my grandchildren, grandparents can be tiresome, irritating and irrelevant. They are often regarded as oddball curiosities who do not understand texting, e-mail, Facebook, Twitter and the like. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford had a message for us: he said that we should become more conscious of our common humanity. He drew on his experience of Africa to refer to the word “ubuntu”. We must learn afresh the quality of belonging together and do so with understanding and patience.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, it gives me very great pleasure to thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for initiating this very topical debate. I declare an interest as a primary school governor responsible for special educational needs. Until last year—I confess that this is a role that I have now “rolled off”—I was also a governor of my local college, where I had responsibility for child protection functions.
I was interested to read in the Guardian this Tuesday about the experiences of a number of secondary school heads who claimed that, although Ofsted is nominally responsible for checking on school protection procedures, in practice this amounted to little more than checking that people had had their Criminal Records Bureau or Disclosure and Barring Service checks appropriately undertaken, and that the school or college had up-to-date child protection policy and procedures, rather than checking on the impact of the policy on the actions of the school. The Guardian spoke to 11 secondary school head teachers who, between them, had had a total of 47 inspections but,
“only twice did the inspectors ask if any safeguarding referrals had been made to the local authority”.
I was interested in this because my experience as a governor with responsibility on the governing board for child protection issues was that when we had an inspection, I was questioned at some length about my knowledge of the policies and procedures that were pursued and how I kept track of what was going on in the college. This led me to think more widely about the role of Ofsted, which is quite topical, given the issues in Birmingham over the Trojan horse issue. It also goes back to one of the central questions in child protection; namely, the role of different agencies and the co-ordination between those agencies. In the Daniel Pelka case in Coventry, for example, his school was concerned about the child’s physical state and his obvious hunger, but did not see fit to follow this up either with social services or with the police. Similarly, it is amazing that in Rochdale, the care homes with which many of these young women were attached asked no questions about the activities of the young people.
Ofsted describes itself as follows:
“The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) regulates and inspects to achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children’s social care and inspects the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, work-based learning and skills training, adult and community learning, and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments. It assesses council children’s services, and inspects services for looked after children, safeguarding and child protection”.
As one senior inspector remarked in recent evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee:
“Ofsted is not primarily a child protection agency, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that safeguarding is our core business”.
Ofsted, of course, is not just about schools. As the list I just read out indicates, it is pretty unique in cutting across all the other agencies involved in children and being the one thread that links them all together.
This brings me to the nub of what I want to say. Successive issues in child protection have hinged upon early intervention and the need for the various agencies with responsibilities in this area to work together to recognise the early signs of all forms of neglect and abuse and take appropriate action. Within the college, our biggest problem was the difficulty, first, in persuading local social services to inform the college about the young adults and other vulnerable persons who attended the college but who needed help and support, such as 16 year-olds who were or had been on child protection registers; and, secondly, with those same social services departments taking an interest when the college felt that young people might need more help and support.
It is for this reason that I welcome very much the announcement earlier this week that Ofsted had taken the lead in suggesting that various inspections of these agencies that are responsible for children’s services should come together for an integrated programme of inspections. I gather that this will bring together the Care Quality Commission, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Inspectorate of Probation and, where appropriate, the Inspectorate of Prisons. Their focus will be on the effectiveness of local authorities’ health, police, probation and other services in helping to protect and care for children and young people. These are real moves towards bringing the services together and encouraging them to work co-operatively.
Yet we are left with the fact that such moves encourage them to work together but do not make them do so, when we know that to be effective they have to co-operate and work together really closely. In the Children and Families Act that we passed in the previous Session we wished upon these services a duty to co-operate, yet we also know that this comes at a time when those same services are under great pressure to cut costs and suffer considerably from the churn in their personnel. Last year, for example, one in three local authorities saw a change in their children’s services director. We also know that many social workers are carrying a case load of well over 30 cases, whereas the optimum is between 10 and 12.
With the establishment of the academies and free schools, many local authorities now have only minimal education departments and are looking to schools to provide the lead in safeguarding cases. In the local primary school where I am the governor, we have used our pupil premium money to recruit a family liaison worker, but we are in no position to take the lead role in co-ordinating supportive activities for children in need of such support.
To sum up, in issuing new statutory guidance last year in the form of Working Together to Safeguard Children, we are clear that early intervention and integrated services are what we need. We all will these ends, but I am not yet confident that we have willed the means to achieve them.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on initiating this very important debate. I will focus on some of the measures needed to prevent and address the abuse of children and adults with learning disabilities. I do this as a family carer of a vulnerable adult and from my perspective as a psychiatrist working in learning disabilities for more than 30 years. The House will also wish to know that I am a member of the recently established papal commission for the protection of minors.
Why is it important to focus on people with learning disabilities, or “intellectual disabilities” as they are known around the world? There are 1.5 million of them in the United Kingdom. They are one of the most vulnerable groups in our society yet they are also one of the most marginalised, underserved and least able to protect themselves. The appalling abuse at Winterbourne View that was uncovered in 2011 focused policymakers’ attention on the abuse of adults with learning disabilities, adults who are more at risk of all forms of abuse. Similarly, compared with their non-disabled peers, children with learning disabilities are three times more likely to experience neglect, bullying and abuse. There are long-term consequences of abuse for well-being, psychological well-being and mental health, with a strong link to depression and harm. The National Association for People Abused in Childhood provides support for adult survivors of childhood abuse and it reports that the demand for its services, including a telephone support line, is currently at an all-time high.
The Serious Crime Bill makes it explicit that under the Children and Young Persons Act emotional cruelty likely to cause psychological harm to a child is an offence. I suggest that that should also include witnessing domestic abuse. Given the increased risk of abuse and neglect, it is vital that we consider whether these measures taken by the Government will adequately protect children and adults with learning disabilities. The Care Act, which received Royal Assent in May, provides a clear legal framework for how the health and care system should work together with the safeguarding adult boards. The Act requires local authorities to make inquiries when they think that an adult with care and support needs may be at risk, and to take action if needed. To tackle problems quickly and prevent them happening again, it is vital that organisations share information with the SABs. The Act makes it clear that if an SAB requests relevant information from an organisation or an individual, they must provide it. Clearly, for local authorities to perform their duties, they need to identify that someone is at risk.
Since 2010, there has been a mandatory requirement to submit abuse of vulnerable adults returns to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre. In February, the centre’s report on safeguarding adults referrals revealed that of the nearly 42,000 men who received safeguarding referrals in 2012-13 nearly 11,000 had a learning disability, as did nearly 10,000 of the 65,000 women who were reported. Worryingly, these figures may be the tip of the iceberg as we know that the abuse of both adults and children with learning disabilities is under reported. We know that the families of those at Winterbourne View who raised concerns were not listened to and that a member of staff who acted as a whistleblower went unheard. It is shocking that it took a TV documentary for that abuse to come to light. What steps are the Government taking to ensure early identification and prompt reporting?
Those working with adults and children with learning disabilities must receive training on signs of abuse and neglect. When people with learning disabilities speak up, we need to ensure that those listening, whether professionals in health, education, social care or the police, have the skills to communicate in a way that that person understands. We know that these people are often unable to speak out for themselves so we need to ensure that families and carers are listened to when they have concerns.
I am encouraged that the Department of Health has commissioned a whistleblowing helpline, to be provided by Mencap, for staff and organisations working within health and social care and I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her amendment to the Serious Crime Bill that will make it a duty for people who work in regulated activities with children or vulnerable adults and who suspect abuse to report it to the local authority. I too support mandatory reporting.
Reporting a suspicion that turns out to be inaccurate must not become a disciplinary matter for health and social care professionals—the needs of the child or vulnerable adult are paramount, however distressing false suspicion may be for others involved. Where suspicions are found to be correct, taking immediate action to protect the victim and others from further abuse and neglect is imperative but we must also ensure that appropriate treatment is available for the perpetrators of abuse.
What about prevention? People with learning disabilities have the same human rights as everyone else—the same rights to freedom from abuse and neglect, the same rights to be treated with dignity and respect. However, they also need to be empowered with education. They need to know their rights, what abuse and neglect are and what to do if this is happening to them. This is difficult. Some people may find it easier to understand pictures rather than words. Books Beyond Words uses pictures to tell stories about difficult topics, including abuse, to engage and empower people with learning disabilities and to facilitate their discussion with those who are supporting them. I declare an interest as chair of the charitable organisation that develops these pictures and this method of communicating.
The Government must take measures to prevent abuse or neglect of children and adults with learning disabilities happening in the first place. We need interventions to be offered before there is a need to resort to criminal prosecution. Parents and carers sometimes feel isolated, overwhelmed and unable to cope with their responsibilities and they need specialist support to be available when they need it.
As the scandal at Winterbourne View highlighted so starkly, we need to ensure as well that those meant to be providing care to children and adults with learning disabilities as paid care workers are fit to do so. Many of these care workers are underqualified and poorly paid. We need to ensure that care workers receive a better wage for the important work they do. Can the Government ensure that the use of zero-hours contracts among employers of care workers comes to an end? Let us consider those children and adults living with the effects of abuse. They may carry the pain and trauma with them for the rest of their lives. Their GPs need to know where to refer them. For disabled people the availability of trauma-based therapies is even more limited than for other people. This is discriminatory. I end by asking that the abuse of vulnerable children and adults should be at the forefront of our minds—it is everyone’s business.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, very warmly for raising this matter. In my role as co-chair of the Church of England and Methodist Church Joint Safeguarding Liaison Group and the lead bishop for safeguarding, I daily have issues regarding the abuse of children and adults at risk brought to my attention. Clergy and other church leaders across the nation lead churches in which those who have been abused seek comfort, strength and healing. The staff of church schools daily hear from the children whom they serve stories of abuse of all kinds. In my maiden speech during the debate on the gracious Speech, I welcomed the Government’s courageous decision to strengthen the law on psychological and emotional abuse in the Serious Crime Bill. This adds to other areas where the law has been improved over recent years. The Care Act 2014 has moved us from “vulnerable adults” to “adults at risk”, helping to recognise that while some adults are permanently vulnerable—because of, for instance, age, illness or disability—others become at risk for a period of time. This recognition is undoubtedly helpful. So, too, will be the statutory duty to have local safeguarding adult boards.
Improvements have therefore already been made. The Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on online safety offers a further opportunity to help tackle the extremely serious issue of online abuse. I hope that the Government will support that Bill. Indeed, the extension of the offence of extreme pornography to include possession of pornographic images of rape and assault by penetration in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will continue to send a message to the public that such abuse is unacceptable. The situation becomes ever more concerning with the use of the dark net, too. CEOP must be supported adequately to stay ahead of the game, so that it can discover innovative ways to unmask the users of paedophile sites and not be allowed continually to fall further behind.
I will focus particularly on the voice of survivors. This has been the deepest lesson for me, and for the church as a whole, over recent years. We have previously failed to listen adequately to the survivor’s voice. We must do so if we are to continue to improve the prevention of abuse of both children and adults at risk. Survivors have been calling for some years for the introduction of mandatory reporting by professionals. Far too many cases of abuse could have been prevented if professional people who had serious suspicions of abuse were required to report it to a relevant authority. There remains too much fear of whistleblowing or of being thought of as interfering. Mandatory reporting for professional staff would alleviate any doubts and prevent people from asking themselves, “Should I or shouldn’t I?”. Suspicions should not be brushed aside or left unheeded. The time for mandatory reporting has arrived.
Survivors also note the need for really good safe spaces, where those who have been abused can go to report their case and find the kind of support that they need. The Church of England and the Methodist Church are currently exploring how we might create such safe spaces. We are working with projects such as the Lantern Project on the Wirral and small, locally based survivor groups in Sussex, which have developed outstanding work. Work like this for survivors of abuse needs to be encouraged and supported more openly.
A further matter survivors have been calling for is the extension of the definition of “positions of trust” in the Sexual Offences Act 2003; the current definition is too limited in scope. Continued work is also required within the operation of the criminal justice system so that survivors and victims are enabled to share their stories in a supportive environment. There have been many good advances, but vigilance and continued improvement is required.
Finally, in listening to the voice of survivors one very strong message keeps being shared: “You can do all you like to improve your legislation, your procedures and practices to ensure the present and the future are better at prevention and in dealing with both survivors and abusers than in the past; but unless and until you face up to the reality of what has previously happened, you will never really change the culture of abuse within which we live”. In short, if we do not face up to past failures, we will never really improve the future. This is a lesson we in the church are slowly learning and seeking to tackle. We have a very long way to go.
The lessons of cases like Savile and Rochdale have highlighted that, in our nation, we have a long history of abuse within institutions. Schools, residential care homes, hospitals, the police force, churches and local and national political institutions have all been used by abusers to hide their wicked activities. Powerful people have engaged in serious abuse and have worked with each other to create opportunities and share their vices and victims. As a nation we have to face up to the seriousness of institutionally based abuse against the most vulnerable in our society, both children and adults, which has gone on in the past and, sadly, continues today.
The survivors are right when they say that if we want the future to be truly different and better we have to confront the past. I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that we need a fully independent inquiry that will fully examine the reality of institutionally based abuse in our nation over the past possibly as much as 50 years. This is needed so that we can understand why this happens, where responsibilities lie and what cultural, societal and institutional discourses and dynamics lie at the heart of these ongoing failings.
I know it will take time and will be costly to undertake, and I know that for both those reasons it will be argued against. However, I firmly believe that the true cost of child abuse and the abuse of adults at risk is far higher than any of us have ever been prepared to acknowledge in terms of the mental, emotional, social and physical health and well-being of very large numbers of our population. Justice, fairness and the very health of our society demands that we no longer hide away from this dark part of our story. We need an independent public inquiry and we need it very soon.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I also want to thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for this debate. I particularly welcome the comments we have just heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, in relation to survivors, which is a theme that I hope to continue.
I speak as a police officer of over 30 years’ experience and someone who for a time was the national lead for the police on mental health issues. I also conducted a review of rape investigation for the Metropolitan Police in 2005. For me, there is a serious issue of concern about the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to this area. Understandably for the CPS but, arguably, less so for the police, there is a focus on criminal prosecution. This can be problematic in relation to victims of abuse, particularly children and vulnerable adults. The problem becomes more acute when the alleged offence is conducted in private, where only the perpetrator and the victim are present, and there is no forensic or other evidence to substantiate the allegation. The problems become even more acute in cases of vulnerable adults in rape cases where consent is an issue.
Clearly, everything should be done to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice for abuse of the vulnerable, but the conclusion we came to in the Metropolitan Police rape investigation review was that the needs of the victim should be primary and the need for a prosecution should be secondary. Even if, because of the vulnerability of the victim, a jury might be unlikely to believe the victim or the victim might be unable to accurately recall the event, if at all, the importance of those reporting abuse being believed by the police cannot be overstated.
As my noble friend Baroness Walmsley has said, we saw in the recent case of Jimmy Savile how vulnerable victims were either not believed or did not feel able to report the abuse until after the perpetrator was dead. Clearly, as a prosecuting authority, the CPS has a legal obligation to apply a test of how likely it is that the case will be proved; but the police have other and, I believe, overriding obligations to the victim and to society as a whole to ensure that vulnerable people and children are safeguarded.
In the past, police performance indicators, particularly in relation to clear-up rates, the proportion of crimes solved compared with the total number of offences recorded, has encouraged the police to concentrate on the most solvable cases and even to look for reasons not to record offences at all. It is much easier to influence the clear-up rate by not recording an offence than it is to try to solve very difficult and serious cases. Indeed, in the first draft of my review into rape investigations, we identified wide differences across London in the total number of offences recorded, the proportion that was classified as “no crime” or “not a crime”, and the proportion of successful prosecutions. We not only identified differences in leadership, the amount of resources and the expertise that was applied to those cases, but we also identified differences in how the vulnerability of the victim impacted on how seriously the police appeared to take the alleged offences.
In some areas of London prostitution was an issue, while in others there was a problem with those addicted to drugs, or a higher proportion of those who suffered from mental illness, and in those areas there appeared to be a higher incidence of crimes being written off as never having happened. While one can see the dilemma for the police in some of these cases, when the prospect of securing sufficient evidence to mount a successful prosecution may have been small and they were in effect presented with an unsolvable crime, that was no excuse for writing off such offences as simply never having happened.
The most important starting point in any police investigation—and one that appears not to have been followed, certainly in the era of Jimmy Savile—is that the child or vulnerable adult who complains of abuse must be believed unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Even if a prosecution does not prove possible, it is essential that at the very least the matter is recorded as a crime for police intelligence purposes and that steps are taken to ensure that the child or vulnerable adult is supported and protected from future harm.
There is also a need to act with fairness and balance towards the accused in these cases. We have seen other cases where serious allegations have been made against well known individuals, and in some of those cases the press appear to have assumed their guilt, even when those individuals have subsequently been acquitted or no further action has been taken against them by the police. I am not in favour of anonymity for those accused of sexual offences, but there needs to be a sea change in people’s attitudes towards police investigations in such cases.
The police may arrest someone if they have “reasonable cause to suspect” that a person has committed an offence, not because they have evidence that they can put before a court. The CPS may charge someone on the basis that it believes there to be a more than 51% chance of conviction before a jury, not because it is certain that the person is guilty. It seems that in the minds of the public in this country at the moment, rather than a presumption of innocence there is a presumption of “no smoke without fire”, which is very often planted by the media. In particular, there needs to be a balance between the need for a thorough police investigation and the innocent accused being bailed, rebailed, and bailed again.
The police appear to have to perform a very difficult balancing act, but I will try to simplify things. Children and vulnerable adults who have suffered abuse must be believed, cared for and protected at all costs. Whenever possible, perpetrators must be brought to justice—but not at any cost. Above, all inability to prosecute must never be an excuse for failing victims of abuse.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, the awful history of Savile is truly terrible, and we all need to extend concern and care to the victims, particularly today, when their memories are again being revived. However, we should not let celebrity cases focus our thinking on issues of abuse in one direction. Let us remind ourselves that most abuse takes place—is taking place at this moment—in the home, by the neighbour, in the sports centre, and in the local church congregation, and is usually perpetrated by a known and trusted adult. What we need from government—this is about what the Government are doing in this area—is a joined-up strategy that looks at all the areas. Perhaps it can look separately at adults and children, but certainly those two areas need joined-up strategies. I will talk in particular about child sexual abuse in relation to that.
Before I begin to talk about that, I pay tribute to the people who work in this field, because normally we hear only about the failings. I was at a conference this morning where we were told about the case loads of social workers; the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has already mentioned this. Those case loads are twice what they should be, and solicitors are undertaking work free, because the fees are now so low that they could not otherwise spend more than about three hours in consultation with families. Because those workers are usually condemned, I think that we should recognise the thousands of cases that, day in and day out, are carried through successfully by all the statutory services—the police, health workers, and particularly social workers.
I cannot agree with the call for a national inquiry. I know how expensive that would be. There are two reasons why I do not support an inquiry. The first is that if there is any money going in these years of austerity, when the answer is usually, “Deficit, deficit, deficit,” please let us plough it into the front line. Let us get the money to the preventive work, where we can really do good. The second reason is that we already have a plethora of reports. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, will tell us his thoughts about how we follow through on the reports, and the analysis of those reports, that we already have. That is crucial to take us forward. Producing yet another report would, I fear, just take us to the same place. The work is already done.
I shall now talk about child sexual abuse and the other connected issues that I want to raise. I am vice-chair, and a trustee, of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—whom I congratulate on securing this debate—has already generously mentioned. Dealing with child sexual abuse tends to reflect two strands of activity, child protection and offender management. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation takes a slightly different view, which might be called a public health view. It says that all adults, everywhere, are responsible for all abuse, particularly child sexual abuse. So we have to increase the understanding of parents, and of local groups such as schools and churches. I commend the work that the right reverend Prelate is doing at the moment; I confess to being on his committee. I think that the church is now trying to undertake some of the education work through its parishes.
Because child sexual abuse is such an emotive subject, providing the proper treatment and preventive strategies for abusers has brought particular challenges. It is easy to talk about the victims and get help for them; it is extraordinarily difficult to get a focus on abusers.
As many people will know, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation has developed a helpline. I thank the Government for their support for the helpline, especially recently, to ensure that all the men—it is mostly men—who might be abusing can get through, as well as families, often wives, and young people, who are sometimes referred from ChildLine with their problems involving abuse. More than 31,000 calls were taken between 2002 and 2013, but many were missed, and for every call missed there may be a child who is being abused, or a family life lost because the husband was not able to get help fast enough. The Government are playing their part in working with that helpline.
In the time that I have left I want to talk about a couple of other areas. The first is the work of the courts. In the NSPCC’s presentation of its recent work on the courts, I was shocked to discover that many of the procedures that we thought had already been implemented in the courts are still not there. What distresses me most is to discover that children are still being aggressively cross-examined by barristers, and that most of those who could be heard outside court, on off-site premises, do not do so because the provision is not there. Only 1% of the children get that opportunity. I commend the work of the NSPCC in that area.
Finally, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation works with young people who are sexually offending. We had a contract with the Youth Justice Board, which was successful until 2012. It was then given up to the health service. NHS England decided that it would take it in-house, but it has not taken the staff, so there is no specialist support for these children. Will the Minister look at what is happening to young people who now need extremely specialist programmes in young offender institutions, now that the one group that knows about this has been removed?
I want to say a word about mandatory reporting before I finish. I do not think that I could do better than to quote Donald Findlater, one of the most experienced workers in this field, both here and internationally. Again, I am taking a different position from those who have spoken before. I agree with him when he says:
“In other parts of the world I see police and child protection agencies swamped by demand following mandatory reporting. It leaves little time to invest in prevention, especially as most cases are unsubstantiated. I want staff to intervene when they have concerns, not just when abuse has happened. And I don’t want the criminal law to be an obstacle to such decent, responsible behaviour”.
I hope that the Government agree.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House this afternoon, and I refer Members to my interests in the register, in addition to which I am patron of Action on Elder Abuse and the main carer of an adult with autism.
A report by Action on Elder Abuse states that abuse is often by more than one person—something that we sometimes overlook. There is often collusion in abuse between adults—23% of cases are by members of a family and 62% by paid staff. In respect of that, there are three things that I would like my noble friend on the Front Bench to take away from this debate. The first is training, which has already been raised. The Action on Elder Abuse helpline identified that the greatest number of problems it receives have at their heart poor training, so I hope that the Government will concentrate on training, particularly for care workers and those with professional qualifications.
The other is whistleblowing. I support the moves that the Government are about to take in forthcoming legislation to tighten up on whistleblowing. In that context it is also important to state that it is not just about whistleblowing on something that is evidently what we would all recognise as criminal abuse; it needs attention much further down the track than that. Before things get to the level of criminal abuse, people need to feel that they can report it, and do so safely, particularly regarding their own position.
The other thing that I have mentioned before, but which would be remiss of me not to press again, is that we need a proper register for care workers. They do not work just in organised homes; they work greatly in the community and do invaluable work. When we look at the people who are accused of and found guilty of a range of abuses, we still have that rather unquiet feeling that for many, if they have not received a custodial sentence, they can go back into the ether and re-emerge somewhere else to obtain a post caring for another vulnerable person.
My noble friend Lady Hollins raised the shocking case of Winterbourne View, and I take this opportunity to say that we have seen the government report Winterbourne View: 1 Year On, but I still have concerns about report-backs that I hear from the medical profession and others that far too many people with learning disabilities and who present as mental health patients are being detained for far too long and a long way away from their natural home and community. Much as I know that the Government have taken Winterbourne View very seriously, we cannot, as has rightly been said, just accept a tick-list on a well written report. This House needs to be reported to with evidence that change has happened and is happening for these vulnerable people.
Winterbourne View involved adults with learning disability and autistic spectrum disorders. I know the House would expect me to devote some of my contribution to people with autism. While I appreciate that the new Care Act does a lot to make improvements, there is one aspect of it that is going to cause a real problem for people on the autistic spectrum. It commits the Government to introduce a new national eligibility threshold for care and support, which will tell local authorities when they must provide adults with support. Until now, local authorities have had the power to set eligibility for support against one of the eligibility bandings—low, moderate, substantial and critical—which reflect different levels of care need. The new national eligibility criteria are intended to be comparable, but the banding is different. It should be a fairer system, but I suspect that many people on the autistic spectrum will fall through the net.
I would like to share with the House the case of Adrian, who was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome when he was 14. Social services assessed his need for support at the age of 18. His parents were concerned that he was putting himself at risk because of the people he was spending time with, and they thought he needed help with the transition to adulthood. The assessment found that Adrian had difficulty interpreting other people’s motives and actions—something that is very common with people on the autistic spectrum—and that he was easily led, which could place him at risk in the community. However, the local authority decided the risks were not sufficient for him to receive support.
Adrian was later bullied and intimidated. His parents continued to contact social services, as well as the police, asking for a reassessment and support for him. After Adrian reported being raped by one of the people who had befriended him, his parents again appealed to the police and social services. Eventually, a small package of evening support was approved. However, five days later, Adrian was murdered by the same person he had accused of rape. Under the Government’s new proposed criteria, Adrian would not have been eligible for support.
I draw my noble friend’s attention to the very first word of the debate we have before us today: “preventing”. With many people on the autistic spectrum, the right package of support—not necessarily a hugely costly package at that—can prevent abuse and neglect. I hope my noble friend will ensure that the Front Bench team from the Department of Health are aware of our concerns about the safety and security of people on the autistic spectrum, and about the change in the Care Act.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I, too, would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on securing this important debate. In particular, I would like to congratulate her on her excellent speech.
I intend to confine my comments to the abuse of children. Evidence from a range of sources in recent years has underlined that children are being increasingly exposed to harmful and damaging content online. A parliamentary inquiry in 2012 found that one in three children aged 10 or under has seen sexual images online, and four out of five children aged 14 to 16 access online pornography at home. The inquiry went on to say, somewhat chillingly, that,
“the whole history of human sexual perversion”,
is available on the internet and only two clicks away. It goes on to say that,
“unfortunately, our children, with their natural curiosity and superior technological skills, are finding and viewing these images”.
The inquiry also noted that the rise of internet pornography is leaving teenagers with an inability to develop normal relationships and is even increasing their susceptibility to grooming by sexual abusers.
Last year, the Deputy Children’s Commissioner for England suggested that the scale of access to adult pornography among children was now so widespread that it should trigger “moral panic” among parents, schools and the Government about what should be done. Her research also revealed that in one large local authority area, 100% of boys in year 9 classes—14 year-olds—accessed pornography. The damaging consequences of all this are plain. Children do not simply view these images and move on. They can produce real trauma for weeks, months and even years to come.
In a 2010 Home Office report into the sexualisation of children, leading psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos found that there is a striking link among young males between the consumption of sexualised images and a tendency to view women as objects, along with an acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm. According to research by Ybarra and Mitchell, children who are exposed to pornography are three and a half times more likely to be depressed and two and a half times more likely to be less bonded to their carers.
Given the effect on children, I am very clear that the provision of this kind of material online without robust age verification to protect children constitutes a form of abuse, about which something must be done. So, what have the Government done? They have persuaded 90% of the ISP market to provide what is in effect a form of default filtering, which I welcome, although the self-regulatory nature of the current arrangements—missing out 10% of the market and therein many homes with children—is deeply problematic for reasons I have explained on previous occasions.
However, I want to focus particularly on the ATVOD call on the Government to make the law clearer that R18 material should be put behind robust age verification mechanisms that it would be ATVOD’s responsibility to monitor. I am pleased to say that the Government have responded favourably to this request, although they have not yet produced any legislation. That is of concern, given the importance of the issue.
In the light of this, my Online Safety Bill, which had its First Reading in your Lordships’ House on 11 June, would save the Government time by providing them in Clause 7 with a provision that rises to the challenge. However, it goes further. If we as a society decide that children aged under 18 should not see 18 or R18 material, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Government to require the provision of age verification for R18-rated material but not 18-rated material. If we are serious about child protection, age verification must by definition apply to both 18 and R18-rated video on demand material. Since the Gambling Act 2005, we have required all online gambling sites to be set behind robust age-verification processes based on credit referencing, the electoral roll and so on. We must now do so in relation to 18 and R18 video on demand material.
ATVOD has also rightly drawn attention to the fact that the majority of R18 material that is accessed in the UK comes from beyond this country where the authority has no jurisdiction. Simply to make the Communications Act 2003 clearer on the point that all 18 and R18 material should be placed behind robust age-verification systems, while essential, is by no means the whole solution. I am not aware that the Government have done anything specifically to address the problem. It is for this reason that Clause 8 of my Bill would introduce a financial transaction blocking provision.
Clause 8 provides a mechanism for requiring financial transaction providers not to process transactions between internet users in the UK and websites based outside the UK that provide 18 or R18 content without a system of robust age verification. This is a vital measure. It will cut the flow of money to such websites, challenging them to act responsibly and introduce a system of age verification.
There is no doubt in my mind that given the damaging implications of all this material for adults, making it available to children constitutes a form of abuse. Moreover, if as legislators we have the capacity to require people who engage in the provision of this material to do so behind robust age verification, as with online gambling, but cannot be bothered, there is—I say this gently—a sense in which we are all complicit in that abuse.
I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in relation to filtering—subject of course to the problems associated with its self-regulatory basis—but there is so much more to be done. To this end I hope that they will carefully consider and adopt my Online Safety Bill, as suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I was a member of the panel under the chairmanship of Sarah Champion MP, sponsored by Barnardo’s, inquiring into the effectiveness of current legislation for tackling child sexual exploitation and trafficking. My particular concern was the way in which the judicial system dealt with complaints. We heard evidence from members of the Bar who were highly experienced in prosecuting and defending charges brought under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. They identified a number of issues.
One was training and specialisation of the judiciary. A judge plays a crucial role in setting out ground rules at the start of a trial. He determines what special measures should be employed for putting a complainant at his or her ease; for example, by the use of remote television. An experienced judge will decide whether a registered intermediary would be helpful. In particular, he may set a time limit for cross-examination. In the course of the trial he will intervene if he feels that cross-examination is too aggressive or strays too far. He should prevent different defence barristers asking the same questions over and over again. I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said and I think that this is not a course that is followed in all cases.
The powers of control are not generally exercised in most criminal trials before a jury because when a judge “steps down into the arena”, as we say, a jury may react badly and think that he is taking sides. The trial process may be distorted. It is also the case that in the past many judges may have had no courtroom experience of sex cases, or at least recent experience, since such cases have over the past 30 or 40 years in my experience tended to be left to junior barristers and to women, who are unhappily under-represented on the Bench. In my 35 years as a Queen’s Counsel, I can recall being involved in only three cases in which rape alone was alleged. These have usually involved the most unusual circumstances, such as the alleged rape of an 82 year-old lady suffering from Alzheimer’s. She had died before the hearing and the evidence was confined to a video of her interview.
In nearly 30 years sitting as a recorder, I tried only one case of rape and that was probably a mistake in the listing. Sensitive training of the judiciary is essential. There is such training on sexual offences cases for judges, although it has been reduced quite recently from a three-day course to a two-day one. It is now necessary for any judge who is ticketed to try these cases to undergo a refresher course every three years and there are supplemental courses on vulnerable witnesses. The Barnardo’s report concluded that,
“no judge should be assigned to try a complex child sexual exploitation case without having received such training”,
and that thought should be given to limiting those authorised to preside over sexual exploitation cases unless they had previous relevant experience of working on ordinary sexual offences cases.
With regard to the training and specialisation of advocates, Nazir Afzal QC of the CPS told us that there has been a change of mindset. The CPS has produced revised guidelines on prosecuting cases of child sexual abuse and has introduced specialist rape and serious sexual offences units embedded into the Crown Court team. Patricia Lynch QC, who both prosecutes and defends and is a tutor judge at the Judicial College, told us that her Chambers used to have a self-imposed rule that,
“you didn’t conduct a sex case until you were seven years call and 10 years for rape. Only Silks and very senior juniors did rape and serious sex cases and they were tried by High Court and Senior Circuit Judges. Now anyone can take on a sex case; Silks are deemed too expensive and there are not enough practitioners trained to do the specialist cases”.
There lies the problem. The fact is that no one wants to spend their whole career at the Bar doing this type of case. They are not well paid, are more than usually distressing and rarely of high profile. It is only in the high-profile celebrity cases that you will see Silks of standing stepping forward to do them. They generally have no experience of doing sexual offence cases generally. We called for specialist training for both prosecutors and defence counsel and recommended that,
“legally aided defendants should be restricted in their choice of representation to a panel of solicitors and counsel who have undergone specific training in CSE issues. The professional bodies should have the power on complaint to remove an individual from such a panel”,
if it were appropriate by reason of the conduct of the advocate in court.
Finally, with regard to jurors’ perceptions, all those who appeared before our panel were concerned that a jury consists of,
“people who are unfamiliar with child abuse and how it manifests itself”.
Jurors tend not to understand,
“the levels of coercion and manipulation used to control and exploit young people”.
I hope that abuse is not so widespread that it does come within their life experience. Young people tend not to present themselves as victims and become defensive, aggressive or even laugh as they give their evidence. Eleanor Laws QC told us:
“Trafficked victims don’t behave the way a jury thinks they should behave. There is a danger that the jury sits in judgement”,
not on the abuser but on the victim.
Myths and stereotypes do exist. Judges may warn the jury against making assumptions about the possible effects of sexual offences on victims and increasingly do so at the outset of a case. I proposed that members of a jury panel, before the actual jury is selected out of it, should be shown a standard and agreed video about common myths and stereotypes, just as they now see a video explaining their role as jurors. The report recommended that the Ministry of Justice should explore,
“the development of materials, either written or filmed, to better inform jurors”,
about those continuing myths and stereotypes that undermine our judicial system.
The report contains much more guidance on special measures and the possibility of pre-recorded evidence closer to the time of the offence. There are pilots under way. But the essential thing is that justice is done, for victims certainly, but for the health of society as a whole as well.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for securing the debate. I congratulate her, genuinely, on her wide-ranging opening speech. I will focus my comments primarily on children, although I think that some of the lessons to be learnt are common.
It is now 40 years since the death of Maria Colwell. Since then there have been seemingly countless similar tragedies. Each has resulted in an inquiry or a serious case review, and many of those inquiries and case reviews have produced similar findings. Very often communication is a real problem. More recently we have seen the sexual abuse in the Savile and Hall cases, which, frankly, beggars belief, not least because of the failure of the institutions involved to prevent it.
There is no simple answer to the question, “Why does this keep happening?”, but we have to continue the search for answers rather than accept these things as inevitable. By “we” I do not mean just professional social workers, who, as many have said today, are under the most intense pressure because of their case loads. Indeed, when I use the term “we” I refer to many of us here, because I think that those of us who are involved in leading or chairing major institutions of any kind have a particular responsibility to carry.
We should be asking ourselves some very difficult questions rather than passing those questions over to the HR department, which is what too often happens. We should be asking ourselves in our institution, whether it is a diocese or a school or whatever: “Do people realise that there is a climate of zero tolerance where child abuse is concerned? Do we have in place clear, detailed policies to minimise the risk of abuse? Do those systems enable—no, encourage—those with concerns to share those concerns? Do we have in place effective training for staff, even during a period of austerity? Do we ensure that the voice of young people, of children, is heard and treated with respect? Do we, wherever possible, share information with other agencies? When allegations are made against our institution, do we respond by seeking the facts, or do we respond by trying primarily to defend our institution?”. These are searching questions which I do not believe many leaders of institutions are yet asking themselves.
The Government, to their credit, have accepted their own responsibilities—their responsibilities to protect children, not least by having in place systems for prior checking of people who work with them. I have always taken the view that those arrangements need to be proportionate. However, I have to say that safeguarding will always require some bureaucracy. Protecting vulnerable people in our society always requires some bureaucracy. Attempts to reduce that bureaucracy should never be made at the expense of children’s safety.
I remain concerned that some of the recent changes contained in the Protection of Freedoms Act could have a negative impact. I remind noble Lords that the Act redefined regulated activities so that 4 million posts are no longer covered, many on the grounds that their work is supervised. As a result of not being covered, not being a regulated activity, access to the barred lists is denied to employers when considering appointments.
I said at the time, and I have not changed my view, that I do not believe it is possible to supervise employees in a way that avoids them developing a bond of trust with young people with whom they are having regular contact. That is a bond of trust that can then be exploited outside the workplace, not least through social media. Nor do I yet understand why we are denying employers access to the barred lists. I am not alone in thinking that the current arrangements are as confusing as ever. That worries me because I fear that some inappropriate people will slip through the net yet again.
In the context of all that, I have been somewhat shocked this week to read—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has referred to this—the statistics which show that the number of people stopped from working with children due to having committed sexual offences, which stood at some 12,500 in 2011, has now dropped to 2,800. I ask this genuinely, because I have been under some pressure this week to go on various programmes and comment on it. I have refused to do so because I do not understand what is behind this reduction in figures, but I know that I am worried about it. So far, the explanations from the department have not been reassuring or convincing. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some explanation of why the figures have changed so dramatically.
I conclude by making two suggestions. The first is that the Government should commission a proper review of mandatory reporting. There are people who I respect who have very different views on this. We should have a close look at the arguments for and against mandatory reporting, and look at international experience before we come to a decision.
My second suggestion is that we should establish a very small—I underline that—centre of excellence for child protection. My fear is that we do not do enough to learn the lessons of child abuse tragedies and to make sure that they lead to real change in the way in which we design and manage the various safeguarding systems, the way in which we manage and share information and the way in which professionals are trained. I apologise if this seems a simplistic comparison, but the way in which the aviation industry ensures that the lessons of accidents and near misses are learnt and lead to real changes in the system is exemplary. I do not think that the ways in which we deal with some of the tragedies to which I have referred are, by comparison, good. A centre for child protection excellence would be tasked with ensuring that the recommendations of reviews and inquiries are actioned where necessary to change the systems, the procedures and the training programmes. It would be a small investment—yes, it would be an investment—but one which was justified.
The abuse of children and vulnerable adults is not historical. There is a growing view that these are things that happened in the past. It is not historical; it is not reducing; it is widespread. It is, let us not forget, a blot on our claim to be a civilised society.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for my earlier attempt to speak. It was purely because of my interest in the subject and my wish to engage in the debate that we have been having. The debate has been a very good one, and our thanks are due to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and other speakers for making it so. I should declare an interest as a deputy chair of a special school, the Chiltern Way school, and have had some responsibility for child protection matters in that.
The noble Baroness asked whether we knew enough and whether we were doing enough prevention work. Those are important issues which I want to position next to that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who also posed the question of whether the Government have willed the ends of policy but not yet the means. Although it is a very old and hoary saw which is often used in matters affecting government policy and action, it seems particularly relevant today.
This debate is timely as it comes on the day of the first tranche of reports on the predatory actions of Jimmy Savile, which will, as the Secretary of State said in another place, shake our country to its very core. The debate comes also during the week when a major new report from the Centre for Social Justice, entitled Enough is Enough, reminds us once again of how we are failing so many vulnerable young people. Some of the case studies are shocking and distressing, and they have been reinforced by many other examples which have been raised today. They include the seven year-old boy feeling forced by his mother to steal milk from his baby sibling and then abandoned by social care following his arrest, and a young girl who was severely neglected and physically abused by her mother and repeatedly seen with her siblings searching for food in rubbish bins. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, these are things that we should not be seeing in a civilised society.
The report is a wake-up call to those, including me, who thought that these crucial child protection issues, identified in the Munro report of 2011—to which I want to return at the end of my remarks—were finally being understood and addressed by the Government. Sadly, we have heard recurrent themes emerge from the comments made today: countless examples of abused, neglected and traumatised children being failed by statutory services; social workers being overwhelmed by the scale of the task and a lack of resources to intervene; a failure to grasp the necessity of early intervention; professionals lacking the skills, training or experience to deal with complex cases; the lessons that were clearly set out in Every Child Matters being lost in short-term expediency and sticking-plaster solutions; an ability of statutory bodies to share information and collaborate effectively being lost; and a disconnect between the valuable work carried out by voluntary agencies and their interfaces with statutory services.
The result is that we are confronted by too many shocking cases hitting the headlines, but also with the knowledge—graphically illustrated by the Savile reports today—that these cases are just a tiny fraction of the abuse and neglect taking place day by day. Arguably, the role of Ofsted in inspecting children’s services is a significant part of the problem. Unlike with schools, the inspections are not routine and rigorous, but rather crisis-driven. Similar arguments can be made for the inspection of adult care services. In 2010, the Government announced the cessation of annual performance assessments, which has resulted in the Care Quality Commission no longer inspecting the commissioning practices of local authorities. Parallel to this move to lighter-touch regulation, we have seen an increasing number of care home scandals.
We should surely all agree that it is essential to have a strong and effective regulator to protect vulnerable adults. This should be a precondition to enable patients to have confidence in the services they receive, and to allow them to exercise informed choice when choosing services. This is why we think it is essential for the CQC to be allowed to proactively inspect and review the commissioning of adult social care services in local authorities.
One issue which has been picked up during this debate, and highlighted by numerous reports, is that reports are not investigated or charges are not brought because victims are often thought to be “not credible”. It is surely the job of all of us, across government, to try to tackle a culture which consistently fails to give victims—especially child victims—of abuse the status they deserve in the criminal justice system. One way this could be, in some senses, remedied is to improve sex and relationship education in schools. This week the Prime Minister announced that he would allow the guidance given to schools to be updated to reflect the new pressures resulting from the internet, but this still fails to acknowledge that too few schools are teaching proper sex and relationship education.
Sex and relationship education is not just about challenging the attitudes among victims. It is also about changing attitudes among perpetrators. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, reminded us, we need to remember that most child sexual exploitation is done either by a child’s peer or by a young adult. The NSPCC study already mentioned found that 65% of sexual abuse was conducted by the under-18s, while a Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre sample of 1,200 known perpetrators found that, where the age was known, over half were under 24. Sex education can also be particularly useful in combating new forms of abuse, such as sexting.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, the key to protecting children is accurate data sharing between agencies. However, there is concern about the Disclosure and Barring Service, whose job is to stop people who pose a danger to children from working with children. The operation of the DBS has been dramatically changed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which means that the DBS is barring fewer people. The number of people placed on the barred list in 2009 was over 17,000, and so far this year it is 1,400. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, when the Minister comes to respond I would like to hear from her what the explanation is for this. Perhaps more importantly, the Act dramatically reduced the number of agencies with which the DBS is able to share information. Indeed, in many cases the DBS will be forbidden from sharing intelligence with a school or youth club, even after a DBS check has been requested.
Child protection is an incredibly broad subject, as reflected in today’s contributions. A number of inquiries have taken place, and there are many ongoing. There is an inquiry into Jimmy Savile’s conduct and why action had not been taken by various institutions with which he had a relationship. There is also the Waterhouse inquiry into the North Wales abuse scandal, and the Deputy Children’s Commissioner is in the process of holding an inquiry into the culture of grooming. The NSPCC has conducted a number of excellent pieces of research, as have Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society.
There are so many reports, but all seem to be brought forward in a way which allows those who have commissioned them, or those who have received them, just to leave them and move on to the next one. What we need from these reports is an action plan. As mentioned by other noble Lords, we need either a serious case review which brings together the various inquiries and brings forward clearer recommendations or, as suggested, the sort of qualitative and very narrow investigation prompted by accidents. This type of investigation was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in relation to civil aviation. Whatever the type, there is enough information and evidence around to require us to ensure that we have action plans and for them to be implemented.
At the beginning of my remarks, I mentioned the Munro report. The Munro recommendations were, by general accord, an excellent blueprint for action. When the Government responded, the then Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, wrote:
“There is now a significant opportunity to build a child-centred system that: values professional expertise; shares responsibility for the provision of early help; develops social work expertise and supports effective social work practice; and strengthens accountabilities and promotes learning”.
What happened to those aspirations? All the evidence seems to be that the situation has got worse, not better, under this Government’s watch, and very few operating in the sector have seen a positive drive for change.
We do not need Jimmy Savile and the reports that have come out today and will be coming out over the next few months to remind us that we need to do more, discover more and work harder at prevention. I hope that we can use this useful debate to make progress on all those points.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for tabling this important topic for debate today. As other noble Lords have said, the fact that the reports on Jimmy Savile’s reign of abuse have been published today shows how extremely timely it is and how we must all be vigilant to ensure that everyone, however old, young or vulnerable, can live free from abuse and neglect. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, explained that that often happens in the home or in familiar places with familiar people.
In all respects, we must counter abuse, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley said, through culture change, or legislation, regulation and training. We need to support professionals in this difficult and complex work—I pay tribute to them, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth—but we also need to challenge them and agencies to do the right thing and act quickly when things go wrong. That also means holding people and organisations to account. We also need to be aware of the cultural shifts, such as those manifested and driven by the expansion of the internet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and others mentioned.
There is a well established legislative framework for social care and support for children set out in the Children Act 1989, including the duties of local authorities in relation to children in need in their area, as well as their child protection duties, but we know that child protection does not always work as effectively as we would want. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, noted, continued and repeated serious case reviews and other investigations provide stark reminders that there is much more to be done. He is right about ensuring that we learn from them.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham noted the long history of abuse in our institutions, whether schools, hospitals, the police or even churches. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Crime Prevention, Norman Baker, is leading a national group of experts urgently to address missed opportunities to protect children and vulnerable people. He is assisted by members of the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and Rape Crisis. The group is looking at lessons that could be learnt from recent and current inquiries to see what should be taken forward.
There were noble Lords on either side of the question of holding a public inquiry. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, about following through on the reports that we already have, but I also noted what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said. What it comes down to is that nobody is satisfied with where we have got to; we have to ensure that we do better.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned Professor Eileen Munro’s review of the child protection system in England and her report in 2011, with all her recommendations. Most of them have been implemented. In the Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance, we have focused more clearly on the core legal requirements that all professionals should follow so that children are kept safe. We have also sought to put the needs of individual children back at the heart of the assessment process by removing the requirement to have separate initial and core assessments.
As noble Lords are clearly well aware, changes to the overarching framework on their own are not sufficient to ensure real improvement on the ground. That is why improvements to social work practice are crucial. For the first time, a Chief Social Worker for Children and Families has been appointed in England to provide independent, expert advice to Ministers on social reform and act as a leader for the profession.
Following Sir Martin Narey’s review, we are taking forward a number of reforms to improve the calibre and confidence of the workforce by improving social work training and developing further the skills of existing social workers via programmes such as Step Up to Social Work and Frontline. The new Ofsted single inspection framework looks at the child’s experience from the point of needing help and protection right through the system. In addition, CQC has also introduced a new programme to inspect local health service arrangements for these groups, and we are planning further improvements, with multiagency inspections due in 2015. By ensuring that serious case reviews are published we are seeking to improve public accountability where there have been failures to keep children safe.
The new children’s social care innovation programme should help us to support the development, testing and sharing of new and effective ways of supporting children who need help from children’s social care services. My noble friend Lady Walmsley rightly emphasised the need for research and practice to be evidence-based, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, echoed. My noble friend Lady Walmsley commented on the Government’s consultation on the outsourcing of children’s social care functions. Following that consultation, as she noted, we announced last Friday that profit-making organisations would not be able to take on outsourced functions, including those relating to child protection, and draft regulations have been amended accordingly.
The issue of mandatory reporting was raised by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others. This is one of a number of possible future approaches that the Government are considering. The Government are reviewing the specific case for mandatory reporting in regulated activity and the Home Office is looking across government at options to strengthen the system. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that we will continue to examine the evidence on this, both nationally and internationally.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley mentioned PSHE and how it could help to protect individuals. We believe that all schools should teach PSHE, drawing on good practice. My noble friend Lord Paddick spoke about victims and survivors and the need to believe them. The Crown Prosecution Service published final guidelines on prosecuting cases of child sex abuse in October 2013, setting out a new approach to dealing with the particular issues that differentiate these cases. Focusing on the credibility of the allegation rather than the credibility of the individual is a significant cultural shift which recognises and addresses the particular vulnerability of some of these potential victims. We published the new victims’ code in December 2013. I hope that my noble friend Lord Paddick has seen it and feels that it is a positive move.
On health services, the Government’s mandate to NHS England sets it an objective of continuing to improve safeguarding of both adults and children in the NHS. One issue that has come up here is making sure that information sharing is done early and systematically. This was emphasised by my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others. We know that early information is the key to providing effective early help where there are emerging problems. No professional should assume that someone else will pass on information which they think may be critical to keeping someone safe. We have recently rolled out the first wave of sites on the child protection information sharing project. This aims to help health professionals to make clear, timely judgments on potential safeguarding concerns and enable more rapid contact with children’s social care. We have emphasised in statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, that effective sharing of information between professionals and local agencies is essential.
For adults at risk of abuse and neglect there needs to be a keen focus on the quality as well as the length of life. I note what my noble friend Lady Browning said about the quality and valuing of staff and about training them so as to ensure that they are looking after people with empathy. We need radical reform of how health and social care are experienced and delivered. The Care Act 2014 starts this process by providing a legal framework placing the well-being principle, prevention and early intervention at its heart. However, we are under no illusion that legislation alone will eradicate the type of behaviour that leaves people feeling distressed, frightened and humiliated. This can be realised only through a change in culture that leaves no tolerance of abuse, supports individual and collective responsibility for detecting abuse and challenges corrosive practices.
With services, people must be held to account for the quality of care that they provide. We are taking measures to ensure that company directors who are complicit in, or turn a blind eye to, poor care will be liable to prosecution. In future, they and provider organisations could face unlimited fines if found guilty. This could provide additional incentives for the effective management and support of staff—and those staff must be properly valued, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others have argued.
Systems and processes are already in place to provide public assurance, including the Care Quality Commission registration requirements and the Disclosure and Barring Service. I note what my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, have said about the falling numbers of people barred from working with children. We note that, and the Government are currently reviewing the position. When we conclude, I am sure that noble Lords will be interested in what we have found. However, those processes alone do not go far enough. That is why, following the publication of the Francis report into the failings of Mid Staffordshire, we asked Camilla Cavendish to review how healthcare assistants and support workers in health and care settings were valued and supported. We are also considering the proposals in the Law Commission’s review very carefully.
My noble friend Lord Eden and others will be interested to know that the introduction of a certificate of fundamental care, the care certificate, will, we hope, give clear evidence to employers, patients and service users that the person in front of them has been trained to a specific set of standards and knows how to act with compassion and respect. Health Education England, working alongside key partners, has already begun piloting this across England. Subject to evaluation, there will soon be a standard national approach to training on the skills and values needed to be an effective healthcare assistant or social care support worker. It is planned to roll this out in March 2015.
As with children’s social care, we recognise that the system of regulation and inspection for adults needs to improve; I hear what my noble friend Lady Sharp said. The CQC is currently introducing a new system of inspection of social care providers, based on much tougher fundamental standards of care, which places the individual at its heart. It will be structured around five key questions that matter most to people: are services safe, caring, effective, well led and responsive to people’s needs?
New measures in the Care Act make clear the responsibilities of local authorities and key partners, such as clinical commissioning groups and local police, in safeguarding adults. This is vital in ensuring clear accountability, roles and responsibilities for helping and protecting adults who are experiencing, or at risk of, abuse and neglect. The Department of Health is working with the College of Social Work, the Social Care Institute for Excellence, the College of Policing, Health Education England, Skills for Care and others to ensure an integrated approach to adult safeguarding that is reflected in the training that different staff receive.
In response to my noble friend Lord Eden, who made an important point about the contribution that carers make, the Care Act 2014 gives carers parity with those using services. I also mention to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Thomas that a review was recently conducted looking at ways in which to reduce the distress to victims of sexual violence in trials. The Crown Prosecution Service has set up a network of specialist prosecutors, and only advocates from that panel can be used to prosecute child sexual abuse cases. All judges receive training that includes the treatment of vulnerable witnesses, and no judge involved in a serious sexual offence case, whether the child is a victim or a witness, can do so without being specially authorised to do so by the senior judge. I listened with care to what my noble friend Lord Thomas said about sexual offences right across the age range.
Finally, on the point of child sexual exploitation, we have established a national group that seeks ways to prevent sexual abuse happening in the first place. In relation to the report from Barnardo’s, we remain committed to ensuring that all necessary legislation is in place to tackle child sexual abuse. We welcome the recent inquiry and we are reassured by the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that justice could not be served due to a lack of a specific child sexual exploitation offence. We are considering its findings and wider recommendations and deciding how they can inform the national group’s ongoing work.
There have been many important contributions in this very thoughtful debate and I will make sure that this debate is flagged to my colleagues both in the Department of Health and the Department for Education. I will also write to noble Lords on specific points that I have not covered here. These are very important and interlinked issues but, in essence, it is indeed, as was mentioned before, about how civilised we are. It is about how even the most vulnerable in our society should feel safe and cared for and, as my noble friend Lord Eden put it, we must be more aware of our common humanity.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been wide-ranging, interesting and thoughtful. I thank noble Lords who have supported the things that I have been calling for. I also thank noble Lords who have disagreed with me. When you have experienced and thoughtful people who all want to achieve the same end disagreeing about the correct means to achieve it, that supports the call that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and I have been making for more research on specific ways of addressing these issues. I hope these things will be taken forward.