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, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
1. What assessment he has made of whether the recent use of force by the Israelis in Gaza is proportionate; and what steps he is taking to promote a ceasefire in that conflict.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
2. What steps his Department is taking to support projects which foster co-operation and co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
11. What recent discussions he has had with his Israeli and Palestinian counterparts and others on the continuing violence and loss of life in Gaza.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
12. What plans he has to visit Israel to discuss the current situation in that region.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
15. What recent discussions he has had with his Israeli and Palestinian counterparts on progress towards peace in that region.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
May I begin by apologising for the Foreign Secretary’s absence? He is in Brussels attending the EU Foreign Affairs Council. In his absence, I am, of course, delighted to be answering 14 of the 25 oral questions today.
As the Prime Minister said in his comprehensive statement yesterday, we are clear that Israel has a right to defend itself against these attacks. No country would stand by as rockets are fired or terrorist tunnels are constructed into their territory. We are equally clear that Israel’s response must be proportionate, taking all necessary steps to minimise civilian casualties in line with international humanitarian law.
Simon Danczuk
I thank the Minister for his response, but we have seen kids being bombed on beaches, tanks attacking hospitals and hundreds of civilians—babies, mothers, patients—being killed. Thousands of Rochdale people and millions of people in the United Kingdom expect their Government to condemn more and understand less. Will the Foreign Secretary and the Minister call Israel to account over its actions in Gaza?
Mr Ellwood
Nobody can fail but be moved by the incredible heart-wrenching scenes we have seen on television. I spoke to the Israeli ambassador and the Palestinian head of mission to the UK yesterday, and I raised concerns about the civilian deaths and casualties with the Israeli ambassador and urged him to ensure that any allegations relating to proportionality be investigated, and he assured me that this would be the case.
Mrs McGuire
We realise that peace is not just about a settlement between Governments, but about people living together. I know that the Foreign Office invests significant resources in single community projects, but in order to build up confidence and break down barriers between the peoples in the region will the Minister look at how we can support cross-community initiatives?
Mr Ellwood
The right hon. Lady is right to point out that there are some wider issues to be dealt with. Our aim is to support and strengthen constituencies for peace through the tri-departmental conflict pool fund. In 2013-14 we funded 17 projects through the conflict pool programme for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with a budget of £4 million.
Steve McCabe
I welcome the Minister to his post. I support Israel’s right to defend itself and I condemn the actions of Hamas, but may I urge the Minister to redouble the British Government’s efforts not just to achieve a ceasefire but to restart peace talks designed to achieve a lasting peace, so that we can end this recurring spectre of the suffering of thousands of innocent Palestinians?
Mr Ellwood
That is exactly what the Foreign Secretary is trying to achieve in his work in Brussels today, and the Egyptian leadership is making efforts to do the same, bringing parties together in the region. The UK has three objectives: to secure a ceasefire; to alleviate humanitarian suffering; and to keep alive the prospects for peace negotiations, which are the only hope for ending the cycle of violence once and for all.
Sir Bob Russell
Will the Minister confirm that if the Foreign Secretary last week, when he was Defence Secretary, had ordered British troops to fire on civilian communities in the way the Israelis have, he would be guilty of a war crime?
Mr Ellwood
I am not going to get drawn into that. I think the hon. Gentleman raised the same issue with the Prime Minister yesterday and I will leave my comments there.
Andy McDonald
Last week, four boys, all from the Bakr family, aged seven to 11 years—Zakaria, Ahed and two boys named Mohammad—were playing hide and seek among the fishermen’s huts at the Gaza city harbour when, as they ran along the beach, their bodies were ripped to shreds in an instant by an incoming Israeli shell. What threat did those little boys pose to Israeli security, and will the Minister condemn the murderous behaviour of Israel as completely disproportionate and a crime against humanity?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point implicitly, which is that, sadly, the location of this battlefield is one of the most populous areas on the planet. Hamas and Israeli armed forces are conducting these operations in densely populated areas, not least in the Shujai’iya district. Unfortunately, that is also where the tunnel systems are operating and from where, on average, 147 rockets are hitting Israel every day—but, absolutely, as I said before, there are questions to be raised about the civilians, and I put those to the Israeli ambassador yesterday.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
First, may I welcome my hon. Friend to what, although it does not look like it at the moment, is the best junior ministerial job in the Government? Although an urgent ceasefire is essential, the reason Gaza is ablaze again remains the same as ever: the inability of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Israel to make the necessary concessions to each other to ensure a middle east peace agreement. Will he use his time in office to ensure that the UK does all in its power, together with friends from Washington to all the Arab states, to drive the parties together again for the negotiations that each must have with the other? Will he ensure that they do understand that whatever the justifications for their actions—God knows, we have heard and sympathised with them all for decades—it is no longer worth the loss of life of any more little boys and girls?
Mr Ellwood
First, I pay tribute to the work my right hon. Friend did as Minister with responsibility for the middle east. I am grateful for the support he has already provided me with, and I hope it continues. He rightly says that we must participate, with other nations, in looking for a long-term solution. A cessation of the violence will allow the opportunity to tackle the underlying causes of instability in the Gaza strip, without which the long-term security of both Israel and Gaza will not be secured.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Israeli defence forces have detected 18 Hamas-built tunnels and found 45 others extending from Gaza into Israel. Many of the tunnels in Gaza originate in civilian areas, beneath homes, greenhouses and mosques. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite understandable that Israel seeks to find these tunnels and destroy them to protect its country and its civilians?
Mr Ellwood
It is worrying that on 8 July a Hamas spokesman called on civilians in the Gaza strip to serve as human shields. We have seen on television the pictures of those tunnels, and I have seen reports that 20% of the concrete that goes into Gaza is put to use in making them. That is a shocking indictment of the priorities of Hamas and it needs to change.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
19. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On 15 July, 17 July and 20 July, Israel agreed to accept a ceasefire, but was greeted by Hamas firing more rockets at Israel. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the refusal by Hamas to accept a ceasefire?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend rightly points out that Israel has put forward its interest in a ceasefire, and that remains today. We call upon Hamas to join the ranks in Egypt to discuss not just the ceasefire but long-term peace prospects for the area.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Respectable democracies should not meet unacceptable attacks with unacceptable and disproportionate responses, including the bombing of mosques and hospitals, and the deaths of hundreds of civilians. Is the Secretary of State today raising with other European Governments the EU-Israel association agreement, which is supposed to be based on the shared values of respect for human rights, peace and stability?
Mr Ellwood
I will not pre-empt what the Secretary of State will announce at his meeting. I know that his primary objective is to join all the parties and call for an immediate ceasefire.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the terrible carnage in Gaza means that the prospects for the two-state solution we all want are vanishing? It was still very possible back in 2000; I recall that when I was middle east Minister I had discussions with Prime Minister Barak and Yasser Arafat in Palestine, but that all collapsed and Hamas was elected. Now, Israel’s refusal to negotiate seriously with Hamas, coupled with its merciless assault on Gaza, risks inviting in something even worse and more extreme—ISIS. Surely we should learn from Northern Ireland that to end wars people have to negotiate with their enemies or the terror simply gets worse.
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his interest and experience in this area. He is right to point out that we face very difficult challenges. On a positive note, we welcome the announcement of the formation of a new interim technocratic Government for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, reuniting Gaza and the west bank under a Government committed to peace, which is a necessary condition for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Last week, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency issued a statement showing that Hamas had left missiles and rocket launchers inside a school in Gaza. Does that not show that Hamas is using its civilians to protect its missiles and that Israel is using its missile defences to protect its civilians from attack?
Mr Ellwood
As I implied earlier, it is unfortunate that these events are taking place in one of the most populous areas of the world, and Hamas seems to be taking advantage of that to launch its attacks.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I warned Yitzhak Rabin, the former Israeli Prime Minister, that if he did not make peace with Fatah, he would be left with Hamas? He made the effort and was murdered for his pains by another Jew. Will the Minister make it clear that, with the death toll rising to 600, which includes the murder of 25 members of one extended family, he will join John Kerry, who has derided and scorned Israel’s claim of pinpointing its attacks and warned it that not only will it suffer more casualties but that it will be left with Palestinians who will refuse ever to negotiate with it?
Mr Ellwood
The right hon. Gentleman illustrates how complex these matters are. I join him in congratulating John Kerry on the work he has done. The UK Government strongly support the tireless efforts of the US Secretary of State and his team to facilitate a final status agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and I know he is pursuing that now he has arrived in the region.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know the impact that white phosphorus shells can have on civilian populations in particular. Many of us were appalled to see the use of them in a previous Israeli incursion into Gaza. Will he inform the Israeli ambassador, and all parties in this conflict, that the eyes of the world are on them, and that, whatever their reasons for prosecuting this conflict, we will be watching them very carefully to see how they are doing that?
Mr Ellwood
The use of white phosphorus and indeed of cluster munitions was raised in the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday. We have seen no evidence to date that they have been used during recent events in Gaza. However, the defence section in Tel Aviv will approach the Israeli defence forces to inquire whether they are being used in this current campaign.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
May I welcome the Minister to his post and say that I fully appreciate the reasons for the new Foreign Secretary being in Brussels today. As we have heard, Operation Protective Edge has already cost more than 580 Palestinian lives, most of whom are civilians and many of whom are innocent children. Last week, I warned that an Israeli ground operation in Gaza would bring more suffering for the Palestinians and would be a strategic error for Israel. The Opposition are clear that we oppose this escalation. Do the Government?
Mr Ellwood
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I hope that I get the same warm welcome at every Foreign Office questions. He is right to remind the House of the heavy death toll that is being endured in the region, with almost 600 dead, 3,600 injured and 83,000 displaced so far. These matters are being raised in Brussels as we speak, and I think the Foreign Secretary intends to put out a statement on his return.
Mr Alexander
That was a troubling answer, even from a colleague whom I welcome to his position on the Front Bench. I welcome the fact that the US Secretary of State John Kerry has travelled to Cairo seeking an urgent ceasefire, but the pattern of rocket attacks, periodic invasion and permanent occupation does not bring security for Israel and brings further humiliation and suffering for the Palestinians. As in the past, this incursion will end with an agreement. The question is how many more children and civilians need to die before such an agreement is reached. Does the Minister accept that the absence of such an agreement will recruit more terrorists at exactly the point at which Hamas had been weakened by events in Tehran, Syria and Egypt?
Mr Ellwood
I think that the right hon. Gentleman misses the point. The work that has been going on is trying to achieve a ceasefire, which is why the Foreign Secretary, who is in Brussels at the moment, will be flying to the region very shortly. John Kerry is there and so is Ban Ki-moon. We also must not forget that Hamas is firing an average of 147 rockets every single day. Were that to stop, the situation in Gaza would change significantly.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
3. What recent discussions he has had with his overseas counterparts on upholding freedom of religion and belief.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
4. What recent discussions he has had with his overseas counterparts on upholding freedom of religion and belief.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
We remain deeply concerned about a disturbing and unwelcome trend of persecution on the basis of religion or belief. Regrettably, this is not confined to a single region nor to a single faith, but we counteract it wherever we can. This has included recent work from Sudan to Nigeria, from Iraq to Burma, and from Pakistan to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Graeme Morrice
I thank the Minister for that answer, but in Egypt Coptic and Orthodox churches are being attacked, in Mosul in Iraq Christians have been driven out by ISIS, Muslims in Burma are facing violence from mobs and Christians in Pakistan face persecution from the state. Is it not time that the international community, led by this UK Government, took more action on this growing crisis?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight these terrible things. Some hon. Members will have seen the reports in The Times this morning about ISIS in Iraq, and they are truly troubling. We continue to work through the United Nations to ensure that states implement Human Rights Council resolution 16/18, which focuses on combating religious intolerance, protecting the human rights of minorities and promoting pluralism in society. The hon. Gentleman will have to agree, however, that ensuring freedom of religion and freedom of speech in some of these countries, which face the most horrific internal disruptions, is extremely difficult.
Nic Dakin
Ayatollah Tehrani’s gift of illuminated calligraphy to the Baha’i is an act in the spirit of the UN declaration of human rights, which states that everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, which I welcome, what more can Britain do to celebrate such acts and challenge religious intolerance, wherever it occurs in the world?
Mr Swire
I think that it would be appropriate for me to pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Warsi, who has been doing some excellent work in this area, not least by convening a high-level international grouping on the subject during the UN General Assembly ministerial week in New York. She will reconvene that group. We have also set up an advisory group on the freedom of religion or belief in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and we will continue to do what we can through our embassies around the world. It is extremely difficult work at this time, when religions of all types, not just Christians, are facing the most horrific oppression in all four corners of the world.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will the Government continue to make representations to the Government of Pakistan to reform their blasphemy laws, which are often used to persecute and prosecute minority communities, including the Christian community? In particular, will the Government take up the case of Aisha Bibi, a mother of five children and a Christian who has been convicted under these laws and has been imprisoned for four years awaiting an appeal?
Mr Swire
We raise these issues consistently at senior ministerial levels in Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary lobbied Prime Minister Sharif during his visit in May. We made it clear that Pakistan must guarantee the rights of all its citizens, regardless of their ethnicity.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
Given our historic ties with and moral responsibility for the people of Hong Kong, will the Minister make it clear that our growing friendship with China requires its leaders to keep their promise at the time of the handover to allow free and fair elections in Hong Kong by 2017?
Mr Swire
Indeed. I met Martin Lee and Anson Chan when they were over here last week. We stand by our early commitments. We want to see a transition towards universal suffrage, but ultimately that must be decided by the Government in the Hong Kong special administrative region, by the people of Hong Kong and by the Government in Beijing.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Minister update the House on the violence in Mandalay in Burma earlier this month, and on the fact that the religious affairs Minister is now in custody?
Mr Swire
The hon. Lady probably knows better than almost anyone in the House that the situation in Burma remains extremely difficult. Given our meetings and exchanges across the Floor of the House, I think that she recognises the extraordinary work and support that we are putting in to ensure a transition from one form of government to a democracy in Burma, with all its religious and ethnic divides. We continue to lobby. I had the Burmese ambassador in recently to raise my concerns about the consensus but also about religious tolerance, with the Rohingya. If the hon. Lady wishes to come and see me, I am always happy to discuss the situation in Burma, as she knows. We are the first Government to have produced a cross-Burma strategy showing all the work that we are doing there.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Will the Minister of State speak with the Secretary of State for International Development to ensure that UK taxpayers’ money does not go directly to states that persecute the Christian Church worldwide?
Mr Swire
I think we have got better at ensuring that our aid goes to the right places, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise it. Of course, there is an issue. As we have reached 0.7% of GDP going to our aid budget, and as the GDP of this country increases due to the success of the Government’s long-term economic plan, there is more money around to help alleviate poverty around the world. It is up to us to ensure that that money reaches the right target.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The world will have been shocked by the recent attacks on and violent expulsion of Christians in Mosul, but this is only the latest outrage in a rising tide of religious intolerance around the world, largely but by no means exclusively targeted at Christians. The United Nations declaration of human rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In this country, we enjoy that right, but too many around the world are persecuted for their faith. What, if any, substantial initiatives has the FCO taken to advance and protect those rights?
Mr Swire
If I might say so, I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have written his question before I answered the first question, because I addressed the issue that he raises. I talked about the work being done by my noble Friend Baroness Warsi in convening high-level groupings at the UN General Assembly in ministerial week in New York, which she will be doing again. I have talked about the FCO’s new advisory group on freedom of religious belief. I have talked about our work with ambassadors and journalists around the world to encourage religious tolerance, which we will continue to do. We continue to take this issue, which is one of the FCO’s six human rights priorities, extraordinarily seriously. In a way, the issue is being addressed today in the girl summit, which follows the preventing sexual violence initiative summit. The Government cannot be accused of not doing our best.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In Sri Lanka, mosques and churches are subject to attacks by radical Buddhists. Will my right hon. Friend take the matter up with the Sri Lankan Government so that religious minorities are protected in this traditional land in Sri Lanka?
Mr Swire
We remain concerned by the significant surge in attacks on minority groups in Sri Lanka—not least the recent anti-Muslim violence. I met representatives of the Sri Lankan Muslim community to listen to their concerns, which we have raised with the Sri Lankan Government. The March UN Human Rights Council resolution, which was driven by the UK, urges the Sri Lankan Government to investigate all alleged attacks on members of religious minority groups and temples, mosques and churches.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Given the track record of President Rajapaksa on accountability and reconciliation, is the Minister satisfied that he has the will and the capacity to act?
Mr Swire
The hon. Lady will know that I went to the UNHRC to speak in favour of a resolution, which has brought about the inquiry. We still say that the Sri Lankan Government should listen to what is being suggested and should abide by the UN ruling. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position, “Will they?” Well, that remains to be seen. The answer is that they should. The UN has spoken. It wants an international inquiry, and Sri Lanka should respond.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Given the rise of religious intolerance, the violence in the middle east region and the ghastly widespread human suffering in Gaza, does my right hon. Friend agree that one notable exception to religious intolerance is the role of Christians and Christianity in Gaza?
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the political, security and humanitarian situation in Iraq.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What the Government’s policy is on the future constitutional and political status of Iraq; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant poses a threat to Iraq, the region and beyond. I welcome the appointment of a new Parliamentary Speaker last week in Iraq, and hope a new and inclusive Government will be formed quickly. The UK has announced £5 million of humanitarian support for the people of Iraq.
Ann Clwyd
I was for seven years the special envoy on human rights to Iraq, and the Minister accompanied me on one occasion, so he should be better informed of that than most. Has he seen the report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? She says:
“Every day we receive accounts of a terrible litany of human rights violations being committed in Iraq against ordinary Iraqi children, women and men, who have been deprived of their security, their livelihoods,”
their education, their homes—and many of them, of course, have fled. What exactly are the British Government doing to help Iraqis at this time? The amount of money the Minister mentioned is totally insufficient.
Mr Ellwood
If I may, I shall first pay tribute to the work that the right hon. Lady has done. It was a pleasure to travel with her and she is hugely experienced in this area. Unfortunately, the chaos that we are currently witnessing in Iraq is allowing many humanitarian problems to exist and allowing human rights violations to take place. We are working with the Iraqi leaders, and the urgent priority is the formation of an inclusive Government that can command the support of all the Iraqi leaders in the communities, and jointly combat the threat of ISIL. We welcome the fact that Iraq’s new Parliament met on 15 June to appoint a Speaker. The right hon. Lady will know that now the Speaker is in place, a President and a Prime Minister can be appointed. Those are positive steps in moving forward.
Mike Gapes
Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is not here, but in his last appearance as Defence Secretary, he told me three times that the British Government were in favour of a unified state in Iraq. Is the reality not that a state of Iraq will continue only if there is the loosest possible confederation? Given the facts on the ground, we should be doing far more to support the Kurdistan region, which is democratic and pluralistic, at this time.
Mr Ellwood
I was in northern Iraq last month and I was there when President Barzani made the statement of intent to move towards independence. We have heard no more details on that and we will not react to that until something more is forthcoming. However, Iraq needs to be united in tackling the challenges it faces, including the serious threats that are posed not only in Iraq but in the wider region. To achieve that, a new and inclusive Iraqi Government must be formed as quickly as possible, which includes the Kurds. The hon. Gentleman will know from his visits to the country that the Kurds have been distanced from what is going on in Baghdad, as have the Sunnis. Moderate Sunnis have indeed been pushed into ISIL. We are looking for a more inclusive Baghdad Government, which will unify Iraq.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
May I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position? It is a well deserved promotion. The Kurdistan Regional Government now have a 1,000 km border with ISIS. Their budget has not been paid since March by the central Government. Would the Minister’s Department look at what help we can offer the Kurdistan Regional Government? As John Kerry said, these people share our values. It is important that we support them in their struggle against ISIS.
Mr Ellwood
It is not just the payment for the peshmerga; funds from Baghdad have been withheld in other areas, too. The UK will not take sides in that dispute, but we have offered on a number of occasions to mediate if that would be helpful and the offer remains on the table. We believe there is potential for a win-win solution to be found that can benefit both the Kurdistan region and the rest of Iraq, and indeed Turkey and Britain, as they promote exports of oil.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Like Boko Haram and the Taliban, when ISIS rape and enslave women, it is strategic—they are terrorising whole communities—but when our outstanding former Foreign Secretary led an international campaign against such violence, it was labelled “trivial” by many in our press. Will the new Minister please reject that fundamental misunderstanding of how communities are terrorised in such conflicts, and will he commit himself to fighting violence against women and girls as a security as well as a humanitarian priority?
Mr Ellwood
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work and commitment in this field. I would be grateful for the opportunity to meet her, to discuss it in more detail. She will be aware that a girl summit is taking place at Lancaster house today, and it will be focusing on those very issues.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
May I raise again the issue of Christians in Iraq? I do not think the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), answered the previous question in any detail. What are the Government doing in the international community and the UN and with the Iraqi Government to bring attention to the plight of Christians in Iraq, given the terrible threats made against them?
Mr Ellwood
There are threats to Christians, for example in the Mosul area, where they are experiencing intolerance and indeed brutality because of ISIL. That is a particular tragedy for Mosul, given that it has one of the oldest Christian communities in the world. We will work with the new Government in Baghdad to raise these matters further.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Does the state of Iraq have the necessary defence and security capability to recapture the territory lost to the caliphate forces?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend asks an important question. Because of the disparity in the way Iraq is currently operating—I have encouraged a more inclusive approach—there is a disjointed capability. The Americans have moved in with their advisers and are working very hard indeed to upgrade the authorised military capability, so that we do not need to lean on the militias, such as the Shi’ite militias, to tackle ISIL.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
First, I welcome the Minister to his post. What is the Government’s assessment of the nature of the relationship between Prime Minister Maliki and the Kurdistan Regional Government?
Mr Ellwood
As I implied and as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has not been a good relationship between Baghdad and the Kurdish region. An improvement in that relationship is a prerequisite of Iraq remaining unified.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
6. If he will take steps to support UK citizens who have been victims of property mis-selling in Cyprus.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Following our lobbying, the Cypriot Government have now formed a ministerial committee to address property issues, including foreign currency mortgages and title deeds. We continue to work with that committee and with the Cypriot Government generally to try to resolve property problems, which undoubtedly cause great anguish to those British citizens caught up in them.
Mark Lazarowicz
The Minister is aware that thousands of British citizens, including a number of my constituents, have lost large sums of money—sometimes their life savings—as a result of a particular property mis-selling scam, and now some of them are being pursued in the British courts by some of the banks involved in the scandal. The decision by the Cypriot Government to set up a committee is therefore welcome, but can the Minister take a more active role in trying to ensure that those who have suffered from the scam do not suffer even more?
Mr Lidington
This certainly remains a high priority for us in our meetings with Cypriot Ministers; it is a matter which our high commissioner takes up regularly with Cypriot officials and Ministers and which I have raised on many occasions with successive Foreign Ministers of Cyprus. Clearly, when a matter is before United Kingdom courts, there are limits to what Ministers can do to intervene, but I will always be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman if there are particular constituency cases he would like to discuss.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
8. What recent assessment he has made of progress in the P5+1 negotiations with Iran on that country’s nuclear programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Negotiations with Iran on a comprehensive agreement have been tough but productive. It was not possible to reach a deal by 20 July, but both sides are committed to building on the progress that has been made. We have therefore agreed with Iran to extend the Geneva interim agreement until 24 November to give us the time to bridge the differences, in particular on the core issue of enrichment.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for that welcome. The right hon. Gentleman and I have spent much time in this place discussing some of the very issues that we are talking about now. He is right to raise concerns about the deal. Rather than making a bad deal, we believe it is important to delay it to make sure that we have an appropriate deal. Talks have been productive. Both sides have worked hard on a draft text but more time is needed to bridge the differences that remain, in particular on enrichment, and to agree the details of how the agreement will be implemented.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
21. The joint plan of action abandons the demands made by the six United Nations Security Council resolutions that Iran must halt all enrichment, so what assessment has my hon. Friend made of the message that this would send to the Iranian regime about how serious we are about sticking to our guns where Iran’s nuclear capabilities are concerned?
Mr Ellwood
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns and pay tribute to him for his interest in this area. We are looking for the appropriate deal to be struck. It has not been on the table up to this point. It was decided to delay matters until November and I hope to be able to report back to the House very soon on what progress has been made.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
9. What steps he is taking to support families attending murder trials of British nationals abroad.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
We provide a high level of support to families whose loved ones are murdered or on trial abroad, alongside UK police and specialist non-governmental organisations which we part-fund. Support can include providing additional information about local lawyers, accompanying families to meetings and attending trials at key points. We are currently reviewing what additional support is possible and consulting widely on the matter.
Steve Rotheram
Will the Minister look again at what financial assistance the Government can provide to parents of those murdered abroad, specifically including interest-free loans so that families of victims can attend trials on foreign soil and see for themselves that justice is done?
Mark Simmonds
I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman has a particularly sensitive case in his constituency, but I can assure him that we look at the individual circumstances of every case and an assessment is made of vulnerability. We use NGOs such as Missing Abroad, which can help secure free or cheap flights. Also, we use NGOs to provide video conferencing facilities to enable loved ones to watch the proceedings that take place. I hope he has been contacted about the consultation. We are looking at what more we can do to help the families.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
10. What recent progress has been made on negotiations on bilateral EU free trade agreements; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Earlier this month the European Union held the latest negotiating rounds on two major free trade agreements with the United States and Japan respectively. We are aiming to agree these deals next year. Between them they could add £15 billion to the United Kingdom’s economy each year.
Michael Fabricant
I am grateful for that answer, although I think it is unfortunate that because of our membership of the European Union, we cannot enter into bilateral agreements ourselves. Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend agree that the transatlantic trade and investment partnership will provide a useful boost to Jaguar Land Rover and other motoring companies in the west midlands and elsewhere?
Mr Lidington
A successful TTIP deal would indeed provide great opportunities for the United Kingdom’s very successful automotive industry, which has hit records in both production and exports during the lifetime of this Government. It would also benefit other areas of this country, most notably Scotland.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The Minister is trying to catch me out by mentioning Scotland, but he knows that there are major concerns in three areas about the TTIP between the EU and the US. One is food safety, with the use of hormones in the US, which may be forced into Europe. Secondly, there is the problem with the threat to public services and privatisation of the service. The third area of concern is dispute settlement in other agreements, which allows tobacco companies to take countries such as Australia to court for introducing packaging which shows people the damage caused by smoking tobacco. Will the Minister give me an assurance that we will not sign up to these three items without bringing them before the House for agreement?
Mr Lidington
As regards food safety, clearly we should be guided at all times by rigorous scientific analysis of what the risks amount to. On investor-state dispute settlements, the United Kingdom is already party to more than 90 of these, and the TTIP would provide explicit protection for the right to regulate, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s fears would be realised.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
23. It is estimated that EU-US free trade will save the average family £400 a year through cheaper prices and increased competition. With such huge potential benefits, will my right hon. Friend push to ensure that the TTIP negotiations are completed as quickly as possible?
Mr Lidington
We believe that it is in the interests of every family in the United Kingdom that this successful trade deal is concluded as soon as possible. Priority areas for us include the automotive industry, financial services, procurement, agriculture, and food and drink. There are tremendous opportunities for British business through a successful TTIP negotiation.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Would it not be sensible for the Minister to ensure that his boss is properly briefed on the benefits to Britain of a successful EU-US trade deal, perhaps before the Foreign Secretary is next tempted to go on the airwaves and talk up the possibility of a British exit from the European Union?
Mr Lidington
The entire Government, since we came into office in May 2010, have made it a priority to increase the prosperity of the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, through a commitment to free trade—a priority that was sadly neglected under the Government in whom the hon. Gentleman served.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
16. What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for the middle east peace process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
We welcome the efforts to secure a ceasefire, which remains the best means of ending the current cycle of violence. I call upon Hamas, as I have already said, and all militant factions in Gaza to cease hostilities so that the bloodshed on both sides can stop.
Mr Ellwood
We have increased our funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the main UN organisation operating in Gaza, by £5 million. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been communicating with the parties involved in Gaza, and indeed in Israel, to encourage them to listen to what Egypt is saying and to agree a ceasefire.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Securing a ceasefire is urgently needed to stop this terrible loss of life. Will discussions on a ceasefire include considering the future of the terror tunnels, from which Mumbai-type atrocities are being planned against Israeli civilians?
Mr Ellwood
The immediate priority is to have a ceasefire in place, and then, as John Kerry has stated, we can move towards a longer term solution, which must include all aspects, including—dare I say it?—the territories. These must be considered following on from the ceasefire itself.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
22. What discussions he has had with the French Government on arms sales to Russia; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The United Kingdom has already suspended all such export licences to Russia where exports could be used against Ukraine. We have discussed the possibility of an EU-wide arms and defence exports embargo with the French Government, both bilaterally and at European Council and Council of Ministers meetings.
Mr Sanders
I urge the Minister to press the French and other EU countries more on that, because it really is time we all put principle ahead of short-term economic interest and stopped arming the Russian regime.
Mr Lidington
The Prime Minister made the British Government’s position clear yesterday during his response to questions on his statement. It is obviously for the French Government to take that decision, which at the moment they plan to take in October this year, and to defend whatever decision they take.
Mr Speaker
Order. Emulation of the brevity of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) is now required. I call Mr Barry Gardiner.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is very clear about the use of sanctions against Russia and about their potential efficacy. Why, therefore, has the Foreign Office consistently said in relation to Sri Lanka that it does not believe in applying sanctions there or in other parts of the world?
Mr Speaker
The French Government, arms sales, Russia; I am sure that there was some relevance to those subjects in the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am working hard to find it.
Mr Lidington
Our priority in dealing with the Government of Sri Lanka has been to secure an independent investigation into the serious reports of human rights abuses in the north of that country. The Prime Minister has championed that priority and we achieved considerable success in that regard at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Mr Speaker
It was a good question; it was just the wrong one. I am afraid that my efforts have failed. Even the Clerks, in all their distinction, cannot remotely fathom the pertinence of the inquiry by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) to question No. 22, and I rather doubt whether the hon. Member for Torbay can either. But there we go—it is the last day, and there will be some latitude.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
In addition to the crisis in Gaza, our focus is very much on Ukraine. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, our approach is that, first, we need to see the repatriation of the victims’ bodies and the beginning of an independent investigation of what happened to flight MH17. Secondly, we believe that Russia must stop providing supplies and training to the separatists. Thirdly, we need to reassess this country’s and the European Union’s long-term relationships with Russia. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is in Brussels today discussing exactly those matters with his European counterparts.
Mr Bellingham
Does the Minister agree that the horrendous destruction of flight MH17 was a direct consequence of a regional crisis fomented by President Putin? Does he also agree that we must now move to tier 3 sanctions on defence, energy and banking? And, further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), surely those Russian sailors in Saint-Nazaire should now return home immediately.
Mr Lidington
We are certainly among those countries that have been pressing for some time at European meetings for a tougher and more rigorous sanctions policy to be adopted by the European Union. Sadly, the crisis in Donetsk and Luhansk appears to have been fomented quite deliberately by the Russian authorities, to whom the separatists look for matériel, for arms and for moral encouragement. It is in the interests of all of Europe that Russia desists from that policy and seeks reconciliation.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday on flight MH17. I also welcome whatever further steps can be agreed at the Foreign Affairs Council. In the light of recent developments, however, may I urge the Government urgently to seek an emergency meeting of the European Heads of Government? Does the Minister accept that, in reality, only the European Council is capable of taking the scale of diplomatic response that is increasingly obviously required?
Mr Lidington
We certainly do not rule out the necessity for that to happen, perhaps within a matter of days. I think it would be wise to assess the outcome of today’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting first, but the Prime Minister is alive to the possibility of such a meeting.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
T4. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the stalled election process in Afghanistan is undermining the democratic institutions that so many of our brave men and women fought so hard for and sacrificed so much to deliver?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about the election process in Afghanistan. Abdullah Abdullah received 45% of the vote in the first round, and that figure remained the same in the second. Ashraf Ghani went from 31% in the first round to 56% in the second, with an extra million people voting. He threatened to form a breakaway Government, and we are grateful for the work of the United States, and of John Kerry in particular, on reconciling that matter. The votes are now being recounted and we look forward to the result.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
T2. The BBC seems to have missed it, but 100,000 people marched through London on Saturday to protest against the terrible suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. Smaller demonstrations are taking place every day, many will march in Newcastle on Saturday, and I have received hundreds of e-mails and letters on the subject. Will the Minister ensure that his counterparts in Israel understand the mounting sense of outrage among the British people?
Mr Ellwood
The increased diplomatic pressure that is being placed on the situation, including by John Kerry going to the region and, indeed by our own Foreign Secretary and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, shows that there is a huge amount of growing international pressure to seek a solution. The Foreign Secretary has done his best to communicate with his counterparts in Israel, Egypt and, indeed, the Palestinian authorities. We hope for, and will work towards, a ceasefire as soon as possible.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
T5. Will the Minister congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on organising a trip to Bosnia next week, in which I will be taking part, to refurbish a centre for women affected by sexual violence in conflict, which is something in which the previous Foreign Secretary took a great interest?
Mr Lidington
I am very happy to congratulate both my hon. Friends on their commitment to that project, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) in particular on her tireless work to highlight the continued importance of this country’s relationship with Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian Minister played a very important role at the recent summit to help prevent the use of sexual violence as an instrument of war. We need to learn the lessons of that experience.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. The NATO summit at the Celtic Manor in Newport is a real chance to put Wales’s leading cutting-edge businesses in the world’s shop window. However, concerns have been raised with me that not enough is being done to promote those Welsh businesses. In the run-up to the vital NATO summit, what are the Government going to do to ensure that Welsh business is promoted to the hilt before, during and after it?
Mr Lidington
I certainly believe that the NATO summit in Wales will provide an unparalleled opportunity to highlight not only Welsh business but the attractiveness of Wales as a destination for inward investment and for tourism. We saw how Northern Ireland benefited from the Enniskillen summit last year. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my colleagues at the Wales Office have the issue very much on their list of key priorities at the moment.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
The Russian response to the downing of the aircraft has been a mixture of disingenuousness and paranoia, and they have abandoned realism. It has already been argued that steps should be taken to make them take a more realistic approach, but is there not a real challenge for the north Atlantic alliance, both with the European Union and with NATO, to ensure that we act in such a united and unified way that the Russians are in no doubt about the seriousness with which we take their conduct?
Mr Lidington
I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is important that the Atlantic alliance generally—this applies whether we are talking about NATO or the European Union—remains united, resolute and determined, because we face a very grave challenge. It is certainly the case that the NATO summit will need to give a high priority to a reassertion of article 5 of the doctrine of collective defence.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
What actions are the Foreign Office team taking to ensure consular access to Andargachew Tsege? He is an Ethiopian-born British citizen who was seized at Sanaa airport by Ethiopian officials on 23 June, sentenced to death in absentia by a court in Ethiopia and held at an undisclosed location in Ethiopia. Despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and me, he still has not had consular or legal access. Could the Foreign Office urgently contact the Ethiopian Government and ensure that access is obtained?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this concerning case. I reassure him that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the gentleman concerned gets consular access. I spoke to the Ethiopian Foreign Minister last Friday night, and my colleagues at the Department for International Development spoke to the Ethiopian Prime Minister. We continue to press the Ethiopian Government to get access. I have approved a letter to be sent to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who are particularly interested in this case, to set out what continued action we intend to deliver.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
T8. The Minister said earlier that Israel has the right to defend itself against missile attack, and I entirely agree, but he went on to say that the response must be proportionate. Is it not transparently obvious that the response is not proportionate, but grossly disproportionate and outwith international law? On that basis, will he not look again at the preferential trade arrangements that Israel enjoys at the moment?
Mr Ellwood
We spoke about this outside the Chamber, and I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and views. The Prime Minister has spoken about the issues of proportionality, and I have mentioned my discussions with the Israeli ambassador. I see no need at the moment to look at any of the EU negotiations.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister about the Litvinenko case, and I am delighted to say that the Home Secretary has today announced a public inquiry, so let me press home the advantage. I also asked him yesterday about the Magnitsky case. Considering that the Americans have already done it and that other countries in Europe have done it, why on earth have we not introduced what the House demanded more than two years ago, which is a clear statement that those who were involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and in the corruption that he unveiled are not welcome in this country? That is now the eighth time I have asked.
Mr Lidington
We have made it very clear, whether we are talking about people from Russia or any other country, that someone against whom there is clear evidence of complicity in human rights abuses would not be welcome in the United Kingdom.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Given the appalling events in eastern Ukraine and the fact that our EU neighbours seem reluctant to adopt a robust line against the bully in the playground, has the time not come for the UK to lead by example and to close our financial services to Russia?
Mr Lidington
I think that it will be important to make sure that whatever sanctions are imposed on Russian interests are effective and do not just lead to Russian money migrating somewhere else, and to make sure that they have a sound legal basis. That is what we are working to achieve. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we regard financial services as very much on the table in such discussions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Human rights abuses and the persecution of Christians in Iran are at their worst levels for decades—second only to North Korea. Some 700 executions have taken place, with many of those people killed for their religious beliefs. What discussions has the Minister had with the Iranian Government about protecting Christians in Iran?
Mr Ellwood
I mentioned earlier that our embassy in Iran is shortly to open; some technical issues still need to be resolved. Once it is open, there will be more and more opportunity to raise those very issues. Three concerns jump out immediately—freedom of expression, freedom of religion and rights for women—and I will pursue those issues when I have an opportunity, I hope, to visit Iran in the forthcoming period.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Given the massive potential economic benefits from concluding a successful transatlantic free trade agreement and the fact that Britain is one of the leading international trading nations of the EU, would it not make sense for the UK to be granted the trade portfolio within the Commission?
Mr Lidington
There are a number of Commission portfolios for which our excellent candidate, my noble Friend Lord Hill, would be admirably qualified. As my hon. Friend knows, discussions are ongoing about who should fill which portfolio.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
What undertakings can the Minister give that no British arms or equipment have found their way to ISIS?
Mr Ellwood
I was hoping not to have to say this, but if I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details. I hope to be able to assure him that there have been no such cases, but I will certainly write to him with more details.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
What assessment has the Minister made of the double war crime perpetrated by Hamas with regard to not only hiding themselves and their weaponry among the civilian population, but deliberately targeting and desiring the murder of innocent Israelis?
Mr Ellwood
I mentioned earlier the important role that Hamas can play in organising and agreeing to a ceasefire. Unfortunately, it is the case that it has used some of its weapon systems in civilian areas, which has led to too many deaths. As we have said again and again, I hope that all parties can now come to an agreement on a ceasefire, led by the Egyptians.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
What is the difference between a Russian Government who deserve sanctions for their involvement in bringing down MH17 and an Israeli Government who refuse to apologise for bombing hospitals and killing children who were playing football on the beach?
Mr Lidington
We have to look at each case on its merits. With regard to Russia, the Prime Minister made our position very clear in the House yesterday. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the desperate need in Gaza is for a ceasefire and a cessation of the appalling violence and loss of life among men, women and children on both sides. The sooner that happens, the better. Our diplomatic efforts are designed to help bring that about.
Deaths and Injuries in Lahore
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I would like to present a petition from a large number of my constituents about an incident that happened in Lahore. I have already raised the matter with the acting high commissioner for Pakistan.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Pendle,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the killing of eleven and injury of over eighty more civilians in Lahore at the Minhaj-ul-Quran Complex on 17th June 2014 was an act of terrorism carried out by the Government of Pakistan and federal Government of Punjab and further that a local Petition from residents of Nelson has received over 2000 signatures.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Government of Pakistan and federal Government of Punjab to bring the perpetrators of the violence to account and refer the incident to the International Criminal Court.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001382]
Dangerous Dogs
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am here to present this petition on behalf of my constituent Mrs Paula Trail. In January, Mrs Trail was walking her King Charles spaniel Lacie, who was attacked and tragically killed by two other dogs. Since then, more than 400 people have signed a local petition and more than 1,750 an e-petition calling for penalties to be imposed if a dog is dangerously out of control and injures another dog.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduces legislation so that penalties can also be imposed on owners if their dog injures another dog.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners welcome the changes that the Government have made to its guidance on “controlling your dog in public” as it is now against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control in private places such as your own home and a neighbour’s garden; further that the Petitioners believe that, although improved, the updated guidance does not go far enough as penalties are only imposed on owners if their dog injures a person or a guide dog; and further that a local petition on this matter has received over 400 signatures and an e-petition over 1,750.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduces legislation so that penalties can also be imposed on owners if their dog injures another dog.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001377]
Home-to-school Transport to the Colne Community School (Essex)
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is my duty and privilege to introduce a petition on behalf of those whose school transport is being adversely affected by changes in Essex county council policy. The petition contains no fewer than 527 signatures.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Harwich and North Essex,
Declares that Essex County Council’s new home-to-school transport policy has removed school transport funding for residents of Wivenhoe with children attending the Colne Community School in Brightlingsea; further that the Petitioners believe that the policy does not recognise the long-term close community link between Wivenhoe and the Colne Community School; further that the cost of running an underutilised service to the allocated catchment school would better be spent on transport to the Colne Community School; and further that the journey time to the Colne Community School is likely to be the same as, or shorter than, to the allocated catchment school.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Essex County Council to continue to provide residents of Wivenhoe with equitably funded home-to-school transport to the Colne Community School in Brightlingsea.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001378]
Direct Bus Service from Hounslow West to West Middlesex Hospital
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The petition concerns the provision of a direct bus route from Hounslow West to West Middlesex hospital. It has also been supported by residents in Cranford who are similarly affected. There is currently no direct bus services from these heavily populated wards to the main hospital serving Hounslow residents. Carers, the elderly, and disabled and unwell constituents in Feltham and Heston are forced to change bus services when making what can be a difficult journey to the hospital. The issue is particularly acute in poor weather and attempts to amend bus services to provide a direct service have so far been unsuccessful. There are seven signatures attached to this petition, representing seven of the 236 who have signed a similar petition directly to Transport for London.
The petition states:
“The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to liaise with the Mayor of London and Transport for London to ensure that a direct bus service from Hounslow West… to West Middlesex Hospital is provided.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Hounslow,
Declares that the Petitioners strongly believe that there needs to be a direct bus service from Hounslow West Tube Station, Bath Road, Hounslow TW4 to West Middlesex Hospital, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7; further that just over two years ago on 19 June 2012 the Petitioners wrote to the Operation Manager of Transport for London regarding the bus service and regret that the reply received from a Customer Service Adviser was not encouraging; further that the Petitioners provided four possible review options for one of the service routes which was turned down; further that in a reply on 11 July 2012 TfL noted that the entire bus network is reviewed on a regular basis to make sure that passengers are given the best possible service; further that the Petitioners replied to this letter of 11 July and are still awaiting a reply; and further that passengers travelling to West Middlesex Hospital have to change buses at Hounslow Bus Garage to visit admitted patients and attend appointments which the Petitioners believe can be particularly difficult for the elderly and disabled.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to liaise with the Mayor of London and Transport for London to ensure that a direct bus service from Hounslow West Tube Station, Bath Road, Hounslow TW4 to West Middlesex Hospital, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 is provided.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001379]
Human Rights in Sri Lanka
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is my duty and privilege to raise concerns put to me by Councillor Kareema Marikar and the trustees and elders of the Sri Lankan mosque in Harrow about human rights in Sri Lanka. The petition reads:
The Petition of residents of Harrow West,
Declares that it has been reported that violent attacks on Muslims in the southern Sri Lanka town of Aluthgama beginning on 15 June resulted in the death of four Muslims, and injured more than 80, with many homes and businesses destroyed; further that the Petitioners believe that it is of particular concern that eyewitnesses have reported that the police stood by and refused to intervene during the violence; and further that international human rights organisations have called on the Sri Lankan authorities to fully investigate the attacks and identify those who incited the violence.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons takes action to raise concerns regarding the violent attacks on Muslims with the Sri Lankan authorities.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001380]
Development Proposals for 34 Hatton Avenue, Wellingborough
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I present a petition, which has 800 names, on an important local issue. The three lead signatures are Ruth Claire Smith, Joanne Harrison and Ian Richards. The petition reads:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
The Humble Petition of residents of Hatton Park, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
sheweth,
That the Petitioners believe that the proposed change of use of 34 Hatton Avenue, Wellingborough into a behavioural management home (application number WP/14/00385/COU) is unacceptable as the location of the development is unsuitable both for the proposed residents of the home and for the local residents.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to work together to reject the current application and relocate it to a more suitable site.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001381]
Birmingham Schools
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the report into allegations concerning Birmingham schools arising from the so-called Trojan horse letter. The report by Peter Clarke was laid before the House this morning.
The abiding principle of the Government’s education policy is that schools should prepare children for life in modern Britain and, indeed, the modern world. Schools should open doors for children, not close them. That is what parents want and expect. We should be clear that that is as true for the overwhelming majority of British Muslims as for anyone else.
As a Government, we strongly support the right of Muslim parents to be involved in their children’s schools and their commitment to take leading roles in public life. What has been so upsetting about the history in this small handful of schools is that the success of efforts to encourage more British Muslims to take up governing roles has been damaged by the actions of a few. I sincerely hope that parents will continue to come forward to serve as governors and to take leadership roles in schools.
However, what Peter Clarke found is disturbing. His report sets out compelling evidence of a determined effort by people with a shared ideology to gain control of the governing bodies of a small number of schools in Birmingham. Teachers have said that they fear that children are learning to be intolerant of difference and diversity. Instead of enjoying a broadening and enriching experience in school, young people are having their horizons narrowed and are being denied the opportunity to flourish in a modern, multicultural Britain.
There has been no evidence of direct radicalisation or violent extremism, but there is a clear account in the report of people in positions of influence in these schools, who have a restricted and narrow interpretation of their faith, not promoting fundamental British values and failing to challenge the extremist views of others. Individuals associated with the Park View Educational Trust, in particular, have destabilised head teachers, sometimes leading to their resignation or removal. Particularly shocking is the evidence of the social media discussion of the Park View Brotherhood group, whose actions
“betray a collective mind-set that can fairly be described as an intolerant Islamist approach which denies the validity of alternative beliefs.”
Evidence collected by Peter Clarke shows that Birmingham city council was aware of the practices that were subsequently outlined in the Trojan horse letter long before it surfaced. On Friday, the council published its report into the problems by Ian Kershaw. He concluded that in some cases the council was a vehicle for promoting some of these problems, with head teachers being eased out through the profligate use of compromise agreements, rather than being supported. The council’s inability to address the problems had been exacerbated, the report found, by a culture of not wanting to address difficult problems where there was a risk of accusations of racism or Islamophobia.
We are all in the debt of Peter Clarke for the rigour that he brought to his investigation and for the forensic clarity of his findings. We are also in the debt of my predecessor, who is now the Chief Whip, for his determination in the face of criticism to invite Mr Clarke to take on this task. No Government and no Home Secretary have done more to tackle extremism than this Government and this Home Secretary. In the conclusions of the Government’s extremism taskforce last year, the Prime Minister made it clear that we need to deal with the dangers posed by extremism well before it becomes violent. Peter Clarke’s report offers us important recommendations on how to address that challenge in schools.
Our first priority after Ofsted reported its findings last month was to take action on the schools in special measures. The members of the Park View Educational Trust have resigned, enabling outstanding head teachers from the wider Birmingham community to take on the governance of the trust and ensure a strong future for its three academies. My noble Friend Lord Nash has today written to the Oldknow Academy Trust to notify it that I will terminate its funding agreement in the light of its manifest breaches. A new interim executive board has replaced the failing governing body of Saltley school. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) for their work with those schools.
The second priority is the progress that must be made by Birmingham city council. I have spoken to Sir Albert Bore, and we have agreed that I will appoint a new education commissioner within the council to oversee its actions to address the fundamental criticisms in the Kershaw and Clarke reports, while building resilience in the system as a whole. The commissioner will report jointly to Birmingham’s chief executive and to me. If we are unable to make rapid progress with those new arrangements, I will not hesitate to use my powers to intervene further.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has also spoken to Sir Albert Bore about the need to address the wider weaknesses that these events have highlighted in the governance culture of the council. They have agreed that Sir Bob Kerslake will lead a review of governance in the city council, reporting with recommendations for both the short and medium term by the end of 2014.
I want also to ensure that our system of standards and accountability for all schools should better withstand the threats of extremism of all kinds. The National College for Teaching and Leadership will take the extensive evidence provided by Peter Clarke so that its misconduct panel can consider whether any teachers involved should be barred from the profession. Advice to the panel already provides that actions that undermine fundamental British values should be viewed as misconduct. I will strengthen that advice to make clear that exposing pupils to extremist speakers should be regarded as a failure to protect pupils and promote British values. I will also strengthen the advice to make it clear that prohibition from teaching should be imposed while such cases are investigated, and a prohibition without review made where misconduct is proved.
We have already published a consultation on strengthening independent school standards, which apply also to academies and free schools, including a requirement to actively promote British values. Ofsted will inspect how well all schools are actively promoting fundamental British values through their curriculum. We will provide further guidance on how to improve the social, moral, spiritual and cultural development of pupils, which is also inspected by Ofsted. We will strengthen our regulations to bar unsuitable persons from running independent schools, including academies and free schools. Anyone barred in that way will also be prohibited from being governor in any maintained school.
Peter Clarke recommends that Ofsted should be more sensitive to the signs of emerging problems. I believe that key evidence can be hidden from inspectors and the inspection regime needs to be strengthened further. My predecessor asked Her Majesty’s chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, to look at the feasibility and practicalities of introducing no-notice inspections for schools. I am pleased that the chief inspector has already decided, and notified schools earlier this month, that next term he would be broadening the criteria Ofsted uses to judge whether unannounced inspection is required for a particular school. HMCI believes there are advantages to extending no-notice inspection to all schools, and will use his consultation in the autumn on changes to the 2015 inspection regime to consult on whether universal no notice, or a different change to the no-notice regime, should be made.
Her Majesty’s chief inspector has also highlighted the need to ensure that all state-funded schools meet the requirement to teach a broad and balanced curriculum. He is clear that this is an area where inspectors will pay more attention, and the autumn consultation will seek views on whether Ofsted needs to do more to ensure that all schools meet their requirements to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.
My predecessor commissioned a review by the permanent secretary on whether the Department missed historical warnings in Birmingham, and he will report to me later in the summer. The Department has already ensured increased scrutiny of new academy sponsors and of the governance arrangements for schools seeking to convert to academy status. We have appointed regional schools commissioners backed by boards of local outstanding head teachers who will bring local intelligence to decision making on academies. I will now improve the Department’s due diligence and counter-extremism division’s capacity, as Peter Clarke recommends. I will ensure that the Department works in partnership with the Home Office, Department for Communities and Local Government and other agencies to improve the intelligence available to us on whether other parts of the country are similarly vulnerable to the threats that have been exposed in Birmingham.
The report also raises questions and makes specific recommendations about other important areas, including the role of the Association of Muslim Schools UK, further action on improving school governance, how to communicate better the role of local authorities with all schools—maintained, academies and independent—on safeguarding and extremism, and how we can be sure that all schools are meeting their statutory duties. I want to reflect further on those issues, as well as on all specific recommendations in the report published today, and return to the House in the autumn on steps to be taken on those matters.
Peter Clarke’s report confirms the pattern of serious failing found by Ofsted’s inspection reports, and identifies how the actions of a small number of individuals in some schools represented a serious risk to the safeguarding of children and the quality of education being provided. We are taking action to put things right, and I will not hesitate to act in any schools where serious concerns come to light in future.
I want to be clear, however, that those who seek to use this case to undermine the Government’s reform agenda will be disappointed. Today there are more than 4,000 academies and free schools serving pupils and parents up and down the country. They are helping thousands of young people, regardless of their background, to unlock their potential and become valuable and rounded members of society. The expansion of the academy programme has been one of the great success stories of this Government, and the actions of a small number of individuals will not divert us from that path. The programme of reform goes on, and I commend this statement to the House.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the work of Peter Clarke.
At the heart of the report is a devastating indictment of the Government’s schools policy, and the Government’s response is a structural admission of failure. Today, the Secretary of State has announced a new schools commissioner for Birmingham and endorsed Labour party policy. The free market model of schooling, pioneered by her predecessor, has been sunk by the events in Birmingham. Why not have a schools commissioner or a director of schools standards for Liverpool, for Manchester or for London?
Peter Clarke’s report reveals that coalition education policy is bust and has fomented the crisis in Birmingham. Clarke states:
“In theory, academies are accountable to the secretary of state, but in practice the accountability can almost amount to benign neglect where educational and financial performance seems to indicate everything is fine.”
However, we now know that everything was not fine. The truth of the matter is this: the chaotic, deregulated and fractured education policy the Government have pursued has increased the risks of radicalisation in English schools. Let us be clear: in 2010, the Department for Education was told by a senior Birmingham head teacher what was going on in Birmingham schools, and for four years it failed to act. I call that malign neglect.
First, will the Secretary of State tell us more about how the Department for Education inquiry into ministerial failings is proceeding? What evidence has it taken? Has Lord Hill given evidence? Sir Albert Bore has apologised on behalf of Birmingham city council, so will the Secretary of State apologise for her predecessor’s oversights?
Peter Clarke’s report heavily criticises the Government’s policy
“by which single schools are able to convert to academy status”.
Therefore, secondly, the Secretary of State’s predecessor thought that the security bar should be lowered for those seeking to convert schools to academy status, as in the case of Park View and Golden Hillock, compared with the bar for those seeking to establish free schools. Does she share that view?
Crucially, Peter Clarke finds that there was no
“suitable system for holding the new academies accountable for financial and management issues”.
He urges a clearer system for
“detecting changes in governance to make academies more effective in responding to warning signs”.
The commissioner is a right step, but will the Secretary of State admit that she cannot run tens of thousands of schools from behind a desk in Whitehall, which her predecessor failed to realise? Thirdly, therefore, will she now drop the dogma and agree to the Labour party plans for directors of schools standards—not the old local authority model, but a system of local oversight and accountability to give parents, teachers and governors a strong voice to support all schools and challenge low standards?
One disturbing element of Clarke’s report is his account of the introduction of an “intolerant and aggressive” Islamist ethos in Birmingham schools. Allegations of radical extremism and terrorism have proven to be unfounded, but there should be no place in an English school for segregation and the inculcation of a politicised version of Islam. It is right that schools in high-poverty and minority ethnic communities focus on achieving excellent academic results, but they must also provide the kind of rounded education that will ensure the success of their pupils in modern, multicultural Britain.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s support for changes for a “broad and balanced curriculum” in criteria for judgments by Ofsted. I am happy to support her framework discussions for no-notice inspections, and the misconduct reforms. However, one of the most pressing reforms we need to look at is our system of school governors—Clarke’s recommendation 10.
Beginning with the Labour party’s academies schools programme, successive Governments have sought to increase school autonomy. That has placed more onerous responsibilities on governing bodies without necessarily providing the relevant training and support. We do not want to overburden governors—we need to attract applicants for the job, particularly from minority ethnic communities—but we need to ensure a more professional, non-executive function in these roles. If the Secretary of State wishes to pursue a reform policy in that direction, she will have our support.
The story of Birmingham is the story of systemic failings in school oversight and accountability. The chickens have come home to roost on the Government’s free-for-all education policy. In our great second city, it is parents and pupils who have suffered the consequences.
Nicky Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for some parts of his response to my statement. It is a great irony that in the middle he talked about dropping the dogma, given that he started by talking about a “devastating indictment” of schools policy. I refute that utterly, as do all Government Members.
I am glad the hon. Gentleman welcomed the move to have a broad and balanced curriculum, and for his support for no-notice inspections, on which we will consult, and on teachers’ misconduct. However, I think he misses the overall point. This is not a matter on which to be partisan. I think we can agree that there is absolutely no place for extremism in our schools, which is what he said. But in relation to governance, he will perhaps recall the point that Sir Peter Clarke made on page 90 of the report:
“I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is a problem with governance generally”—[Interruption.]
I suggest the hon. Gentleman reads page 90 again. Sir Peter Clarke went on:
“However, there appears to be a problem with certain governors in some Birmingham schools.”
What the hon. Gentleman failed to appreciate, in the tone of his remarks, was that this was a determined effort by a small number of people with a shared ideology to gain control of a small number of schools, irrespective of the interests of the local community. He is absolutely right to say that at the heart of this is the education of children and support for teachers and parents. We should start with children, not with faith.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the permanent secretary’s review in the Department. I am not going to pre-empt that review. I have said that I will come back to the House and discuss it when the permanent secretary reports. The hon. Gentleman talked about the schools commissioner, and I am glad he welcomes that appointment. Sir Albert Bore has agreed that we will work together on the appointment, who the commissioner will report to and the plan that will be put into place.
This is not a matter on which to be partisan. We must recognise the extremism that a small number of people thought they could perpetuate in our schools, much to the upset of members of the Muslim communities in Birmingham. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the work that the Government, the Home Secretary and all Ministers on the Government Benches have done to tackle anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia. I am sorry that the tone of his remarks does not reflect the seriousness of the situation.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
May I, too, congratulate Peter Clarke and thank him for his work? We must ensure that we have a proportionate response. The Education Committee will be taking evidence from Peter Clarke, Ian Kershaw, head teachers and others in our inquiry. We will produce a report and make recommendations in the autumn. Will the Secretary of State delay her formal response to the recommendations in Peter Clarke’s report until the Select Committee has produced its report, which I hope will be as early in the autumn as we can manage?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and for his recognition of this extremely serious matter. I welcome the Select Committee’s investigations. I will have to reflect on the time line, but clearly the Committee’s evidence and recommendations will be very important in coming to a full conclusion and response to the recommendations made in this report.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I did not have the opportunity yesterday, so may I welcome the Secretary of State to the most rewarding job in Government? I wish her well.
Three weeks ago, the Education Committee moved towards a consensus that oversight between the Secretary of State and schools needed to be strengthened, with certainly more than eight commissioners and by not relying purely on the inspectorate. Does she accept that many trusts and governing bodies are self-selecting and self-perpetuating? Would it therefore be appropriate to work with head teachers and the National Governors Association to find better ways to ensure that the selection of governors, and the accountability to which they are bound, is delivered in a way that provides the kind of trust that she and I, and this House, want in the future?
Nicky Morgan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much indeed for his warm welcome, which is very much appreciated. He is absolutely right that this is the most exciting job in Government. It is about protecting our children’s futures, and that is what is at the heart of the report into the failings that have been identified.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we recognise and value the dedication of the hundreds of thousands of governors up and down the country who give up their free time. We thank them for that. This issue relates to a small group of governors with a particular ideology that they wanted to push, and who wanted to destabilise the heads and the teachers. We welcome all efforts to strengthen governing bodies. Ofsted will be looking at governance arrangements much more closely in its inspections.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and warmly congratulate her on joining the Cabinet.
Is it not clear, as my right hon. Friend says, that there is no evidence of radicalisation or violent extremism, and that it is important to say that clearly for the vast majority of Birmingham’s Muslim community who make such a brilliant contribution to life in our second city? Should not all involved now focus on the key remedy for the future, which lies in clear lines of governance accountability and responsibility, both for the Department for Education and Birmingham city council?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed. He is absolutely right: it is worth reiterating again that, as Peter Clarke says, there has been no evidence of direct radicalisation or violent extremism. I know from working with the Muslim community in my own constituency that it is safe to say that this is not what the vast majority of parents wanted to happen to the schools in question, or for the education of their children. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to remember that.
My right hon. Friend is also right that, as a result of the two reports, there are a number of lessons to be learned by various bodies, including, obviously, my own Department, Birmingham city council and Ofsted. There are wider lessons to be learned in relation to the governance of schools.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I welcome the Kershaw and the Clarke reports, and the appointment of the commissioner for Birmingham, which is necessary not just in Birmingham but across the country. I would like to use parliamentary privilege if I may, Mr Speaker, to name a few individuals about whom I think further investigation needs to be made: David Hughes, a former council official; Les Lawrence, a former cabinet member in Birmingham; Jackie Hughes and Kyra Butwell; and all local authority officers who colluded with this huge tragedy of keeping these schools in a position they should not have been in, and who by not listening to the parents, governors and teachers who demanded action were not prepared to act on their behalf.
Nicky Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciated the conversation I had with him this morning. The Department will of course take on board the information he outlines. As part of the new commissioner’s appointment, we will pursue those names, and there may be others involved in what has happened. He makes an important point, which is that what happened was the destabilisation of the teaching staff in those schools. When one reads the reports and realises what has been going on against the wishes of the vast majority of teachers, one sees that when the teachers, and head teachers in particular, turned to the council, they did not get the support they should have received. That is something we all have to reflect on.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I support equal marriage, but a number of my constituents, both Muslim and non-Muslim, do not. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is very important to make a distinction between people with socially conservative views, and those who have extremist or divisive views? We must not be seen to be attacking people with socially conservative views.
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is an agreed Government definition of extremism, and that is the one Peter Clarke used in his report. However, I return to my original point: from all my conversations with the Birmingham community, it is clear that the vast majority were in no way involved with, or supportive of, anything that happened in these schools; it was a small group of people pushing a particular ideology, and it should always be remembered that the wider community deserves our greatest support.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but it is important that nobody shirks their responsibilities. Park View trust was an academy for almost two years, and chapter nine of the report paints a sorry picture of the Department’s oversight. I hope she thinks it appropriate to apologise for those failures today and that she asks Les Lawrence to do the same.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an education commissioner for the city, as I suggested to her on Friday. The commissioner’s first task is to ensure that teachers and officials who should not be in their jobs either resign or are removed, but the bigger task is to come together, with the city of Birmingham and the parents and pupils of Park View school, to rebuild trust and the pride of pupils and to ensure that the school’s reputation is turned around. Its best years lie ahead.
Nicky Morgan
Let me begin where the right hon. Gentleman ended: absolutely, we need to look forward. Of course, the Department, Birmingham city council, Ofsted and others involved need to learn the lessons, but he is right: we are talking about children’s education, and we need to look to the future—to rebuild the schools and give parents confidence, particularly when families return to school in September, that lessons have been learned and that the teaching staff involved have been dealt with.
I am pleased that the new members of the Park View education trust are taking swift action to ensure that the behaviours reported by Peter Clarke have no place in schools. Obviously, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I am assured that the trust will be instigating disciplinary proceedings where appropriate. Also, the National College for Teaching and Leadership will take extensive evidence from Peter Clarke so that its misconduct panel can consider whether any teachers involved should be barred from the profession.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and I gave evidence to the Prime Minister’s extremism taskforce, we emphasised the need for permanent cross-departmental co-operation. While I am pleased that the Secretary of State says she will work closely on this matter with the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government, will she try to persuade her Cabinet colleagues that it would be sensible to set up some sort of permanent machinery so that we can head off these sorts of episodes, rather than merely reacting to them?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for the intentions behind his question. He is right that I have mentioned the close working between my Department, the Home Office and DCLG, which will, of course, continue, and it is right to pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, who set up the division in the Department looking at extremism. However, I say this to my hon. Friend: let us wait and see; let me reflect on everything that has come out of the two reports and work out the best way for the Government to tackle these problems.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Ofsted inspects local authorities separately from local authority schools. The organisations that run academy chains perform similar functions to local authorities, but Ofsted is only allowed to inspect the schools, not the chains that run them. Given the concerns about what happened in Birmingham and, as the Minister for Schools acknowledged yesterday, elsewhere, will the Secretary of State now accept the need for the inspection of academy chains as well as the schools within them?
Nicky Morgan
I am going to look at that, as I think it needs to be considered.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State consider the merits of a minimum curriculum entitlement for all state-funded schools, so that communities, parents and governors are in no doubt about what is meant by a “broad and balanced curriculum”, which every child should be entitled to?
Nicky Morgan
I mentioned the phrase “broad and balanced curriculum” in my statement, and Ofsted’s new framework will contain more guidance on that. The Clarke report identified a narrowing of the curriculum, which I discussed with Sir Michael Wilshaw when I met him yesterday. We also discussed how to task inspectors with investigating undue narrowing and, in particular, when they go into schools, with ensuring that schools have not changed things in readiness for the inspection.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Clarke and Kershaw reviews showed serious failings by Birmingham city council going back many years and not confined to one administration. Although it is right that the city council has apologised and said it will co-operate with the findings of both reviews, in the light of concerns raised in both reviews about the Department, why is the Secretary of State so relaxed that her own investigations will not report until late summer? In advance of their reporting, how can she have confidence to say “full speed ahead” with her education reforms, particularly when fragmentation between government, local authorities and others is a recurring theme in both reports?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman should not conclude that I am relaxed about this in any way, shape or form, but I think it is right to give the permanent secretary time to conduct and conclude the review. Since my appointment, I have seen no evidence of fragmentation; there is close working at all levels between schools, councils and organisations such as Ofsted, and that will continue under this reform process.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tolerant should never be obliged to tolerate the intolerant; that the values of tolerance, freedom, democracy and the rule of law are the attributes of this country that make it so welcoming for many immigrant communities; and that robustly teaching those values will enhance and strengthen community values and relations, not weaken or undermine them?
Nicky Morgan
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In defining fundamental British values, as he said, we talk about democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. From my work with the Muslim community in my constituency, I know how important mutual respect and tolerance are and how much of it there is already. Returning to my earlier point, that is the tragedy of what happened in Birmingham: this was a small group of people pushing a particular ideology. The wider Muslim community, and the community generally in Birmingham, would not have recognised what this group was trying to do.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
All the reports into the Trojan horse letter find no evidence that children in our city have been turned into extremists or radicalised, which is welcome, but they highlight shocking and appalling governance failures of the most serious nature that we must all work together to fix. Is the Secretary of State aware that the way in which the whole affair has been handled and reported, with the leaks and the priority given by key figures to getting their message out first, has led to children at these schools being stigmatised, bullied and terrified that they will not get places at college or university or jobs because they have one of these schools on their CVs? What will she do to put this right and send a clear signal that she will be putting Birmingham school kids first?
Nicky Morgan
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s work on this process and the reports. She is absolutely right that we need to learn the lessons from the reports and that issues need to be addressed by all of us in the education system, locally, within the Department and by organisations such as Ofsted. I return to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne): how do we move forward and help the schools to move forward? Getting the right teaching staff in place, appointing the commissioner to work with Birmingham city council and getting in leading head teachers, particularly to the trust where the members have resigned, will be a very good start. This will require many months, if not years, of working, but I am convinced that we can turn this around.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
I also welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position and hope she treads a similar path to her outstanding predecessor. In that light, what approach does she favour in attempting to combat extremism—simply beating back the crocodiles that come too close to the boat, or draining the swamp?
Nicky Morgan
I believe in looking forward and learning lessons; appreciating the work that I and many Members across the House do with our Muslim communities; recognising that the vast majority did not want or support what was happening in their schools; and looking to my Department and Birmingham city council to sort this out in order to provide the best possible education for children, which, we must not forget, is at the heart of this.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
May I first disassociate myself from the shameful remarks of the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson)?
What happened in a handful of Birmingham schools was absolutely wrong, but the Secretary of State is absolutely right not to tar the entire Muslim community with the same brush. Does she accept that the problems in Birmingham are deep seated, long standing, and have involved all three political parties in successive administrations? Given that the council was right to say sorry, does she recognise, in the spirit of moving forward, that the Government should also express their regret? Will she now work with Birmingham to learn the lessons of what went wrong, to put things right in both Whitehall and the town hall, and to ensure that the interests of schoolchildren in Birmingham are put first?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that I have made it very clear that the interests of schoolchildren and their families must be at the heart of this. That is what our education system is all about. It is about preparing our young people for modern Britain and the modern world. The tragedy is that that has not happened to some of our children in Birmingham.
I also think that I have been very clear about failings at various levels and in various organisations. I will certainly be working with Birmingham city council, in particular through the new commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is issuing a written ministerial statement on wider working and wider lessons for the council at about this time. It has been discussed with Sir Albert Bore, and I believe that it is welcomed by him and his team.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the excellent new Secretary of State for coming to the House and updating us. She referred in her statement to fundamental British values. Is there a definition of those somewhere in Government documents that we can look at?
Nicky Morgan
There certainly is. Fundamental British values are defined as
“democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.
I have taken that definition from the Ofsted inspection handbook, but I suspect that it is in many other publications as well, and so it should be.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Because the problems in Birmingham were so long standing, I think that the solutions will not be straightforward. I was struck by the Secretary of State’s observation that Ofsted should be more sensitive to the signs of emerging problems, but, as problems emerge, who do governors and head teachers turn to? The difficulty in Birmingham was that they did not have anyone to turn to, and I am not sure that making Ofsted the organisation to turn to is the answer either. Will the Secretary of State flesh this out a little more? Where does she think the remedies for those emerging problems can be identified promptly, rather than at the late stage at which they would be identified by Ofsted?
Nicky Morgan
I agree with the hon. Lady. As I said earlier, I think that one of the tragedies was the fact that many very good head teachers, teaching at outstanding schools, were somehow removed from the system by the governors involved. They did not have anyone to turn to, and when they did turn to someone, they were not taken seriously.
The Government recently announced the creation of eight regional school commissioners. Below them will be elected head teacher boards, which will consist of outstanding head teachers. I suggest that they will be the best people for teachers to turn to in the first instance, but I shall be happy to consider the hon. Lady’s comments further.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I welcome the recognition of what the Secretary of State has described as British values, which I would describe as liberal values. In the context of protecting people from extremist views, I am still concerned about the use of the word “extremism”. If what was taking place in the schools was not an example of extremism—and that has been stated—what example of extremism were these schoolchildren vulnerable to in their homes and their local communities? May I also ask how much of what was taking place would have been okay if it had taken place in faith schools?
Nicky Morgan
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to grab fundamental British values for the Liberal party, but I do not think he will blame me if I try to resist it.
The definition of extremism is in the Prevent strategy, and, actually, what Peter Clarke’s report says is that there was extremism, but no radicalism or extremism leading to violence. Extremism is defined as being
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas.”
The hon. Gentleman may not have had a chance to read the whole report yet, but I suspect that when he does, and when he sees some of the comments that have been swapped on the WhatsApp social media site, he—like many other Members—will be very shocked.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State may not remember, but I took the Education Committee, when I was chairing it, to Birmingham for a whole week. At that time, under Tim Brighouse, Birmingham was the most improved education authority in the country. What I learnt—what we all learnt—was that the Muslim population in Birmingham, like the Muslim population everywhere else, want good education for their children, and they want it for boys and for girls.
I have not had time to study the report yet, but I can say that we need to detect the minority of Muslim opinion that is coming from, who knows, Saudi Arabia or somewhere. This is not just a Birmingham question. We must be aware of it, and alert to it. I have visited many faith schools of this type, and I know that we must be careful to ensure that girls are treated on a fundamentally equal basis to boys. They should never be disadvantaged in respect of their education in this country.
Nicky Morgan
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely no place for segregation of boys and girls in British schools, and girls must be given every possible opportunity to do as well and achieve as much as, if not more than, boys. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are especially welcome on a day on which the Prime Minister is holding a girl summit, which is focusing particularly on early forced marriage and female genital mutilation.
I do not think that I was in the House when the hon. Gentleman was Chairman of the Education Committee, but I am glad to hear that his visit to Birmingham went well. One of the issues is that although some of the schools there were outstanding, the problems still occurred. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we cannot let up in trying to identify the problems. That is why I welcome the preventing extremism unit that has been set up in the Department, and why I will be expanding it.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
The truth is that, in some areas of our country, it is difficult to recruit people of quality to participate in governing bodies, which makes such bodies vulnerable to a takeover by a narrow interest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on all of us who have leadership roles in our communities, including all Members of the House of Commons, to inspire and enthuse people who are interested in becoming school governors?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Being a school governor is an important role. What we do not want to do is make that role so burdensome that we put off really good people who would bring with them the skills that our schools need. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that those of us who are in positions in public life, such as Members of Parliament and councillors, should do all that we can to talent-spot and recommend good people to be school governors, because our schools need them.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State regret her predecessor’s decision to remove the requirement for Ofsted to inspect the duty of all maintained schools to promote community cohesion, and will she now consider restoring it?
Nicky Morgan
I will touch on that with Sir Michael Wilshaw, but we should be clear about the fact that when something is on a list of things that Ofsted or anyone else must inspect, the organisation concerned must genuinely understand and inspect it, and not just tick the box.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
There is a very complex mix here. For me, it includes some of the failed multicultural policies of the 1980s, political correctness gone mad, local party politics, and sheer religious ignorance. It will take some sensitivity and time to sort all that out. In the short term, however, may I ask the new Secretary of State not to take on a new bureaucracy—as promised by the Opposition—but to look to the professionalism of individual teachers, and consider some possible means of enabling them to report any individual concerns directly to the Department?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is a very complex mix of issues at work, many of which have been present for a long, long time. He is also right to draw attention to the importance of the professionalism of teachers all over the country, some of whom, obviously, identified some of the problems. Those teachers should know that there are mechanisms allowing them to report their concerns, which include the ability to come directly to the Department, where those concerns will be taken seriously.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend, like me, listened to the excellent head teacher of Anderton Park primary school in Birmingham on the radio this morning. I thought that she was outstanding, and exemplified the professionalism and expertise of heads and other teachers in Birmingham and elsewhere.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
In stressing the role of local head teachers on regional boards, the Secretary of State appears to recognise the need for local oversight of schools, but the position is still confused. Dividing the country into eight hardly achieves that localism. Will she clarify the role that the new schools commissioner for Birmingham will have in relation to the regional commissioner for the west midlands? Who will be in charge in that area?
Nicky Morgan
I have a feeling that it was a Minister in the last Government, John Prescott, who really liked regional government, and regional government can work. The point is that this commissioner will be working in relation to Birmingham, and will work with the west midlands regional school commissioner. They will be working together—everyone is pulling in the same direction—to secure the best possible education for our children in schools.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new appointment. Does this matter not remind us of the central importance of the role of governors in our schools? Does it not also remind us, therefore, of the need to focus on the skills of those governors, rather than stakeholder representation and so forth? First and foremost, the need is to make sure governors can speak to their communities and run their schools with confidence and with power.
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is entirely right that we want governing bodies to have all the necessary skills. We have recently changed the rules on the appointment of governors, who must now be appointed solely on the basis of the skills that they bring to contribute to the success of the school. That is absolutely critical.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Peter Clarke now recommends that the Department for Education review the process by which schools are able to convert to academy status and become multi-agency trusts, and calls for greater transparency in the system. Will the Secretary of State now lift the veil of secrecy that her predecessor threw over the whole process of academisation and creation of free schools, because this report clearly identifies that that has contributed to these problems?
Nicky Morgan
I am not sure about a veil of secrecy, but we will look again at our processes in these areas. We have taken action to strengthen checks on academy conversion, including by extending due diligence checks on those running academies and those schools converting to academy status. In the light of the report’s findings, we will want to keep those processes under review.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
What Peter Clarke found was shocking, and I am pleased to see the swift action from the Government. While everyone will agree that we need to root out and stamp out extremism in our schools, many parents I spoke to over the weekend who wish their children to have a faith-based education were concerned that this could be used as an excuse for the Government to U-turn on their long-standing commitment to our faith-based schools. Can I have my right hon. Friend’s assurance that that will not be the case?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend certainly has my assurance on that. I totally approve of, and support, the role of faith-based schools in our system. My hon. Friend might want to know that none of the schools inspected by Ofsted were faith schools.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State agree to publish an overview of the work the Department has done on the Government’s Prevent strategy since 2010?
Nicky Morgan
I will certainly consider it, and I will let the hon. Lady know.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
As well as the counter-extremism unit, my right hon. Friend’s predecessor put in place a whole set of measures for looking at barring teachers, making funding more difficult to exclude poor schools, and having no-notice inspections. Is it not vital that we reassure parents through the action that this Government have already taken?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is entirely right. My predecessor certainly put in place a number of robust strategies to deal with this issue, and Ofsted has increased its use of no-notice inspections, particularly where it is concerned about behaviour or deteriorating results.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The problems in Birmingham schools are serious and undoubtedly need to be dealt with, as do all cases of poor governance, mismanagement and misconduct. In London people are concerned about the £2 million fraud within the Haberdashers’ Aske’s academy chain. How many more schools will need to be found wanting before this Government accept that their systems of accountability and oversight are not up to the job?
Nicky Morgan
I utterly disagree with the hon. Lady. Schools have more accountability and are inspected more rigorously under this Government than they ever have been before, and the minute the Department is aware of any problems in schools, it will take swift action, as we have seen in relation to the schools in Birmingham.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
In diverse places such as High Wycombe dedicated people have worked hard for many years to identify shared values and build harmonious communities, which often centre on our schools. [Interruption.] Will the Government take steps to ensure that a realistic concern is not allowed to tip into a panic which undermines the positive practices and outcomes which have been won after so much effort?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I heard sniggers from the Opposition Benches about the words he used about his constituency. If Opposition Members have no idea about the diversity of the community in High Wycombe, frankly they should visit it. [Interruption.]
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in relation to the communities in High Wycombe and he is absolutely right. We want a steady and firm but fair response to the findings of the Peter Clarke report. There are some important findings and I go back to my initial point: this is a small group of people in a small number of schools, community relations are critical, and this Government have done more than any other to tackle anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Brennan, you were a most effective vocalist for the celebrated band MP4 at the concert in Speaker’s House last week, but today your role is to nod supportively when your boss is speaking. Nothing else is required.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Oh dear! Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I totally support the idea of teaching British values in schools, but is there a pamphlet or booklet instructing teachers exactly what are the British values they ought to espouse and how to teach them?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for that. The list I read out before is, as I said, in the Ofsted inspection handbook. I understand that schools refer to it, but I will certainly see whether there are any other ways in which this is communicated.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Four years ago, with great assistance from the Secretary of State’s predecessor and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb)—it is good to see him back—the new Gloucester academy was established and a multi-faith chaplaincy created, where an Anglican and a Muslim, Chris Blockley and Rafiq Patel, successfully served the pastoral and faith needs of the school. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a positive way to foster integrated schools and communities, with a focus on broadening, not narrowing, minds, building bridges, not barriers, and avoiding the dangers identified in Peter Clarke’s report, so that all children grow up knowing that what they have in common is much greater than any cultural or faith differences?
Nicky Morgan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and it sounds to me that Gloucester academy is both excellent and has thought its way through these issues and come up with a winning solution. By the sound of it, it typifies one of the fundamental British values I have already mentioned—tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs and mutual respect—and long may that continue.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and the vigour she and her predecessor have brought to tackling the issue of extremism in our schools, but may I urge her not to listen to those who are seeking to use this case to undermine the Government’s reform agenda, which has seen such a positive expansion of academies?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend. He knows me well enough to know that I do not listen to the siren voices from the Opposition Benches. As I said yesterday, I remain committed to the Government’s reform agenda, but the most important thing at the heart of all this is the education of our children, their future and making sure that they are able to take their place in a modern Britain and a modern world. That is exactly what the Department, working with teachers, head teachers and governors across the country, is focused on.
Mr Speaker
I hope the House now has a ready appetite for the rare delicacy which is the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).
Mr Hollobone
In my right hon. Friend’s statement, she made reference to the council’s own report by Ian Kershaw which concluded that the council’s inability to address these problems had been exacerbated “by a culture of not wanting to address difficult problems where there was a risk of accusations of racism or Islamophobia.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a chilling effect which prevents effective local government governance or effective governance in schools, where people do not have the confidence to tackle issues involving ethnic minorities because of the risk of being accused of being racist? How are her Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government going to come together to give such people the confidence they need to tackle these issues head-on?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that part of the report. It will be the experience of all Members on both sides of the House that, when dealing with issues in their communities, if we ignore a problem, it does not go away; it only gets bigger. That is what has happened here. The problems were highlighted, but they were not taken on board and they got bigger. I sincerely hope that the reports being published and the further work that all of us who are involved will do will give confidence to the governors, as my hon. Friend suggests.
Police Reform
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our ongoing work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police. I have always been clear that I believe the vast majority of police officers in this country do their job honestly and with integrity. They fight crime in our villages, towns and cities; they deal with dangerous criminals; they strive to protect the vulnerable and keep our streets safe; and they have shown that they can cut crime even as we cut spending. Under this Government, crime is down by more than 10% since the election, proving that it is possible to do more with less. But as I have said before, the good work of the majority threatens to be damaged by a continuing series of events and revelations relating to police conduct.
That is why, over the past 18 months, the Government have been implementing a series of changes to improve standards of police integrity: the College of Policing has published a new code of ethics, which makes clear the high standards of behaviour expected from all police officers; a national list of chief officers’ pay and rewards, gifts and hospitality is now published online, and the final list of business interests will be published for the first time later this summer; a national register of officers struck off from the police has been produced and made available to vetting and anti-corruption officers in police forces; the Government will legislate later this year to ensure that officers cannot resign or retire to avoid dismissal in misconduct hearings; and we have beefed up the Independent Police Complaints Commission, so that in future it can take on all serious and sensitive cases involving the police. In addition to those specific measures, many of our other police reforms—the creation of the College of Policing; having direct entry into the senior ranks; the election of police and crime commissioners; and the changes to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary —will make a positive difference when it comes to police integrity.
Since I began the Government’s programme of work to improve public confidence in the police, further events and revelations have reinforced the need for reform: we have had reports on the misuse of stop and search, and the poor police response to domestic violence; we have had the findings of the Ellison review, which examined allegations of corruption during the initial, deeply flawed investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence; and we have had Sir David Normington’s review of the Police Federation, which recommended change from “top to bottom”.
The measures we have introduced are vital, but we cannot stop there, and so I want to tell the House about my plans for further change. I want to open up policing to the brightest and best recruits. The Government have already introduced direct entry to open up the senior ranks of the police and bring in people with new perspectives and expertise. In London, the Metropolitan police received 595 applications for between five and 10 direct-entry superintendent posts; 26% of the applicants were from a black or minority ethnic background—this compares with 8.6% of traditional recruits—and 27% were female. In addition, using seed funding that I announced at the Police Federation conference in May, the Metropolitan police is setting up Police Now, the policing equivalent of Teach First, which will attract the brightest graduates into policing. But I want to go further. The College of Policing will undertake a fundamental review of police leadership, which will look at how we can go further and faster with direct entry; how we can encourage officers to gain experience outside policing before returning later in life; and how we can open up the senior ranks to candidates from different backgrounds. The review will start immediately.
In addition to those reforms, I want to ensure that the systems and processes that deal with misconduct by police officers are robust. That means where there are cases of wrongdoing, they must be dealt with effectively and, where necessary, appropriate disciplinary action must be taken. In March, I announced I would be creating a new offence of police corruption through the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, but that alone is not enough. The police disciplinary system is complex. It has developed organically rather than been structured to fit its purpose. It lacks transparency for the public, it is bureaucratic and it lacks independence, so today I can tell the House that we will be reviewing the whole police disciplinary system from beginning to end. This review will be chaired by Major-General Clive Chapman, an experienced, independent and respected former Army officer, and I want it to draw on best practice from the private and public sectors. I have asked Major-General Chapman to look for ways to ensure that the disciplinary system is clearer, more independent and public-focused. I intend to consult publicly on the policies that emerge from the review later this year. In addition to the review, I want to make some specific changes to the police disciplinary system. In particular, I want to hold disciplinary hearings in public to improve transparency and justice, and I will launch a public consultation on these proposals later this year.
In my statement on the Ellison review on 6 March, I said I would return to the House with proposals to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers. Police officers and staff need to know that they can come forward in complete confidence to report wrongdoing by their colleagues, so the Government will create a single national policy for police forces on whistleblowing to replace the current patchwork approach. This will set out the best principles and practices on whistleblowing, and ensure consistency of approach across all forces. Following the publication of HMIC’s integrity inspection, I am prepared to consider putting the whistleblowers’ code on a statutory basis. We will also require forces to publish more information on the number of conduct issues raised by officers and the action taken as a result. From 2015 onwards, the Home Office will collect and publish data about conduct and complaints brought by police officers and police staff about their colleagues, but I still want to go further. In the autumn, I will launch a public consultation on police whistleblowing. The consultation will look at a range of new proposals to protect police whistleblowers. For example, I want to consider how we can introduce sealed investigations—these prevent both the force and suspects from learning that an investigation is taking place—into serious misconduct and corruption by police officers.
I also want to take an in-depth look at the police complaints system. Last year, I announced reforms to the IPCC to ensure that all serious and sensitive cases are dealt with by the IPCC. That included the transfer of resources from the police to the IPCC and measures to ensure that the IPCC has the right capacity to deal with demand. As I told the College of Policing conference in October, this work is on track and the IPCC will begin to take on additional cases this year, but now is the time to build on those reforms. Public satisfaction surveys on the handling of complaints show that satisfaction levels remain consistently low. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, fewer than a quarter of those who complain to the police are satisfied with the outcome of their complaint. The overall number of complaints being handled independently is still far too low. This year, a review undertaken by Deborah Glass, the former deputy chair of the IPCC, found that 94% of cases referred to the IPCC in 2012 were referred back to be dealt with by the police.
Police and crime commissioners are locally developing new and innovative approaches to police complaints. In Thames Valley, Anthony Stansfeld has announced a complaints, integrity and ethics committee to provide scrutiny of how the force handles complaints. In Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd has appointed an independent complaints ombudsman to resolve complaints before they become part of the complaints system. We need the police complaints system to keep up with the changes we have seen in police structures, to reflect the changes made locally by PCCs and chief constables, and to meet public expectations. So today I will launch a review of the entire police complaints system, including the role, powers and funding of the IPCC and the local role played by PCCs. The review will look at the complaints system from end to end, examining the process every step of the way and for all complaints, from the most minor to the most serious. The review will commence immediately and conclude in the autumn this year. It will include a public consultation on proposals for a system that is more independent of the police, easier for the public to follow and more focused on resolving complaints locally, and that has a simpler system of appeals.
The measures I have announced today will ensure that we are able to examine the entire approach to cases of misconduct, improper behaviour and corruption, but in working to ensure the highest standards of police integrity, I want to leave no stone unturned. This year, I commissioned HMIC to carry out a review of anti-corruption capability in police forces. HMIC is also carrying out an inspection of police integrity as part of its planned programme of inspections for 2014-15. In addition, I have agreed with the chief inspector that HMIC’s new programme of annual inspections of all police forces, which will begin later this year, will look at not only a force’s effectiveness and efficiency but its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Every annual inspection will therefore include an examination of whether each force’s officers and staff act with integrity.
Taken together, these measures represent a substantial overhaul of the systems that hold police officers to account. They will build on our radical programme of police reform, and they will help to ensure that police honesty and integrity are protected, and that corruption and misconduct are rooted out. That is what the public and the many thousands of decent, dedicated and hard-working police officers of this country deserve. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for sight of her statement. Our long British tradition of policing by consent depends on our maintaining and ensuring the very highest standards of integrity and professionalism in British policing. The international reputation of our police is high. We know about the bravery and integrity of many officers across the country, but we also know that when policing goes wrong, it can cast a deep shadow over all that excellent work and undermine consent and confidence, too. That is why we have called for much stronger action on standards in policing. Lord Stevens is leading a major independent commission on the future of policing, which recommends radical reform. The reforms include: a new stronger police standards authority, replacing the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, with the power to launch investigations without referral and make sure that lessons are learned; chartered registration for every police officer; the ability to strike officers off the register; high professional and ethical standards against which officers must be measured throughout their career; public misconduct hearings; and a new Police First scheme to bring bright graduates, especially from technology backgrounds, into policing and many further reforms.
Today the Home Secretary has announced not strong reforms but a series of reviews—three reviews and one consultation. Many are welcome as far as they go. We welcome stronger action on whistleblowers, with greater protection for whistleblowers and transparency for the public. We welcome more support for police leadership, although she will be aware that when West Yorkshire tried her existing proposals on direct entry, none of the dozens of people who applied met the right standards. We agree that the complaints procedure and disciplinary system need to be reformed because they are not working, but these reviews just do not go far enough. Why not get on with it and introduce a proper register of chartered police officers? I am glad that she has agreed with our call for public disciplinary hearings, but, again, why not get on with disciplinary reform and hand it over to the College of Policing, giving it the power to hold public hearings and to strike people off? Why waste time on piecemeal reforms of the IPCC and the complaints procedure, when the truth is that they need to be replaced?
We have repeatedly called on the Home Secretary to replace the IPCC. The IPCC is supposed to be able to deal with things that go wrong in policing. It is better than the Police Complaints Authority that it replaced, but it has failed in its remit because it lacks the powers, capacity and credibility it needs. It failed on Ian Tomlinson. It failed on the Stephen Lawrence case and had to apologise to the family as a result. It failed to set out the clear lessons to be learned from a series of death in custody cases, including the Camm case in West Yorkshire. It has failed to deal with the problems from plebgate, and is still failing even to make a decision on whether to investigate what happened at Orgreave more than 12 months after a complaint was raised. How many reviews does she need to tell her that this system is not working? If she answers only one of my questions today, will she explain why she will not just admit that the IPCC is failing and needs to be replaced by a much stronger body?
The one thing that the Home Secretary is not reviewing that she should be is her flagship policing reform of police and crime commissioners. She spent £100 million—enough for several thousand constables—on elections in November, and only 15% of voters turned out. Now she is about to spend nearly £4 million of taxpayers’ money on a by-election in the middle of August. What will the turnout be then? How low will turnouts have to fall before she admits that she got those flagship police reforms wrong?
The Home Secretary also claimed that her other policing reforms were working, but the HMIC has today admitted that neighbourhood policing is now being eroded. Prosecutions and convictions are falling for violent crime, rape, domestic violence and child sex offences—even though all those offences are going up. There were 7,000 more violent crimes last year, but 7,000 fewer people were convicted of violent offences. She is failing to reform the police to deal with new and growing crimes. There has been too little action on online fraud, which is growing exponentially. On online child abuse, the National Crime Agency has details of more than 10,000 suspects, but it has no plans to investigate them all, to arrest them or to bar them from working with children because it admits that it does not have the capacity and systems in place to cope.
In the face of those challenges, what are the Home Secretary’s police reforms? The answer is lots more reviews. I am glad that she is moving in the direction that we called for and we are keen to work with her if she will agree now to go much further, but so far we have standards that are not high enough; enforcement that is not strong enough; police and crime commissioners no one wants to vote for; fewer police on the beat; fewer criminals being caught; and less justice for victims. The Home Secretary’s reviews are too little and too late. We will work with her if she goes further. We need not just reviews but reforms that work.
Mrs May
Yet again, the shadow Home Secretary has given us a completely confused response on Labour’s policy on a whole range of issues. Let me touch on some of the specifics that she mentioned. She asked why we do not have a register of police officers, but I have to say to her that the Labour party was in Government for 13 years, and if it thought that that was so important, why did it not do something about it? It did not even do anything about the police officers who were struck off and who, once they had departed one particular police force, were able to join another. We have introduced the register of struck-off police officers, so, unlike Labour, we are taking action.
The shadow Home Secretary talked about Labour’s proposal to merge the inspectorate of constabulary with the IPCC. I have to say that that would be a profound mistake. The inspectorate under this Government has become more independent of the police and of the Government. It has delivered hard-hitting reports on stop and search, the recording of crime statistics and domestic violence. Later this year, it will publish, for the first time, annual inspection reports of every constabulary in the country so the public can understand how their local police force is performing. Only today we have seen one of the most transparent and fair reports ever published by HMIC, so we should not be taking any risks in abolishing the inspectorate. Of course we do need to look at police complaints and the role of the IPCC, which is why I have just announced a consultation on changing the whole system of police complaints from end to end—from minor complaints to the most serious. It is a sensitive matter, which is why we will consult on it properly and get the policy right rather than jumping to some risky merger of HMIC and the IPCC, as Labour has proposed.
The right hon. Lady also mentioned the matter of the police and crime commissioners and the by-election for the PCC in the west midlands. Labour has been in Opposition for more than four years. There is less than a year to go before the general election, and she cannot even make up her mind about whether or not she supports the idea of police and crime commissioners. On the one hand, she tells us that Labour is happy to have police and crime commissioners, but on the other she says that they were not a very good idea. She really needs to make up her mind as to whether or not Labour supports police and crime commissioners. Somehow, among all this, she seems to be making the point that with the reviews and consultations that I have announced, there is not enough action on police reform. Again, I wish she would make up her mind. Does she or does she not want police reform? I remember the days when she called police cuts and police reform “the perfect storm”. If what she says amounts to a genuine conversion to the ranks of those who believe in police reform, I welcome her belated conversion.
The right hon. Lady also refers to the inspectorate of constabulary’s report. I do not know whether she has read today’s report, but the lesson is perfectly clear: police reform is working and crime is falling. The police are leading the way across the public sector by demonstrating, whatever the Labour party says, that it is possible to do more with less.
Let me quote what the inspector of constabulary says about police cuts:
“Police forces in England and Wales are to be congratulated. The vast majority have risen to and met the considerable challenge of austerity, with plans in place to save over £2.5 billion over the last four years—while protecting the front line as best they can and making sure that the public still receive an effective service.”
Yet again on that issue, as on so many such as police and crime commissioners and police reform, what we hear from the shadow Home Secretary is nothing more than confusion and chaos. She needs to get her story straight about whether she, like me, wants to build on the excellent police that we have in this country and to ensure that we give them the support that they need to carry on doing an effective job of cutting crime day in and day out.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the underlying key to the many welcome and necessary reforms she has announced today is a culture change, symbolised by the individual assent of every police officer to the new code of ethics so that the high standards that the vast majority of police meet day in, day out will be met by every serving officer?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for his observation, and may I also take this opportunity to thank and commend him for the work he did in the Home Office as both Immigration Minister and, latterly, as Policing Minister, while also being a criminal justice Minister. He is absolutely right. The code of ethics from the College of Policing is a very important step forward and it is about exactly what he says: ensuring that the high standards of honesty and integrity that we see from the vast majority of officers apply to every officer.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which is very much in keeping with the recommendations made by the Select Committee over a number of years. Through her, may I welcome the new Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims to his Front-Bench post? The Committee considered the case of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), a 30-second incident that has so far cost £271,000. If her proposed reforms had been in place, would that have meant that that case, for example, would been dealt with in a different way? Does she accept the basic principle that whether a case is serious or minor the police should never be left to investigate matters themselves without proper oversight?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He refers, of course, to a case that involved not just misconduct hearings inside the police but the Crown Prosecution Service considering the potential for charges and criminal investigation. Of course, the changes I have announced would make no difference to any criminal investigations, but if misconduct hearings were to be heard in public, that would make a difference. As for his last point about the importance of ensuring that people can have confidence that complaints and misconduct issues are being dealt with properly, that absolutely underpins the reforms.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Home Secretary is absolutely right to praise the work of the vast majority of police forces, but also right to highlight the need for public confidence and to make sure that the few rogue police officers do not do down all the others. May I press her on one particular point? She said that police officers would not be able to retire in order to avoid misconduct hearings. Will that have any application to the wide number of ongoing historic inquiries? Will retired police officers be required to come and say what they know?
Mrs May
It is important that we do this because one concern that the public had was that they had seen police officers who were under suspicion or potentially subject to misconduct hearings being able to retire or resign and those misconduct hearings were stopped. We have been very clear that in those circumstances, misconduct hearings should continue and if an officer would have been struck off, they should go on the list so that they will not be employed by another force. The measure I have announced is part of ensuring that that can take place. We have also, of course, taken some action on the IPCC’s powers for people to attend interviews. The question of what is said when someone attends an interview is another issue, but we have already taken some steps as regards these historic cases.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Last night, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) had a very thoughtful Adjournment debate, responded to by the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, about a case in Sussex. One of the points the hon. Gentleman made was that the family of a road traffic victim had lost confidence in Sussex police, who were trying to investigate one of their own officers. Does the Home Secretary feel that there is merit in reconsidering whether other police forces should be asked to lead on the investigation when off-duty officers are involved?
Mrs May
I note the hon. Gentleman’s point and I understand that the case considered in last night’s Adjournment debate went before the courts and the individual concerned was found not guilty by the court—[Interruption.] I understand the point he is making about the question of the police investigating the police. One of the issues when the complaints system is considered will be the question of public concern about the police investigating the police. Obviously, the issue to which he refers involved a criminal investigation that was taken before the courts.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
It must be a matter of public policy that any public servant should be allowed to raise concerns about criminal or other wrongdoing in public institutions without feeling that they might be sanctioned or subject to disciplinary proceedings, so may I urge my right hon. Friend to consider putting the whistleblower’s code on a statutory footing not just for the police force but across Government? If it is on a statutory footing, the whole House and the whole of Parliament can come to a view about what we believe should be the effective protections for anyone whistleblowing in the public sector.
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said in my statement, I shall certainly consider putting it on a statutory footing. I recognise his point about the ability of Parliament to consider the issue, but HMIC is carrying out an integrity inspection and I shall consider again the matter of whether whistleblowing should have a statutory basis after it has published its report.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
The major complaints I get in Bolton West are about the slowness of or lack of response from the police, and police officers tell me that the reduction in the number of back-room staff and officers is affecting their ability to respond. What will the Home Secretary do about that?
Mrs May
I suggest that the hon. Lady looks very carefully at the comments that have been made by the inspectorate of constabulary. It is absolutely clear about how police forces up and down the country have been protecting front-line responsibilities and services despite the fact that they have been dealing with cuts.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her indication that police reform will continue and is unfinished business. Is it not the case that the series of extremely problematic incidents that have confronted the British police over the past few years reveal that there are issues of culture and leadership that must now be addressed, and that that is an important role both of the College of Policing, which needs a higher profile, and of the direct-entry reforms that she is proposing?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. May I say how important his thoughtful contribution on police reform, which he developed in opposition and then brought into government as Policing Minister, was in ensuring that we set off on this process of police reform and made some of the major changes that have made a difference? There is an issue with culture and leadership and the College of Policing will take up the question of leadership in the work it is now doing. The college is establishing itself and I think it is doing an excellent job. We should all be out there reminding people of the important role this new body is playing.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) rightly drew attention to the chief inspector of constabulary’s comments about seeing evidence of the erosion of neighbourhood policing. How does the Home Secretary think that the reviews and consultation she has announced might reverse the loss of 100-plus officers in Harrow since she entered the Home Office?
Mrs May
Yet again, I refer to my quotation from the inspectorate of constabulary’s report. It is very clear about the work that has been done by forces up and down the country to protect front-line services that are being provided to the public. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Metropolitan police are in the business of recruiting more officers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I think that the police are doing a fantastic job. Crime is down 10% and 40 of the 43 police forces have been outstanding in how they have managed their budgetary constraints. I declare my interest as a special constable with the British Transport police. All British Transport police officers on the London underground are constantly monitored by CCTV on all platforms, and they know that if they do something wrong it will be recorded. May I encourage the Home Secretary to encourage those forces that are above ground to give every police officer a camera on their police vest? That can minimise the number of complaints that are made and provide perfect evidence to correct any anomalies.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point and I thank him for his work as a special constable with the BTP. Let me also record the fact that alongside police officers and staff, police community support officers and specials have also contributed to the fall in crime that has taken place across the country.
Body-worn video cameras are very important to ensure that evidence is collected properly. In certain circumstances, such as domestic violence, that can be particularly important. They are also important for the police officer because they can protect them when complaints are made about their behaviour.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Many of my constituents will welcome the Home Secretary’s recognition of the reports of misuse of the stop-and-search powers. She will know that in London, fewer than one in five stops results in an arrest and many fewer than that go on to a successful prosecution. May I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) about the importance of cameras worn on uniforms? The pilot in London is proving successful. Will she roll it out across the rest of the country?
Mrs May
The pilot in London is proving successful, as have pilots elsewhere. Other forces such as Hampshire have already looked at the option of body-worn video cameras. As a Government, we certainly think that to introduce them would be a good move. It is an operational decision for chief constables to take, but I am pleased to say that a number of bids to the new police innovation fund have been precisely about new technology such as body-worn video cameras.
I commend the Met for looking at how it conducts stops and searches. It has changed its practice to make it more targeted and focused, and results have been better following that. It has signed up to the voluntary code that the Government have introduced, as have other forces.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has been immensely brave in addressing the culture change that is required to restore public confidence in the police. I wonder whether, as part of her review, she could look at something that politicians heretofore have been rather nervous about touching, which is the relationship between the press and the police. Too often, unauthorised contacts, in transactions for cash or not, have meant that people have been tried by the public before they are brought before the courts, even if they are not brought before the courts. It is an important matter that should be looked at in detail.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Given some of the instances that we have seen of reporting in the press, I recognise the comment that he makes. We have made a number of moves on this already. Some came out of the Leveson inquiry, but I had already looked at this issue, in particular better accountability within police forces for the relationships that officers have with the media. I am pleased to say that forces have adopted new guidance for their officers on when it is appropriate for them to deal with the media and when it is not.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Most police officers have the highest integrity, but there are a few crooks within the police force. When someone complains about a police force in which they have completely lost faith, and the complaint is taken up by the IPCC, they are surprised that the complaint is referred back to the same force. I welcome the Home Secretary’s review, but it is an important issue that has to be tackled.
Mrs May
I recognise that point. Many members of the public, whether they have made a complaint or not, are concerned about the fact that so much is referred back to the force that the complaint has been made against. We have already started the transfer of serious and sensitive cases from a force to the IPCC and have moved resources to the IPCC for that. The first cases will be heard by the IPCC this year. The review of complaints from end to end will also look at other types of complaints to ensure that at every stage the public can genuinely have confidence that a complaint against the police is taken seriously.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
The Home Secretary has said that the measures represent a substantial overhaul of systems that hold police officers to account. Does she agree that the processes that will be used to implement the changes must not create a culture in which all police officers feel that they have been in dereliction of their duty, since so many of them work to the highest standards?
Mrs May
I agree with my hon. Friend. This is always one of the difficulties in talking about this subject. As I said in my statement, and have repeated, the vast majority of police officers work with honesty and integrity, doing the best job that they can day in, day out, but sadly some do not operate with that same honesty and integrity, and of course their bad name tends to taint the names of other officers. We cannot repeat often enough that the vast majority of officers do their job with honesty and integrity. I hope that the code of ethics that the College of Policing is introducing will ensure that high standards of ethics are observed by every police officer.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am wowed by the Home Secretary’s statement. The potential is huge for real police reform over the coming months and years. It is good news for honest police officers and for the public. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing complainants and defendants to record interviews or statements given in police stations so that they can take away their own record of their dialogue with the police, not just rely on the police record?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman has established a first. The Clerk Assistant tells me he has never seen the word “wowed” appear in Hansard in that context. It is good to know what the hon. Gentleman looks and sounds like when he is wowed.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Superintendents have huge responsibilities—professional responsibilities, and a requirement to lead. Direct entrants, who are possible future superintendents, will require quite a long period of training. How long might that training period be?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for training. We have been clear that direct entrants need to have a period of training. The College of Policing has developed such training, which lasts 18 months. I am pleased to see that one of the side benefits of direct entry is that the training of direct entrants will be looked at in conjunction with that of officers who are promoted to superintendent levels through the police force. This is welcomed by the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am glad that the Home Secretary is tackling the issue of complaints, and I welcome the consultation. I do not want her to prejudge the consultation, but how difficult will it be to get the police complaints system to take on board imaginative schemes such as that of Anthony Stansfeld?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises an interesting aspect. I hope that, by saying that we intend to look at the complaints system from end to end, we will inspire people to think innovatively and creatively. He mentions the work of the police and crime commissioner that he and I share—we both have constituencies in Thames Valley. I also mentioned Tony Lloyd’s work in Greater Manchester. Other PCCs have been looking at what they should do in relation to complaints. This is an opportunity to ensure that we have a system across the country in which people can have confidence, not a piecemeal system.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
May I encourage my right hon. Friend to do as much as she can to inject independence into complaints management much earlier in the process? Professional standards units in police forces have a conflict of interest. They need to protect their own as well as to investigate complaints. Does she agree that PCCs now provide an opportunity to inject that independence much earlier in the process?
Mrs May
Yes. I will certainly reflect on the timing issue that my hon. Friend has raised. It is important. It is all part of the process of ensuring that there is a complaints systems that people feel operates properly and effectively and in which they can have confidence. We want people to know that if they have a genuine complaint about the police, it will be dealt with seriously and something will be done about it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Although I recognise and understand the value of opening up the recruitment process for senior ranks to outsiders, does my right hon. Friend agree that this should add value to the police, rather than diminish and denude the ability of officers to rise from the ranks to the most senior positions and use the value of the experience they have gained for the benefit of the whole country?
Mrs May
Yes, absolutely, and we want to see a mix of people at those superintending ranks, both people who have come in directly and people who have come through the force and are able to use their experience in the force. I think this reform is important in opening up the police to different experiences, to different skill sets and to different expertise, and I think that greater diversity of expertise in policing will be of benefit to policing.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
One of the biggest challenges that our police forces face is cybercrime, which will mean that we need some police officers with a skill set totally different from that required in the past. How will the Home Secretary’s reforms, such as direct entry, help our police to meet the challenges posed by these new forms of crime?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a good point, because of course, with direct entry, it will be possible for people who have very particular areas of expertise to come into policing. However, we are also doing some other things to tackle cybercrime. The new national cybercrime unit, which has been set up in the National Crime Agency, is an important part of this process, and the National Crime Agency is looking at some innovative thinking of what I might call professional specialists, in the sense of specials who have a very particular area of expertise, such as in forensic accounting or in cyber, who potentially could be attached to the NCA and could be an extra-valuable resource for them.
Points of Order
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some advice. I have a constituent who applied for a passport eight weeks ago and is travelling on Monday. My office tried to contact the Home Office’s hotline. My staff got through but were told that because of data protection the hotline staff could not discuss the case. I rang back, and they certainly spoke to me, and they then told me that yes, the application is in the Liverpool office and has not been looked at. But this is only a replacement passport, not a new one. My constituents tried to get an appointment to be fast-tracked; they were willing to drive to Liverpool for it. There are no appointments available. My constituents want me to find out what action I can take, Sir, to sort this out.
Mr Speaker
I do not think the timing of the raising of this point of order is accidental. Sadly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I myself can provide him no salvation, but it may be that help is at hand. Home Secretary.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. If my hon. Friend passes the details of that constituent to either myself or the immigration Minister, we will ensure that the issue is taken up. Of course, as I indicated to the House in June when I made a statement about the Passport Office, we have opened up the possibility of a free upgrade for individuals whose passport has been waiting more than three weeks and who have an urgent need to travel, so we will take that case up.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Many Members across the House may have experienced what I have experienced, certainly in my constituency office, which is an increase in the number of cases of people being concerned about passport delays and struggling to get their passports in time. Would the Home Secretary agree to publish weekly figures about the detail of the backlog in the passport agency, so that we can tell whether her reforms are actually working?
Mr Speaker
The natural spirit of last-day generosity has been very fully exploited by the shadow Home Secretary. That is not a matter for the Chair. However, the point has been made with some force and it is open to the Home Secretary to respond if she wishes.
Mr Speaker
But I think we will have to leave it there on that matter for now.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers had, by this morning, still not confirmed that this House would be able to scrutinise the British nominee to the next European Commission, the noble Lord Hill, before the European Parliament does so in September. That would be an EU reform that the Prime Minister would not need any other country to agree to. I wondered whether you had had any confirmation of such a process being allowed in future?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman both for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. The hon. Gentleman will know well that the matter of pre-appointment hearings for ministerial nominees to various public offices is what I think I can best describe as a developing area of parliamentary scrutiny. There have been many exchanges between the Liaison Committee and the Government on this matter. No doubt those exchanges will continue, but it is not a matter for the Chair in the House; nor am I in a position to offer the hon. Gentleman any information beyond that which he already possesses.
That said, if the hon. Gentleman happens to have some spare time and would care to read my Michael Ryle memorial lecture, which now features on the parliamentary website and which I delivered, if memory serves me correctly, at the end of June in Speaker’s House, he might find it a satisfying read. What is for sure is that he will find that I do myself have some views on that matter. We will leave it there for now.
If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion.
Child Benefit Entitlement (Disqualification of Non-UK EU Nationals)
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to disqualify non-UK citizens from the European Union from entitlement to child benefit; and for connected purposes.
Mr Speaker, may I first thank you for giving me permission to move the motion? The purpose of the Bill, were it granted by the House, would be to end the absurd anomaly whereby any EU national can come to this country to work, leaving their children behind in their country of origin, and then British taxpayers pay child benefit to those children. I think that is wrong, the Prime Minister thinks it is wrong, most of the people in this country think it is wrong, and this Bill would put that wrong right.
What is child benefit? It is a universal non-taxable cash payment for families with children. It is currently worth £20.50 a week for the eldest eligible child and £13.55 for each subsequent child. As of August 2013, 7.6 million families receive child benefit for over 13 million children and qualifying young people. Expenditure in 2013-14 on child benefit totalled £11.5 billion. Families with children may also receive means-tested support through child tax credit, and approximately 4.1 million families are receiving child tax credit for around 7.8 million children and young people.
Child benefit has been said to perform a number of different functions, and different functions are emphasised at different points in time, but one of the main features of child benefit is that it provides a contribution from society as a whole to the next generation. Indeed, in August 2006 the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted the intergenerational redistributive effects of child benefit. It said:
“Since everyone—childless people, as well as those with children—will benefit in due course from the productivity of children being brought up now, society”
as a whole
“should share the cost of bringing up those children with their parents, as an investment by us all in the next generation.”
Well, that only applies if the children concerned are actually resident in, and growing up in, and will make a future contribution to, this country. Where those children are resident abroad and will not be in this country, that effect does not apply.
Domestic legislation already provides that both child benefit and child tax credit cannot normally be paid in respect of children resident abroad. That is what this House, this Parliament, has legislated for. However, under provisions in EU law on social security co-ordination within the European economic area as a whole, both child benefit and child tax credit may be payable to EEA migrants in the UK in respect of their dependent children resident in another member state. The provisions relating to payment of family benefits for children resident in another member state are in EC regulation 883/2004.
As a result of this perfect example of EU regulations superseding British law, as of 31 December 2013, 20,400 awards of UK child benefit, covering 34,268 children, were made in respect of children living in other EEA states. That equates to around 0.3% of all child benefit awards. Although not a large number, I think most people in this country would regard this as wrong.
At the end of December 2012, there were 4,011 child tax credit awards under EC regulation 883/2004 in respect of 6,838 children. The majority of families benefiting from child benefit with children resident abroad were in Poland—13,175 Polish families with 22,093 children; in second place, with 2,505 children, was the Republic of Ireland; in third place, with 1,712, was Lithuania; in fourth place, with 1,429, was France; in fifth place, with 1,091, was Latvia; and in sixth place, with 1,019, was Spain. Thirty-one countries within the EEA are eligible and a total of 34,268 living overseas are receiving child benefit from UK taxpayers.
Under the key provision, EC regulation 883/2004, an EEA migrant in the UK who is covered by the UK social security system can claim either or both child benefit and child tax credit for their dependent children, even if the children are not resident in the UK. Where the family benefits are payable by the state that has primary responsibility, if those benefits in that country are less than the family would get in the country where the working member of the family is working, the latter country has to pay a supplement to make up the difference. The benefit the Polish families are entitled to in this country is more than they would have got in Poland, so British taxpayers are supplementing the Polish child benefit to which they would be entitled. My constituents, and I would suggest the vast majority in this country regard that as simply absurd.
It is difficult to determine the cost of all this. The reason, given by Her Majesty’s Government in a written answer from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is that
“Information about the value of such awards is only available at disproportionate costs because under the priority rules”—
which I have just described—
“in that regulation not all awards of UK family benefit are made at the full UK rates.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 615W.]
But some sections of the media have claimed that spending on child benefit for children resident in other countries now amounts to about £30 million a year.
How do we change this? One way is through this Bill. The other, as stated in a written answer in November 2010, is that amendments would have to be made to the EC regulation, which would require
“a proposal by the European Commission and…co-decision with the European Parliament and the Council.””—[Official Report, 28 January 2013; Vol. 519, c. 444W.]
I pray in aid of my quest the support of not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Prime Minister himself. I understand that Her Majesty’s Opposition also regard the situation as absurd. In The Daily Telegraph in April 2013, the Chancellor said:
“The truth is we are absolutely wrestling with that issue at the moment and trying to find a way that is legal to make sure that benefits do not go to the continent of Europe. The European Union rules are pretty tough…but we are looking at all sorts of ways to make sure that British taxpayers pay for benefits that are paid in this country rather than abroad.”
In January, on “The Andrew Marr Show” the Prime Minister said:
“I…think it’s wrong that someone from Poland who comes here…we should be paying child benefit to their family back at home in Poland.”
He said that we should not be doing that. Yet, in response to that comment, the Polish Foreign Minister said:
“If Britain gets our taxpayers, shouldn’t it also pay their benefits? Why should Polish taxpayers subsidise British taxpayers’ children?”
Describing children living in Poland as British taxpayers’ children just underlines the absurdity of the whole position.
Let me make it clear to the House: I am not in favour of Britain’s membership of the European Union. I believe we would be better off out as a nation if we controlled once again our tax and fiscal regimes, our work and benefits system, and ultimately our borders. There are now almost 2.5 million EU nationals living in this country, about half of whom have come from the new entrant eastern European countries. I hope that my Bill will play a small role in ultimately securing the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Philip Hollobone, Gordon Henderson, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Martin Vickers, Mr Peter Bone, Nigel Mills, Jim Shannon and John Baron present the Bill.
Mr Philip Hollobone accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March; and to be printed (Bill 83).
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The former Leader of the House assured me and others, I believe on more than one occasion, that we would have a statement before the House rose for the summer recess on the aftermath of the flooding earlier this year. That is not forthcoming, and with a new Secretary of State I understand perfectly well why that may be the case, but would it be appropriate for the Secretary of State to write to Members affected by the flooding giving an update, and to put a copy in the Library, so that Members are informed over the recess about what has happened?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman has very considerable experience—including on the Front Bench—of how matters are timetabled to appear on the Order Paper and before the House. I know he is well aware that that is not a point of order for the Chair and that I have no control whatsoever over the Secretary of State, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point and I am sure that it will be heard by those on the Treasury Bench and conveyed to where he really wishes it to be sent.
Electronic Communications
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That the draft Data Retention Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.
The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which passed into law last week, was a necessary response to a European Court of Justice judgment that called into question the legal basis on which we require communications service providers in the UK to retain communications data. The judgment was handed down in April this year, not August as the explanatory memorandum accompanying the regulations incorrectly states—an administrative error for which I apologise to the House.
Communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication, but not its content—are crucial for fighting crime, protecting children and combating terrorism. Indeed, Members will have seen the recent reporting on the National Crime Agency’s child abuse investigation, which led to more than 600 arrests and the protection of more than 400 children. The NCA has confirmed that much of the operation would have been impossible without access to communications data. Where an investigation starts with an internet communication, as in online child sexual exploitation cases, for example, communications data will often be the only investigative lead. The loss of such data would have been potentially devastating and would have impacted seriously on the ability of the police, law enforcement agencies and security and intelligence agencies to investigate crime, uncover terrorist links, protect children, solve kidnappings and find vulnerable people in danger. I am therefore extremely grateful for the support shown in both Houses for the passage of the Act. I put on the record my thanks to right hon. and hon. Members—and in particular to the Opposition—for the constructive way in which they engaged in the debates.
However, as was made clear last week, secondary legislation is required to cover the detail of the operation of the data retention regime and to ensure that the appropriate processes and safeguards can be applied to the retention of such data. That approach mirrors the existing position, in which the detailed data retention regime is set out in secondary legislation. That has worked well for a number of years. It is to those regulations that our attention must now turn.
Members will be aware that a provisional draft of the regulations was published before the legislation was introduced. The regulations before the House today are substantially the same as those which have been available for scrutiny and examination. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for considering and reporting on them. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), the Chairman of that Committee, for arranging an exceptional meeting to consider the regulations.
Before turning to the content of the regulations, let me deal with the discussion that took place during the passage of the Act about the speed at which the legislation was being passed. Without revisiting those debates today, I will briefly explain why we consider it necessary for the regulations to be passed before the summer recess.
To ensure a strong legal basis for continued retention by service providers, we need to get the regulations in place before the House rises. The regulations ensure that the data to be retained are subject to appropriate safeguards, and the communications service providers concerned will welcome the certainty that the regulations bring.
The Act gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a data retention notice to a communications service provider, if he or she considers the retention to be necessary and proportionate. The regulations made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 revoke and replace the 2009 data retention regulations. In large part the regulations replicate the obligations placed on providers under the 2009 regulations. In particular, they set out the types of data that can be retained. As was made clear during the debates on the Act, the list goes no further than the existing regulations. Crucially, the regulations set out the nature of the controls that must be placed on the data, both to ensure that they are adequately protected while they are being retained and to ensure that they are appropriately deleted at the end of that period.
The regulations also ensure that service providers are not penalised financially as a result of complying with a notice or the regulations. That is in line with previous practice and is a fair way of ensuring that the data are retained effectively and that there is no distortion of the communications market, given that obligations may be placed selectively. The regulations contain transitional provisions for the continued effectiveness of a notice under the 2009 regulations, until a new notice is given under the new regulations. We will work closely with providers in the coming months as they make the transition to the new regime.
As I highlighted to the House, the regulations contain additional safeguards. They differ from the 2009 regulations only in the context of those additional safeguards. They provide for data to be retained for a maximum of 12 months and allow the notice to specify that different types of data may be retained for shorter periods, where appropriate. If it is not proportionate to retain certain data for a full 12 months, a lower period can be chosen. The 2009 regulations provided for a blanket 12 months, although the directive on which they were based allowed for periods between six and 24 months.
The regulations also provide for a number of issues which must be considered before a retention notice is issued. I wish to assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I take our responsibilities seriously, scrutinising in detail any case for imposing a data retention notice to ensure that it is necessary and proportionate. It is with equal care and attention that we will approach our obligation to keep such notices under review.
The Home Office has always worked closely with communications service providers prior to serving a data retention notice, and the regulations enshrine this existing best practice in law by requiring the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to consult the provider affected. As I have previously explained, the regulations will ensure that the data are subject to appropriate safeguards and controls. Those who followed the scrutiny of the draft Communications Data Bill, including some Members in the House this afternoon, will be aware that there was some uncertainty as to the extent to which the Information Commissioner would oversee the integrity and deletion of retained data, as well as their security. The regulations therefore clarify that the Information Commissioner will oversee all elements of the protection and security of the data. We have discussed this with the commissioner and will provide him with the necessary additional resources to carry out this vital role.
Finally, the regulations amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to enable the creation of a data retention code of practice. That will allow us to provide further guidance to communications service providers on how to implement their obligations under a mandatory data retention notice and the regulations.
The House may wonder why certain other changes that we agreed to make are not given effect in the regulations. Separately, we will also update the data acquisition code of practice under RIPA to make it clearer that the officer authorising access to the data should be independent of the operation, and to ensure that consideration is given to the level of intrusion where there may be concerns relating to professions that handle privileged information. I know that that has been of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The House will have the opportunity in due course to review and comment on both draft codes of practice. In addition, we have announced that a number of public authorities will lose their access to communications data under RIPA and we will bring forward secondary legislation in the autumn in this regard. Hon. Members who followed the discussions about the draft Communications Data Bill will be aware that communications service providers are also able to retain communications data on a voluntary basis under a code of practice made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The regulations apply the same security safeguards and access restrictions to data retained under that code.
As right hon. and hon. Members know, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act will be repealed on 31 December 2016. Any notices made under the Act and the regulations will similarly fall away. The Government have begun the process of a wider review of investigatory powers and it is right that there should be a full and proper debate on the threats, capabilities and, of course, safeguards that govern the use of such powers. I am sure the House will agree that that should include a wider public debate on the issues.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I am sure the Minister will agree that for that public debate and a review to take place, we need good statistics and information. One of the few things that seems to be missing from the previous regulations and the new ones is a section about statistics. Will he confirm that there will be the same or stronger requirements on public communications providers to keep good statistics on such data and how they are used? How will those will be provided to the Government, who will then publish them?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this aspect. As he knows, in the debates last week we underlined the need for greater transparency and reporting of information about the use of the powers under the Act. I can assure him that we will take that forward. He will be aware, too, of the requirement on the interception of communications commissioner to report on a six-monthly basis—I know that was of concern—to assure the House and the public about the use of the powers under the new Act. Therefore, I expect that providers of information and communications service providers retaining that information would provide data to facilitate transparency and to ensure that the public are informed about the use of the powers under the Act.
As has been made absolutely clear over the past week, this legislation merely preserves the status quo. The Act passed last week and the regulations before the House today do not extend or create any new powers or obligations on communications companies that go beyond those that already exist; they simply ensure that the communications data that have been retained by the communications service providers will continue to be available to ensure that the police, the law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies have the capabilities they need to protect the public and keep us safe. I commend the regulations to the House.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I very much support the process that the Government have brought forward today. The Opposition will support the regulations before the House this afternoon. As the Minister has said, they are made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which we debated last Tuesday, although it seems a long time ago. It was certainly an interesting debate.
The Minister has outlined clearly why the regulations are needed. Last week we supported him in taking the Act through the House, because we recognise, as he does, that retaining records and data is vital in fighting crime, whether tackling serious organised crime, dealing with child abuse or helping to prevent terrorism. We also welcome the safeguards we discussed last week in relation to access to those data. As he explained, the regulations put in place broadly what is already in place, and they therefore have our support.
In offering our support, I wish to raise two issues that the Minister might like to respond to in any winding-up speech he cares to make. First, there was limited consultation on the regulations. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the 2009 regulations had a 12-week public consultation. Due to the pressing nature of the legislation we passed last week, the regulations before us had nothing that could be called a full consultation. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the six-monthly review by the Information Commissioner of how the legislation is working will include the regulations so that providers and other individuals have an opportunity to put on the record any concerns they have about their operation and so that those concerns can be examined?
James Brokenshire
The interception of communications commissioner is required to make a six-monthly review, and my expectation is that that would certainly cover the use of those powers. We need to consider the interrelationship with the Information Commissioner, because it is a separate regulator that looks at the retention of those data. Obviously, we will consider any interrelationship and any discussions that might need to take place between the two regulators to give an assurance to the public about the use of those data.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. My main point is that the legislation’s sunset clause means that it will cease to have effect in December 2016. The regulations are being made by the House today, but I want to ensure that they are examined on a regular basis, given that there was no proper consultation because the Act had to be rushed through last week.
Secondly—I raised this matter privately with the Minister’s office earlier today—the initial regulations specified 8 August 2014 as the date on which the European Court of Justice declared the data retention direction 2006/24/EC invalid. The date was in fact 8 April. I just want to be clear that the Minister has relayed that matter to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments so that there is no doubt about what we are discussing today and the way it has been framed.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for contacting my office earlier today to highlight that point, to which he will have heard me make specific reference in my opening remarks. A further draft of the explanatory memorandum is certainly in the process of being relayed, if that has not already been done, as he rightly indicated. We are clear that that has no bearing on this afternoon’s debate.
Mr Hanson
I just thought that it was worth placing that on the record, as I would not wish there to be any confusion, given the nature of the debate we are having today.
I am happy to support the regulations, given the potential for review and the safeguards we have put in place with regard to the Act. I look forward to formal reviews, as secured by the legislation. Given the assurances the Minister has given today, he will have our support for the regulations.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I will speak to the regulations only briefly. I think that there are a couple of points worth making. It is interesting to compare the debate we are having now with the one in 2009. Back then, no time at all was given to discuss the regulations, which were moved without debate by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). Some Members who have expressed concern about these regulations voted in favour of the previous ones, even though they covered rather more. There was a debate in a Committee that lasted for 62 minutes, and it is very interesting to see how roles have changed. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who was then the Minister, said that they did not go far enough and that we needed to collect much more information from communications providers—he mentioned Facebook, but we can date the debate by his references to Bebo and Myspace as the other key providers. He was essentially calling for the Communications Data Bill—the snooper’s charter—that part of the Government, or at least the Home Secretary, wanted to see.
In 2009 there was also a very nice speech from the hon. Gentleman who is currently the Minister. He took a very strong stance that RIPA should be used only to combat serious crime and for the protection of national security. I do not know whether he has told the Home Secretary that that is the Conservative position, because it seems to have changed somewhat—we have moved on very slightly. We also heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) saying, “Yes, communications data are important, but we need some more safeguards.” In fact, the safeguards he itemised have largely been delivered in these new regulations, so I am glad that we have made progress.
There is concern, as expressed in the debate we had last week and by the public, about the idea that more information could be collected. For example, there is a concern that this could open the door to the collection of web logs and many other elements. It is worth having a look at the schedule to these regulations, which lists all the things that can be collected, and comparing it with the previous regulations. They are exactly the same—not a single word in the current regulations was not in the regulations introduced five years ago. On that basis, it is fairly clear that there are no new powers and that no new information—web logs, for example—can be collected.
However, there have been a number of other changes. The Minister highlighted the fact that we have taken the opportunity to move from saying that all data must be collected for 12 months to saying that it must be collected for up to 12 months. I very much welcome that, because I think that there are a lot of data that can be of great use the next day, the next week or perhaps the next month, but which are not needed for the full 12 months. We also have—I do not think that the Minister referred to this—a higher standard of data integrity and security required. The wording has been changed from requiring data to be stored in a way that is as good as it had been stored to requiring the best that is available, so the requirement for data integrity and security is actually tighter. Of course, the Secretary of State is required to keep that under review.
The one thing that there is not enough of—this is why I am pressing the Minister—is the idea of transparency. I want him to ensure throughout that as much information as possible is available. He and I have discussed how long the data can be kept for and how much of it is used in the 11th month available and so forth. That information must be available for all usages throughout the year so that we can make the right decisions. Wherever we draw the line, there will be some information on the other side of it. We want to make an informed and rational decision. I hope that he will ensure that all the notices make sure that those data are collected, as the interception of communications commissioner has also called for.
These regulations represent a step forward from the previous regulations. They collect no new information, but they tighten it very slightly. I hope that the House will pass them so that we can continue to collect the data that protect our security, with that slight extra tweak on civil liberties.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I would like to vote against these regulations but will not, because I do not wish to eat into the time for the summer recess debate, which I also want to participate in—there is self-interest in that as well. I just want to raise again the issue of professional secrecy. The Minister said in his introduction that that would be dealt with. In last week’s debate, it was to be dealt with in codes of practice and guidance, but now it will be built into the decision-making process. The concerns raised relate to the legal profession and to journalism. I would welcome the opportunity, as secretary of the all-party group on the National Union of Journalists, to meet the relevant officials to talk through how the protections will be implemented and what advice they might be able to give to ensure that there is no incursion on the rights of journalists to report accurately and truthfully.
I see that, in paragraph 6.1 of the explanatory memorandum, the Minister has signed off the usual caveat:
“In my view the provisions of the Data Retention Regulations 2014 are compatible with the Convention rights.”
Bearing in mind that a similar statement was struck down last time in relation to the directive, will he take the exceptional step of publishing the legal opinion on which he based his judgment? I have a sneaking suspicion that this one might be challenged as well.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful for the support for the regulations offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) flagged up last week during our debates on the Act. He has highlighted issues relating to different categories of what I might describe as either protected or special groups of individuals in relation to the powers under RIPA. It would be the intent to obtain data from a communications data provider that would principally be at issue in such a context, and that would appear to fit within the code of practice relating to acquisition and disclosure. We therefore intend to bring forward amendments to that code as part of the arrangements. However, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has flagged up those issues, and I will perhaps write to him—
James Brokenshire
Equally, I will see whether it is possible to facilitate a meeting with my officials so that they can hear more directly any concerns that might be raised.
I can tell the right hon. Member for Delyn that the interception of communications commissioner will look at the operation of the new legislation, which includes the regulations made under it, as part of his six-monthly review. I hope that that clarifies that point and gives him further assurance.
I also want to make it clear that I stand by the statement in the explanatory memorandum about compliance with the European convention on human rights. That is the purpose behind the Act and the regulations, reflecting the judgment. That is why we have made these changes to secure the legal base—
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman asks about the legal advice. He will know that it is not the practice of the Government to share or publish our legal advice, but I stand by the statement that has been made. I welcome the support of the House this afternoon, and the regulations will come into effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Data Retention Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.
Backbench Business
Summer Adjournment
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, I wish to raise a number of points. The first relates to the reshuffle. Some colleagues were pleased; some were disappointed. No one has asked me for my advice, but I can tell my colleagues that, having waited 31 years for preferment, I am still optimistic. My advice to colleagues who are still ambitious is if you keep your head down and serve your time, you will eventually gain preferment.
I was unable to support either of the teams playing in the final of the World cup, but I am very concerned about the performance of the English football team. They badly let us down. In 1966, it was my home team, West Ham, that provided Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters. They led the team and scored all four goals. All those players were home grown. Nowadays, the premier league is an absolute disgrace. Our footballers are paid far too much money, and they underperform. I advise everyone to boycott premier league matches, although not those of the other leagues. The rest of our football teams are fantastic, but we will never win the World cup again if we continue to have all these overseas players.
My next point relates to a scurrilous article about working-class Conservatives. I wish to advise the House that no one in the Conservative party asked me to produce a booklet on that subject; it was done entirely on my own initiative. I was not embarrassed by the fact that the first pamphlet mentioned 14 Members, but I have now been overwhelmed by colleagues who tell me that they are working class. In fact, I am now producing a hardback edition of the publication, so it would appear that these Benches are awash with working-class Conservatives.
I also want to mention banks. This House has spent a great deal of time talking about how the banks are letting us down, but nothing has changed. The worst of them all is probably Barclays bank, whose customer service is an absolute disgrace. I wish there was a little more resolve among colleagues to do something about the banking sector.
Over the weekend, the lift in a residential care home in my constituency broke down. The lifts there are run by Otis elevators—the same people who run the lifts in No. 1 Parliament street. The care home had 24-hour insurance cover, but it took three days for the lift service to be restored. That was an absolute disgrace.
I have long been unhappy with the management of the probation service in Essex, so I was delighted when the Government I support—well, I support the Conservative part, at least—said that that probation service was going to be reorganised. To my horror, however, I have found out that the management of which I was so critical still seem to be involved in the service. I want to know how the management of the Essex Community Rehabilitation Company was appointed, what they are being paid and how many people were interviewed for the jobs.
Along with many other colleagues, I attended events that were part of Royal Mail’s dog awareness week. Those events were designed to raise awareness of the dangers of dogs attacking postmen and postwomen when they are delivering letters. Those people do a fantastic job, and we should be much more appreciative of them. I am particularly pleased that Royal Mail is producing a special stamp relating to Southend being the alternative city of culture in 2017.
There is too much variation in diabetes treatment across the UK. Recent evidence shows continuing variation in the prescribing of diabetes medicines across the country, and immediate action is needed to ensure that diabetes patients can access the full range of treatments and essential care processes.
I have long been critical of the South Essex Partnership Trust. Day in and day out, week in and week out, I hear parents and other relatives of loved ones expressing their concern that those with mental health problems are not getting the support that they deserve. Recently, I have had contact with a family whose son, a troubled young man who has displayed homicidal thoughts, attempted suicide twice in one week. He was allowed to walk free by SEPT, which put him and his family in a very vulnerable position. As usual, SEPT got away with issuing a quick questionnaire and prescribing sedative medication. I want to continue to work with the Minister of State who is responsible for care and support to ensure that SEPT is inspected as soon as possible and that the management team is replaced.
I am delighted that Southend hospital is working in partnership with the wonderful Macmillan organisation. A new support centre has been installed at the hospital, and in the first month it has already helped to support 100 cancer patients on their challenging journey.
I am concerned about the cancer drugs fund. Takeda UK has recently brought to my attention that the fund, which has been extended to March 2016, is not guaranteed to continue after that date. I hope that all parliamentarians will do all they can to ensure that the wonderful support for the fund continues.
Arthritis affects 10 million people in this country. I have recently met representatives of a number of arthritis-related charities. The British Society for Rheumatology is campaigning for the Government to create greater public awareness of the problem when people go to see their general practitioner.
Physiotherapy is an important profession in the United Kingdom. I recently attended a reception on the Terrace organised by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. The total cost of adult social care in the UK in 2012-13 was £19 billion. Physiotherapy could do a great deal to reduce those costs.
I happen to have had the honour of being the chairman of the all-party group on the Philippines. That country had the biggest economic growth in the region, in 2013, but it is currently under threat from the South China sea problem. A great part of it is now being claimed by China on the basis of an imaginary nine-dash line. China has asserted indisputable sovereignty over those waters, to the exclusion of the Philippines and Vietnam, among others, so I very much hope the Government will do all they can to help the wonderful Philippine nation.
The issue of Cyprus has been raised in this House many times. Cyprus has proved time and again that it is a reliable and predictable regional partner to the United Kingdom. I welcome the fact that negotiations on the island have resumed under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General. A just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem will allow Cyprus to fully utilise its role in the region.
It is about time that we recognised that the UK needs a national cemetery. Some 94% of the population believes that a national cemetery should be set up to honour UK veterans and those who serve in the armed forces. I hope that colleagues will get behind that particular proposal.
Something is certainly happening regarding the dredging of the River Thames. A local branch of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has been waiting to schedule a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for nearly three months. By the time this debate has finished, I expect a clear date for that meeting.
I am honoured to have a number of magnificent schools in the area I represent. Westcliff high school for girls is the second best school in the whole country, but between 2012 and 2017 it is having to make an effective reduction of 16% in its budget, and that is before it makes any pay increases to reward its highly skilled staff. Similarly, Southend high school for boys is coping with a 10% drop in available income at the moment, so I hope the Department for Education will do something to support those wonderful schools.
Southend is in the current Guinness book of world records, having gathered together the greatest number of centenarians ever. Sadly, I have to report to the House that that record has just been broken by the United States of America, which has gathered together 31 centenarians. I am pleased to say that on 5 October at Nazareth house we will attempt to break the world record again. If any colleagues have centenarians in their constituencies, please send them along.
This Saturday, 26 July, Rossi Ice Cream, in partnership with Cancer Research UK, will attempt to break the world record for the longest chain of people licking ice cream. I invite all colleagues to join us at Garon park to lick Rossi ice cream.
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the other deputies a wonderful summer, and I thank all the staff of the House of Commons for the marvellous support they have provided for us over the past year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I am sure that the whole House echoes the hon. Gentleman’s kind words to the staff of the House.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the summer Adjournment debate. I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), a fellow West Ham United supporter. I have to report to him that an unkind comment was made in the Tea Room as I left at about 8 o’clock this morning. Colleagues said that by the time we come back for the next sitting in September, West Ham will be in the bottom three again. I am sure that will not be the case, but you never know. I am also pleased to be able to refer, like the hon. Gentleman, to my working-class roots. I cannot imagine that anybody who has been in this place for as long as he or I have been could still call themselves working class—that would be like defying gravity—but we do have working-class origins and are naturally very proud of them.
As the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated, it is customary to raise a number of issues in the pre-recess debate. I intend to do that as well, but not as many as the hon. Gentleman. I want to talk about Gaza, Zamir Telecom, east London river crossings, Tower Hamlets council, cycling, leasehold reform and housing. Given that so many colleagues wish to speak and that time is brief, it will suffice for me to use only a sentence or two in addressing most of those issues.
I will start with the easiest issue, namely cycling. The Transport Committee recently produced a report on cycling safety, and the all-party group on cycling produced a report earlier this year on the back of The Times campaign, which resulted from the serious injury to one of its staff and deaths earlier this year. With the success of the Tour de France in the UK and of the cycling scheme promoted by Mayor Johnson in London, cycling is going from strength to strength. Last year, however, the Prime Minister promised a champion for cycling, but that has not materialised. We certainly need it.
On east London river crossings, most people will know—Londoners certainly do—that the centre of gravity in London has been moving east for 30 years, and it will continue to do so for the next 30 years. If half of London’s population does not already live east of Tower bridge, it very soon will, yet west of Tower bridge there are more than 20 crossings over the Thames but only two to the east of it. Fortunately, consultation started today on another new crossing. One is already assured by the Department for Transport, Transport for London and the Mayor of London, but we need more than two. If London is going to continue to thrive, we need to make sure that the Thames is bridged or tunnelled, and we need those two crossings very quickly.
PricewaterhouseCoopers is undertaking an investigation into the economics and finances of Tower Hamlets council over the past four years. The Electoral Commission recently produced a report on the chaos of the 22 May election. The police have undertaken a number of investigations into allegations. I commend Chief Superintendent Stringer, the borough commander, and his staff and colleagues for the assiduous way in which they investigated all those allegations. Tower Hamlets council is a work in progress. There is still a lot to be done. We want to make sure that next year’s general election is as clean, fair and transparent as possible, and I encourage everyone involved to continue to work in that direction.
On leasehold reform, Martin Boyd and Sebastian O’Kelly of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and Carlex have been working assiduously to press the need for leasehold reform. It is estimated that between 5 million and 7 million householders in England are leaseholders, and they are subject to unscrupulous efforts by freeholders to overcharge them for insurance, service charges and other aspects of their lease. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) and I have been working with the Department for Communities and Local Government and other Departments. Real progress is being made on leasehold reform for the first time since 2002, and I commend the coalition for that. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has responsibility for housing, has met us several times and I encourage him and his colleagues to continue to make progress, because millions of our fellow citizens are being ripped off by unscrupulous individuals who take them for every penny they can get. The issue affects pensioners and former council tenants who have exercised their right to buy but who are exposed to unfair service charges. They need protection. The issue crosses class boundaries—from former council tenants right the way through to many people living in £1 million properties in my constituency and docklands who are equally exposed because of gaps in legal protection.
Housing is the biggest issue in Tower Hamlets and I know the same is true for many colleagues in London and in constituencies across the country. All parties are promising more house building in their manifestos next year—at least, that is how it looks. Clearly, that is an important and fundamental promise that needs to be kept. When we came to power in 1997, our focus was on properties, particularly council properties and social housing, that were below the decency threshold. We focused on bringing those 2 million homes up to decency standards, but that meant that we did not focus on new build as much as we ought to have done in the early years. Obviously, that needs to be focused on now.
My last two items are Zamir Telecom and Gaza. Zamir Telecom in my constituency is, as its name implies, a telecommunications company that services Bangladesh. There is an arrangement whereby it employs 50 people in my constituency, and more than 100 in Dhaka in Bangladesh. It was subject to a previous dispute with the Bangladesh Government and the Ministry of Communication. There was a court settlement in 2008, but three years later the Bangladesh Government reimposed difficulties to prevent it from functioning. UK Trade & Investment is involved; there are Government-to-Government communications; I have written to the Foreign Office and to the high commissioner; and there is a memorandum of understanding between Governments. There is a court case, and there have been two judgments for Zamir Telecom, but there has been a judgment in chambers against it.
Zamir Telecom is a good local company, about which I am bidding for an Adjournment debate in September, so perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could exert your influence, as could the Deputy Leader of the House, to get me some space to raise the matter and get an official response from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or the Foreign Office. This company has grown from strength to strength for a number of years, but if this matter is not resolved, the prospect is that it might close completely, with jobs being lost in the UK and in Bangladesh.
The final item I want to raise is Gaza. I know that we had an extensive statement and question and answer session yesterday afternoon with the Prime Minister, and that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), made a statement last Monday. I also know that Gaza was raised during Foreign Office questions earlier, but I did not get a chance to come in this morning. I just want to reinforce the interest I have already shown by signing the early-day motion, by my question to the Prime Minister yesterday and by my letter to the Foreign Office 10 days ago. I advise the House that I have had more than 1,200 —it is probably going on for 1,400—e-mails from constituents on this matter alone over the eight days from when the latest Israeli action started to Sunday just gone.
This matter clearly exercises the House, but I cannot put it better than by quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Leader of the Opposition, who said in a speech to our national policy forum at the weekend:
“I defend Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket attacks. But I cannot explain, justify or defend the horrifying deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, including children and innocent civilians.”
The death toll yesterday was 500—it is probably closer to, or has even exceeded, 600 by now—and 3,000 people have been injured, with tens of thousands displaced. The whole House has expressed concern about this matter. The whole House recognises Israel’s right to defend itself, but with its level of equipment, technology and intelligence, the targeting of hospitals, beaches, schools and residential apartments just does not seem proportionate. I do not think that anybody could possibly say that it looks proportionate. The right to defend is one thing; the mass killings that are going on are something else.
I have a history of attacking Islamist groups in my constituency—I was very interested to hear the statement on Birmingham schools by the new Education Secretary earlier today—and I am more often called Islamophobic, but I have now been getting e-mails calling me anti-Semitic, so I must be doing something right, or I am upsetting both sides equally. Whatever it is, I am trying to do what I think is appropriate, to reflect my constituents’ concerns and to make points that are appropriate.
In agreement with the hon. Member for Southend West, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker and your colleagues, as well as all the staff, security and police of the House for their service this year. I wish everybody a good summer.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that the first two speakers in this debate have been perfect in their discipline with the length of their speeches. A great many Members wish to speak this afternoon and this debate is timed—we have to finish at 7 pm—but if everybody keeps to about eight minutes, out of courtesy to other Members, then everyone who wishes to speak will have the chance to do so. I will not at the moment put on a formal time limit, but rely on the courtesy of each Member to his and her fellow Members. The person to set the example perfectly is Mr Nigel Evans.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
No pressure then, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope to be perfect, but I am clearly not as perfect as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) or my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). My hon. Friend regularly takes part in pre-recess Adjournment debates; indeed, it would not be a pre-recess Adjournment debate without him. His list of ideas would flavour admirably any future manifesto, and I wish him well with his suggestions. The hon. Gentleman was my Member of Parliament for a while when I lived in Limehouse. I must say that I cannot believe that he has angered anybody—never mind the two sides, as he intimated—because I believe that he is one of the more effective Members of Parliament who just says it as it is, rather than being overtly partisan at times. I thank him for his speech.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing, and the only issue I will speak about today is housing in the Ribble Valley. Yes, we need new housing—there are no two ways about it—and in certain high-pressure areas, such as London, we clearly have to look at extra appropriate and affordable housing. However, I live and represent an area in the Ribble Valley that is under siege from developers.
Towns such as Clitheroe, which has already taken several hundred houses, has found a place within the core strategy for 1,040 more homes in a strategic site. Even though an area of more than 300 homes at Waddow was turned down just the other day, another application has now gone in for more than 275 homes there. I congratulate Councillors Kevin Horkin and Ian Brown on fighting those applications. A three-phase application in Langho, off Longsight road, could eventually end up with 900 houses, and Councillors Lois Rimmer and Michael Thomas are fighting those applications admirably.
In Copster Green, 32 houses have recently been turned down by the local authority, and we will look at how, if that application goes to appeal, it is handled by the inspector. Although Ribble Valley has not adopted its core strategy, we believe that it is almost ready. The inspector and the local authority have worked hand in hand to ensure that the agreed amount of housing is at an appropriate level. There had previously been a hiccup, when historical figures were used. We will be watching very carefully to ensure that the almost adopted core strategy has some weight, which is vital.
Councillor Simon Hore has taken a great interest in an application that may well be made in Chipping. On the site of an old chair works that is now disused—sadly, it has gone into liquidation—there is an application for a hotel and spa, and the same applicant intends to put more than 50 houses on a cricket field not too far away. I know that a number of local residents are up in arms about losing not only the facility, but the site, on which I am in discussions with the developer.
Councillor Ricky Newmark has valiantly tried to fight applications for a total of more than 200 houses on several sites in the one area of Sabden. I have mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions the case at Barrow. It is a community of just over 200 houses, and an application has been put in for 504 houses. That was turned down by the local authority, but then overturned on appeal. One can only imagine the impact of 504 houses on that particular area.
Not far away from Barrow is Whalley, which has already accepted hundreds of new houses. That includes an application from the Co-op, funnily enough, for more than 80 houses, where the application has been approved for some time, but the Co-op has not made a start on the houses, so one really starts to wonder why the application was put in in the first place. Hundreds of houses are going into neighbouring Whalley, even though hundreds have already been built in nearby Calderstones. I congratulate Councillors Terry Hill and Joyce Holgate on their representation in that area.
The final area that I will mention is Longridge, although a number of other villages have accepted new houses, some through appeal. There are applications for a total of 1,700 houses over five sites in Longridge, which is a relatively small town. It also has the problem that neighbouring Whittingham, which is in Preston and so is in a different local authority area, has given permission for the construction of 650 houses. That was years ago and not a single house has been built. It is also considering giving permission for the building of 400 houses on the border of Longridge. The people who live in those areas will use Longridge as their main market town.
A couple of websites called “Save Whalley Village” and “Save Longridge” have been set up. I went to a public meeting in Longridge to which more than 500 people turned up to protest against the over-development of the town. They spoke with great enthusiasm and passion. They are not saying no to any house building, but no to the over-development of the area that they love. We must start to listen to people. I know that we regularly say that if somebody says no to something, they are a nimby. Frankly, if I lived in an area where there were applications for the over-development of a number of sites, I would be proud to be a nimby. I would want to protect my backyard, my front yard and the sides of my property too. I do not think that referring to people as nimbys helps.
The local authorities, councillors and residents in those areas are doing a sterling job. We need to look again at the powers of the Planning Inspectorate. When a local authority turns down an application by a certain percentage and an inspector tries to overturn that decision, it should go back to the local authority. If the local authority again turns it down by a similar percentage or a higher percentage—the Government can look at that—that should be final. Localism should mean that the local councillors who represent local people have the final say. We should not have a person who comes up from Bristol, looks at the application and says off the top of his head, “That seems to fit some sort of criteria,” and then off he goes, leaving destruction and chaos in his wake. We need to look again at empowering local authority councillors to protect their areas. We all know—without going into detail, because I am coming up to my eight minutes—why people do not want to see their areas destroyed.
We need to look at other areas, such as around Ribble Valley, Pendle, Burnley and Blackburn, where money could be spent on regeneration, which is far better than building on greenfield sites. We should look at charging no VAT on the regeneration of housing stock to bring it back into use. We need more protection for areas that are struggling with their core strategy, but that aim to get it in place as quickly as they can. There should be no presumption in favour of building.
The Planning Inspectorate seems to have a similar slogan to Obama’s “Yes we can” or “Yes you can”, whereas the people who live in these areas say, “Please, enough is enough.” I think that “Enough is enough” beats “Yes we can.”
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)
I have two issues that I will put together as seamlessly as I can. I might not be as seamless as the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) because I plan to breathe a couple of times.
A little while ago, there was an issue in my constituency and the surrounding area involving the Grangemouth refinery. It was a sad story and there was much tumult locally. I will not bore Members with the detail but, suffice it to say, there was an issue between the employer and the trade union, Unite, that almost led to the closure of the refinery, which employs about 1,400 or 1,500 people and a further 4,000 or 5,000 in the local labour chain. In the long run, 5,000 or 6,000 people would have lost their jobs, had the refinery shut. I have my views on the situation, but I do not think that this is the place to air them.
In due course, the situation was solved by a combination of the union seeing a bit of sense and the employer negotiating with the UK and Scottish Governments. The UK Government gave some guarantees about future investment. This week, the employer, INEOS, announced that it had secured a £230 million facility through the Government’s loan guarantee scheme and that, in addition, it was investing £300 million in a new plant to process shale gas imported from the US. For the first time in many years, that will secure the jobs at Grangemouth for a long time to come. It has always been touch and go whether Grangemouth’s future would extend beyond five or 10 years; it now seems to be secure for at least 20 years.
I hasten to say that Grangemouth is not in my constituency, but it is just a few hundred yards away and the majority of the people who work there live in my constituency. There are also several thousand people in the supply chain who live in my constituency.
A couple of issues arise from the current situation. First, given that the gas that is imported will come from fracking, we need to take a position on whether we support fracking. I do support fracking, but it is a contentious issue and not everyone in this House agrees with it. In addition, Dart Energy has a substantial coal bed methane extraction project in my constituency. I firmly support that as well. Locally, the Scottish National party has campaigned against coal bed methane extraction. I do not know what position it will take on the importation of gas that is extracted through fracking. The view that it has taken suggests that it will be against it in principle, and therefore against the employment of a large number of my constituents. However, I will leave it to the SNP to answer that. Having said that, the SNP Government in Scotland have made a contribution of £6 million. The Scottish Government are taking one position and the local representatives are taking another.
The extractive industries in Falkirk, Grangemouth and the surrounding area in central Scotland are concerned primarily with oil. I am fortunate to be one of the civil society representatives on the extractive industries transparency initiative to which the UK is signing up. That is going very well and the Government have just submitted their application to the EITI. That is an important symbolic measure for the UK.
Of course, the primary element of the EITI in the UK is oil and gas. That leads on to the second issue that I want to raise. Recently, I have had quite a lot of communication with politicians from other parts of the world who are involved in the EITI, which is about transparency and good governance in the extractive industries. That relates mainly to mining in some countries and mainly to oil and gas in others.
Recently, I have had a lot of contact with Nigeria. The governor of Rivers state, which is Nigeria’s Aberdeen as it is the main centre of the oil industry, has led the EITI process in that country. By chance, I was in the region a couple of weeks ago for a day or two and I visited him. It was striking what a good job is being done there. What is being done varies across Nigeria and we tend to hear the bad news stories. One can see the link between the money that is being paid into the state and the investment by the state—both the federal state and Rivers state—into the infrastructure. That is the whole point of EITI. Hundreds of new schools are being built, several of which I visited. A monorail system and a good road system are also being built. That is a good example of what can happen through good governance.
I am reluctant to praise the Government, but they are pushing ahead with some good legislation and have signed up to the transparency and accounting directives. The beneficial ownership stuff will also be coming up shortly. The UK is pretty much in the lead on that, with the support of the Opposition.
I will conclude on this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you will pull me up if I go over my eight minutes. I do not want to delve into how other countries vote or into which Governments are returned. I know that nobody wants to do that, except for in a few rare cases where there is consensus. However, I have noticed over the past couple of weeks that the party of government in Nigeria has effectively started campaigning. I am a little sympathetic to the plight of the opposition in that country, not because I know a great deal about the internal politics of Nigeria, but because I see what is going on in Rivers state, which is very good. I am therefore prepared to accept that the opposition—the All Progressives Congress—has some kind of plan. I would not wish to be any more explicit than that. It seems to me that there is a coherent opposition. The governor of Rivers state is an important member of that opposition and there are many others. At the moment, we tend to hear the party of government’s campaign through one or two things that are said in this House. I noticed that there was a visit by the Finance Minister of Nigeria two weeks ago, and those things were echoed in statements in meetings around the place. Some things that were said were essentially party political, and Members who were, I think, being supportive for good reason of the Nigerian Government were essentially echoing party political themes, and the opposition in Nigeria cannot campaign at the moment because it is unlawful to campaign until November.
I urge Members to reflect on the fact that there is a presidential election next February in Nigeria, and some of the stuff that is coming out, and coming through London and back through CNN, the BBC World Service and so on, is blatantly party political campaigning that the Nigerian Government can do, but which an increasingly well-organised opposition cannot.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
The last time I was called to speak was not by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or by another Deputy Speaker, but was actually at the Glastonbury rock festival—the Glastonbury festival of performing arts. I was asked to speak in the speaker’s tent, and follow in the illustrious footsteps of Tony Benn, God bless him. I think I was asked to speak because although perhaps not on the same scale, I have had what has been seen as a radical agenda in this House in promoting complementary medicine over the past 20 years. I do not regard that as particularly controversial, but it is something I have stuck to, and I think that Benn’s law certainly applies to me.
As colleagues will recall, Tony Benn said that when someone has a controversial idea:
“First they ignore you, then they say you’re mad, then dangerous… and then you can’t find anyone who disagrees with you.”
I have found over the years that that has happened, and I have had relentless attacks. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) once called me the hon. Member for Holland and Barrett. I have had a fake Twitter account set up called “Inside the head of David Tredinnick”—[Laughter.] Yes. With my brain displayed. In the 2001 general election I had the honour of having a science candidate stand against me. He polled 196 votes against my 23,000, which colleagues will agree is not a bad result. I have been attacked by sceptical people over the years, and I regard many of the people who bombard Members’ websites as bullies and ignorant. They have never studied the subjects they are criticising. They are abusive and it is almost a breach of privilege in trying to stop colleagues speaking out.
I want to talk, quite briefly, wearing four hats—as a member of the Health Committee since the beginning of this Parliament, as a member of the Science and Technology Committee, as vice-chair of the Government’s herbals working group, and as chair of the all-party group for integrated healthcare. My researcher tells me that I have chaired nearly 100 meetings of that group.
I was somewhat surprised to find billed at Glastonbury a pair of speakers from the other side of the House: the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is the shadow Health Secretary, and a certain former Member for Brent East, Mr Livingstone. I was not sure whether the right hon. Member for Leigh was the warm-up act for Mr Livingstone, or whether Mr Livingstone was the warm-up act for the right hon. Gentleman, but it would have been interesting to go to the Left Field, the field for left-wingers, where they were speaking. I was in a more modest tent.
I had quite a challenge because I was asked to follow Jonathan Cainer who, as one or two colleagues may know, is the astrologer who writes for the Daily Mail. I did a little research on that, and he has 12 million followers worldwide and 10,000 subscribers to audio forecasts. People who are sceptical might think it strange that somebody like that can attract such a following, but in that situation I think another parliamentary rule applies. You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.
David Tredinnick
Yes, thank you.
In this instance it is just possible that Jonathan Cainer has something that people do believe in, and I have made a study of astrology in connection with health care over the past 20 years. I was on the last parliamentary delegation to Hong Kong before the Chinese took it back, and Governor Chris Patten said, “David, what would you like to do? Do you want to go up to the Stanley barracks, go out on a frigate or to the new territories?” I said, “No, Governor. I would like to see your astrologer.” And as Governor of Hong Kong he had one. I went to meet the astrologer and he was very concerned about the buildings around Government House.
I have been to India and talked to people there and to the Indian Government about the Indian astrological system, lahiri, which is part of their culture. In western culture, Culpeper’s book, “Astrological Judgement of Diseases from the Decumbiture of the Sick” of 1655 is the longest in print, so in all cultures we have that tradition.
I will conclude my remarks because I know I will get a lot of friendly e-mails for having had the temerity to talk about astrology in this House, but I am absolutely convinced that those who look at the map of the sky for the day that they were born and receive some professional guidance will find out a lot about themselves, and it will make their life easier. As Propertius, perhaps the most famous Roman poet, said, “A man should live his life in the endeavours which suit him best.”
I am happy for you to intervene, Mr Deputy Speaker, and remind me how much time I have left.
David Tredinnick
Well I will definitely get a lot of friendly e-mails, because I have not got on to saying that I believe firmly as a member of the Health and Science and Technology Committees of the House that we must consider ways of reducing demand for antibiotics. Both the Health Committee and the Science and Technology Committee have reported that by using complementary medicine and by listening to the witnesses we can reduce that demand. I hope that in future we stop looking just at increasing the supply of drugs and consider the way that complementary and alternative medicine can reduce the demand for drugs, reduce pressures on the health service, increase patient satisfaction, and make everyone in this country happier.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my colleague from the Health Committee who spoke on a theme we hear quite a bit about in our meetings—less so the astrology, but we hear quite a bit about the other aspects.
I want to talk about carers, who are a key part of our society. The challenges of caring should be a vital part of the debate on social care. Now that we talk so much more about the integration of health and social care, we must remember that unpaid family carers provide most of that care. It is not paid for—it is given. The Care Act 2014 gave local authorities responsibility for assessing a carer’s own needs for support, and for deciding whether those needs are “eligible” for support. I believe that that legislation fails carers in two ways. We know that £3.7 billion has been cut from adult social care budgets since 2009-10. Giving carers new rights to assessment and support is a hollow improvement because the support available to them is dwindling because of higher eligibility levels and increased charges.
Macmillan Cancer Support reports that only one in three carers of people with cancer had heard of a carer’s assessment, and only one in 20 carers have actually had one. A survey in 2013 found that more than 70% of carers come into contact with health professionals, including GPs, doctors and nursing staff, during their caring journey. We have given the duty to assess carers to a body that a lot of carers do not see. It has always been clear to me that health professionals should have a key role in identification, but currently they identify only one in 10 carers, and GPs identify fewer than that.
The need for NHS bodies to identify carers and ensure that they are referred to sources of advice and support was raised at all stages of the debate on the Care Bill in the Commons, but was not accepted by the care Minister. Labour tabled new clauses to ensure that NHS bodies were required to identify carers and ensure that carers received advice and support, but they were voted down. In my constituency I see how that leaves carers with inadequate support. Last week I raised the example of a 62-year-old man from Eccles, who is caring for his wife who has Alzheimer’s. When Mr Bielawski sought an urgent GP appointment for his wife, he was told that it would take five weeks for her to see her GP and two weeks to see any GP, or he could take her to Salford Royal hospital’s A and E department. That is clearly not acceptable, but it is what happens when there is no duty on GPs or their staff to identify carers. If they did that, carers and the people for whom they are caring could be given the support and the priority that they deserve. In my view, a carer for somebody with Alzheimer’s disease should receive more priority than Mr Bielawski was given.
I believe it is time for the national Government to make a covenant with carers to show how society values their caring, and how we intend to support them to continue to care in future. A covenant could address flaws in the Care Act 2014, widen the definition of carer and address additional burdens that have been put on carers by this Government’s welfare reforms.
I suggest that, initially, under the covenant, NHS bodies should have a duty to identify carers, which I have just discussed; GPs and hospital staff should signpost carers to that help and support; NHS bodies should ensure that carers receive relevant medical services, because many carers need health checks that they never get; the definition of carer should be widened to include young carers and parent carers; and schools and colleges should recognise the needs and rights of young carers, and have procedures in place to identify them. More generally, the Government should have a role in ensuring that children and young people are protected from inappropriate caring.
We should not—absolutely not—charge carers if they need an extra room for their caring responsibilities. The bedroom tax currently affects 60,000 carers, and I am glad that Labour has pledged to abolish it. I hope that we have an early vote on that. Given the reported policy U-turns in other parties, I hope they will join Labour Members in that pledge to abolish the bedroom tax. Given that current welfare reforms have had an impact on carers, the Government should ensure that future legislation is more carer-proofed, so that changes do not negatively affect carers’ ability to care.
My last point on the care part of my speech is on Labour’s whole person care proposals, which would bring together three fragmented services—NHS, mental health and social care—into a single service co-ordinating all a person’s needs. I trust that supporting carers will be central to Labour’s proposals, because, as I have said, carers provide so much of the care needed.
The bedroom tax has hit my constituency hard. Around 1,400 households are still affected. A small number have been able to move and downsize, but for the rest of those affected, the true impact of the bedroom tax is becoming clearer. Some households affected by the bedroom tax were helped by the local authority’s discretionary housing payment scheme, which was well managed and targeted appropriately by Salford city council. Despite that help, only 49% of those households affected have been able to pay the tax, and 51% of have slipped into arrears, which have risen by £90,000 in recent months. As I said, Labour has pledged to abolish the bedroom tax. That will be a relief to my constituents, but meanwhile, it is worth saying that the policy is taking my constituents into debt and into misery.
Talking of Department for Work and Pensions chaos, I recently took up the case of a constituent, Mr Koppens, who had undergone major surgery for tongue and neck cancer—a very difficult cancer. My constituent told me that, in an operation lasting more than 13 hours, he suffered heart attacks, and that he continues to have unstable angina. Given his medical history, he is not allowed to drive. Despite that, a DWP decision maker put Mr Koppens into the work-related activity group, so that he was required by the local jobcentre to attend an interview. He was referred to the Work programme.
Mr Koppens was astonished at that outcome. He felt that the jobcentre was putting pressure on him, and making him feel like a cheat and that his cardiologist and doctors were liars. In the end, he attended an interview with the Work programme provider, but during the interview, he started to suffer chest pain. He asked for a first-aider but there was no first-aider, so he had to ask for an ambulance to be called. I was amazed to discover that, despite all that, as Mr Koppens was leaving to go to the hospital, the centre’s manager remonstrated that Mr Koppens’s wife, who had driven him to the interview, had failed to sign in properly when they arrived.
Furthermore, I have had to raise with Ministers eight cases of constituents who have claimed personal independence payment from May 2013, June 2013, August 2013 and September 2013. They have encountered lost forms, waits of six months or more for an Atos assessment, and a lack of updates or information when they contact the DWP. The process appears to be in complete chaos. I hope the newly appointed Ministers will be able to make some impact on the chaos at the DWP because my constituents are suffering from it. To be frank, I am not holding my breath.
Another local issue is air pollution. Last Thursday, I asked the following question to the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
“The M60, the M62 and the M602 run through my constituency…We have extremely high levels of air pollution from road traffic. Indeed, the Highways Agency has had to shelve its plans to widen the M60 near my constituency because that would have brought too much road traffic”
on to the motorway
“and made our unacceptable air pollution worse. Now that the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Government are failing to meet their air pollution targets…what plans”
do
“Ministers have to tackle air pollution in areas such as mine, to prevent my constituents from suffering respiratory disease and early death?”—[Official Report, 17 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1001.]
Not surprisingly, the Secretary of State—she had been in her new role for only 48 hours—found that she could not answer that question, so I hope the Deputy Leader of the House has an answer today because, in summertime, the pollution tends to make my constituents very ill.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) spoke of the need for a national cemetery, but in the past 24 hours, I have been dealing with the problem of dozens of gravestones dumped on land near the Manchester ship canal. I thank Chief Superintendent Mary Doyle of Greater Manchester police, and David Seager of Salford city council, for dealing with that sensitive matter and for trying to find a solution that respects the families who own the gravestones, which should never have been dumped. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a good recess, and I thank all who support our work, particularly the Hansard writers and Noeleen and her team in the Tea Room.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Britain’s road safety record is arguably the best of any industrial country in the world. The number of people who lose their lives on the road today is about a third of what it was almost 50 years ago. Great progress has been made, and successive Governments can take pride in that. It is in that context, therefore, that I draw the House’s attention to the inexplicable possibility of a relaxation of certain aspects of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This year, we commemorate the 40th anniversary of its passing in Parliament with the unanimous support of all political parties, which it has had over those years.
Based on the figures of 40 years ago, it is estimated that 1,000 lives have been saved every year—40,000 lives have been saved. That is not to mention the injuries at work that have been prevented. We should think about the impact that such injuries have on the lives of people who are injured, their families and work colleagues, and the about impact on hospitals’ accident and emergency departments, which hon. Members know are already overburdened. In that context, to even talk of or think about diluting something that saves lives and prevents injuries, and makes work a safe environment, is unbelievable. The fact that the Government and others are thinking about it is something that we should take very seriously.
It is worth noting that the whole Olympic stadium was built without the loss of a single life. We should contrast that with the large number of deaths that occur in the building of World cup stadiums and Olympic stadiums elsewhere in the world. The 1974 Act was crucial in ensuring that safe environment in that flagship development, which we all enjoyed two years ago. We give praise in equal measure to employers organisations and trade unions, as well as Governments, for allowing that to happen.
Into that great success story of safety and of lives being saved, it is being suggested that the approved code of practice in construction regulations should be diluted. I draw attention in particular to what is known as appendix 4. Many of us assume the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 applies only to dangerous occupations such as building, but it applies everywhere, including in our constituency offices. I was going to say it applies to the Houses of Parliament, but I have a feeling that they are exempt. I would like to think they follow the code of conduct. Health and safety accreditation schemes cover industries from A to Z, from air travel to zoos—just about everything.
Appendix 4 is adopted by a whole range of organisations to ensure that their work force can work in a safe environment. It is simple to read; clear; easily understood and applied; relevant and applicable across a wide range of industry sectors, not just, as I said, in construction industries; and widely used and recognised because of its regulatory standing as part of an approved code of practice. I therefore hope in this very brief contribution—I want to keep it very tight—that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will ensure that common sense breaks out. If 1,000 lives a year are being saved and people at work are being saved from serious injury—not to mention the impact that that would have on their place of work and on their employers’ ability to do whatever that business is doing—why do away with it? If it is going to be done away with, what will the consequences be, purely in terms of injuries, on our accident and emergency departments?
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 has been a great success story. In the same way that we have made our roads safer, we should ensure that we do not make our workplaces less safe.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on his speech. I disagreed with every word of it. I was intrigued to hear that he is the chair of what I think he called the Government herb committee. That conjured images from my childhood of the television programme, “The Herbs”. Parsley the Lion, Dill the Dog, Lady Rosemary and Bayleaf the Gardener all went flooding through my mind.
I was delighted by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I completely agree with her on the bedroom tax. I am determined that when Labour wins the general election next year, we will repeal the bedroom tax. If the Deputy Leader of the House, who will wind up for the Government, is still a Member of Parliament then, I look forward to him voting with us, even if he cannot bring himself to vote with us on this matter before that date.
I wish to raise two specific issues. The first is concussion in sport. Members may know that in the United States a legal action against the National Football League has led to a $1 billion class suit. It looks as if the money set aside by the sport will still not be enough to compensate those who have suffered from industrial injuries. That was due to the negligence shown by the sport, and the cover-up: the sport had conducted research, but was not prepared to make it public. I believe—as do some other Members; we have produced a joint report—that exactly the same thing is happening in the United Kingdom. The sporting bodies in this country need to take this matter far more seriously than they do.
On 19 January 2002, Jeff Astle died. He was perhaps one of the most iconic soccer players of the late 20th century. He played for West Bromwich Albion and was renowned as a great header of the ball. The coroner decided that he had died because of repeated minor traumas to his head caused by heading the ball. Some people say that football has changed in the intervening years. However, the research conducted in the US shows that the use of a lighter ball makes absolutely no difference to the chronic traumatic encephalopathy that can be suffered by players.
When Jeff died, the Football Association in this country promised—it swore blind to Jeff’s family, his lovely widow and his daughters—that it would conduct 10 years of thorough research, and that it would make that research public. To date, no research whatever seems to have been done. If any research has been done, it has been covered up and not made public. Not only is that a disgraceful way to treat the family of Jeff Astle, but the FA is verging on the criminally negligent in how it is treating other players who are in exactly the same position.
We only had to watch two of the last matches of the World cup to see examples. In the final, Christoph Kramer was playing for Germany when he received what was quite clearly a concussion, but he went back on to play. Afterwards, he said that he could not even remember most of the first half of the match because of the blow he had taken to his head. Javier Mascherano, one of the Argentine players, was also clearly concussed in a semi-final game, but went back on to the field of play. That sends the message to young boys and girls playing many different sports in which they might receive a blow to the head that it is better to go back on the pitch, even if they have received such a blow.
To appreciate the all-too-possible danger of a double impact, particularly to children, we need only consider the case of Ben Robinson, who a few years ago went back on the pitch, received a second concussion and died. Of course, I am not saying that every child should be wrapped in cotton wool—we want people to enjoy their sport—but the message coming from big sport, broadcasters, doctors and sporting bodies is that it is better to get back on your feet, go back on and play. Where there is good research proving that chronic traumatic encephalopathy is leading to long-term depression, mental illness, early onset dementia and possibly suicide, surely to God we need to take that seriously, and where there is no research, in sports with regular brain injuries, surely to God we need to ensure that research is done, and all the sporting bodies need to work together.
That is why the hon. Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), two peers, Lord Addington and Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, and I have produced a joint report calling on the Health Committee or the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of this House to conduct a parliamentary inquiry, bringing together all the facts from sporting bodies, doctors, the NHS and schools, and coming up with a single message: concussion will not always kill, but we must take it seriously because on occasions it can be fatal. I commend those journalists at The Mail on Sunday—I do not often say that—and The Guardian who have taken this issue seriously. However, I hope the Minister—and other hon. Members, if they know anyone on either Select Committee—will encourage colleagues to produce such a report before the general election.
In this potpourri or smorgasbord debate, I want to move, seamlessly but briefly, to the issue of Russia, for one simple reason. I had responsibility for our relationship with Russia in the last Labour Government, and I worry that the Government, though they might now be making all the right noises, have not been doing so consistently, and therefore effectively, in relation to Russia. When they came to power, they understandably wanted to draw a line under the Litvinenko case, move on and establish better trading relations with Russia. I am delighted that they have now changed their mind and that today the Home Secretary announced a proper public inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, because we owe it to his widow, who simply has not had justice yet and is a courageous and independent-minded women.
We also have to be clear about the case of Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered in a Russian jail because he unveiled corruption in Russia while working for a British company. If we already have travel bans on some Russians coming to the UK, we should surely be saying that everyone involved in that corruption and murder is not welcome in this country. This House passed that resolution unanimously on 7 March 2012, and instead of all the mealy-mouthed nonsense I have heard on the eight occasions I have asked this question, the Government should get on and announce such a ban. This is a cross-party issue. France and Germany are showing a dereliction of duty in their relationship with Russia, which will always want to pick off one country after another in Europe and end up with a free pass. We have to stand together and show that Russia is currently acting more like Hitler in the Sudetenland than a modern, 21st-century democracy.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The benefit of these Adjournment debates is that they give Members in all parts of the House the opportunity to raise a range of issues. For once—for, probably, the only time—I agreed with every single word that was said by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about both football and Russia.
I intend to raise a range of issues during the time that is available to me. Let me say first that yesterday in Westminster Hall I initiated a debate on the second largest e-petition that we have received in the House, asking for Diwali and Eid to become public holidays. I support that proposal, and also believe that Rosh Hashanah should be added to the list. Ensuring that we held a debate on the issue certainly livened up the public.
This year saw the creation of the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus, which I chair. The issue of caste legislation has caused deep upset and hurt in the British Hindu community. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research looked into the issue of caste discrimination back in December 2010 and found no evidence of its being a problem, but British Hindus who are now second and third generation have been immensely offended by the idea of caste being enshrined in legislation when it has nothing to do with their lives or community in this country. That is one issue that I believe we shall take further when we return after the recess.
I am, however, pleased that Hindus are better represented in Parliament than ever before, with more events taking place here which bring the community right to us. For example, the National Council of Hindu Temples has just launched the British Board of Hindu Scholars, which is intended to foster a better understanding of India’s vast academic heritage here in Britain. I was pleased to lend my support to that project, along with other Members of Parliament, and I wish its chairman, Satish Sharma, every success. I have also had meetings in Parliament with members of Hindu groups such as the Redbridge Hindu association, which voiced its deep concerns about violence against Hindus in Bangladesh.
While I am on the subject of international affairs, I cannot but mention what is going on in Gaza, and what has led to this terrible humanitarian tragedy. We must not forget that three Israeli teenagers were brutally murdered, and that responsibility lies with the despicable terrorist organisation Hamas. We must remember that the Israeli Government accepted every single proposal for a ceasefire, and Hamas refused because it regards a ceasefire as a surrender. We in Britain must ensure that not a single penny of taxpayers’ money goes to Hamas or its supporters, and I shall continue to press Ministers on that. We must ensure that Israel’s security is safeguarded.
I also want to raise some local matters. The 25 acres of Whitchurch playing fields are now being protected for the public good following a threat to turn them over to private developers. I am delighted that Harrow council has approved the application by Avanti Schools Trust to build the largest free school in the country. It will be a faith school based on the Hindu ethos. The project will reach the planning permission stage when we return after the recess, and I trust that Harrow council will grant that permission. Krishna Avanti primary school, which is nearby, is already a free school, and has been an overwhelming success. The high educational standards have created a huge demand for places. Once the new site is established, the school will accommodate 1,680 pupils from reception to year 12, and I think that that is something that we can all applaud.
Another new free school in Harrow, sponsored by the London Diocesan Board for Schools, is to be a bilingual primary school. It is on course to open, and to relieve the enormous pressure on primary school places. I look forward to the progress of that project through its various stages. We also have the Heathlands multi-academy site, which will provide a further 750 secondary school places and 150 places in the sixth form, thus combating the great need for school places in the borough of Harrow.
Those who have had the opportunity to visit my constituency may have travelled there on the Jubilee line and reached Stanmore station. If they have done so, they will have faced Mount Eiger: the steps that lead from the platform to the street. One has to be extremely physically fit to alight at that station, but many of my constituents are elderly or suffer from various ailments. There is a desperate need for a lift to be installed at the station. However, there are even more serious issues connected with the car park.
The car park is filled up all the time, and I have led the campaign for 10 years to get a second, or even a third, layer on this car park to ensure it can be used by all travellers. The fact is that the Stanmore car park is used as the car park for Wembley stadium, although perhaps after England’s lack of prowess at the last World cup we should not have to worry about that too much. We will continue at a local level to lobby Transport for London and the Mayor of London to have this lift put in and to improve the car parking facilities.
Continuing my little tour of my constituency, I want to mention the new development of 120 flats at Anmer Lodge in Stanmore, which I raised, as those who were present may remember, in the Easter Adjournment debate. The project is clearly far too big for the area, and will be a very dense development in an area of widespread housing. The development of Stanmore broadway and the opportunity to have a Marks & Spencer store are welcomed by many residents, but the position of the development presents an unacceptable challenge.
Recently I took the Secretary of State for Health to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in Stanmore, where we discussed the redevelopment of the site. Over the last 35 years Governments of all persuasions have promised that the buildings will be replaced. We are still waiting. We are campaigning, and the medical staff do a brilliant job in portakabins and Nissen huts. I am determined that we rebuild that hospital for the benefit of patients and the medical staff who do such a diligent job in their area.
Moving on to Edgware, we once again have the issue of Barnet football club—an issue the Deputy Leader of the House will recall. The lives of my local residents in Edgware have been plagued by Barnet football club coming to the Hive. The club acts in a bizarre manner: it just decides what it is going to do and then tries to get retrospective planning permission for its oversized stand and floodlights. That was rejected and an enforcement notice was issued, but the club threatened all sorts of legal action and eventually the council backed down. Not only did the club do that, but it introduced London Broncos to the site, and that move was so successful that London Broncos has lost every single match in the super league and has been relegated for the first time in its history. Barnet football club begins its second season in my constituency, and we will see what happens to it in the season ahead.
The Hive is not the only addition on Whitchurch lane in my constituency. We also have a Tesco Express being set up, which is opposed by many residents, and this is probably going to be one of the areas where Tesco has sought to get permission but has backed off. The pressure from local residents is clearly beginning to tell.
In closing, I will briefly take us to two other high streets. The first is Burnt Oak broadway, which is cleaned by Brent council and by Barnet council, but Harrow council leaves it neglected. The other is Harrow Weald high street, where once again Harrow Weald residents have been suffering because the local bank branch is going to close later this week. We have campaigned against that: we have called on NatWest not to do it, but once again it has refused.
I end on the issue of the hated “no right turn” on Kenton road. I am all in favour of turning right and it is regrettable that the councils of Harrow and Brent cannot get their act together and remove this hated “no right turn” off the Kenton road, which local residents want so they can access their properties and the local area.
Finally, I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members and members of staff a thoroughly good summer, and I look forward to hearing about some action from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House in reply to this wonderful speech that I have made.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I know very well all the places in his constituency he mentioned, and I am looking forward to spending more time at those locations campaigning for Uma Kumaran, his replacement next year. He raised one particularly interesting scenario for me: the fitness challenge of climbing the steps of Stanmore station. In between campaigning for Uma Kumaran, I am training for the London triathlon on Sunday 3 August and I might just come to Stanmore station and take that challenge. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to join me when I do.
I wish to come back to something the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) began his remarks with: the disappointment with the performance of the England football team at the World cup. He suggested, I think in jest, that we should boycott premier league matches because there are too many overseas players. I think that the competition foreign players bring to the premier league is a good thing, but a more comprehensive look at how the interests of fans who want England to do well and who support premier league clubs needs to be thought about, particularly so that those interests can be properly represented in the governance of premier league clubs. Surely it is not an unreasonable ask to have a fan on the board of each club, elected through its football supporters trust—that might be a good thing, in order to ensure that the interests of ordinary football fans are properly represented.
Swansea City stands out as a lone example, as it has genuine fans, elected through the supporters trust, sitting on the board and taking part in all the decisions it makes in the interests of the club. The premier league needs to think through with a little more gusto how Swansea’s example might be replicated. Similarly, an audit of each premier league club’s contribution to grass-roots sport is surely also overdue. Each club should be expected to contribute at least 5% immediately, rising to perhaps some 10%, of TV income to the coaching of the next generation of England’s football fans and players. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask clubs to invest such sums in grass-roots sport in the areas around them.
Let me move on to my second issue. There is a need to review the funding formula for Harrow council and for the NHS in Harrow. The council faces some £75 million in funding cuts over the next four years—£25 million in this year alone. Other nearby councils receive substantially higher per capita funding, so I strongly support the campaign for Harrow council to receive fair funding. I hope that the Minister who is sitting on the Bench today might solicit a letter to me from the Department for Communities and Local Government about Harrow council’s case.
Had NHS England decided to implement the new funding formula it devised, the NHS in Harrow would have received an extra £23 million this year, and indeed next. I say gently that perhaps if the Government had not wasted £3 billion on a completely unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS, NHS England might have been able to find more quickly the funding that will be needed to ease the pressure at Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Harrow East. The board of The North West London Hospitals NHS Trust has identified an extra 120 beds as necessary just to cope with the existing demand—that is before the closure of Ealing’s accident and emergency department and that of Central Middlesex hospital. That money might also have helped to stop the closure of the Alexandra Avenue urgent hours centre, or polyclinic. It used to be open from 8 am to 8 pm, 365 days a year, providing a hugely valuable service to many of my constituents in the south-west of the borough of Harrow. Sadly, the centre is now open only from 9 am to 4 pm on Saturdays and Sundays, and that situation urgently needs reviewing.
The last issue I wish to touch on is reform of the UK’s pension fund market. It is an almost £3 trillion market, and automatic enrolment is bringing a further 10 million working people into the private pension system. In theory, through our pension and savings funds, we each own a stake in various companies, and have a say in how those companies are run. In practice, that is nonsense. Instead such power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of financial institutions, the pension and savings fund managers or their appointees. They are the ones who, in practice, exercise the power of shareholders. Those institutions, I gently suggest to the Minister, should surely be accountable to our constituents who invest their savings and pension funds. To all intents and purposes, that accountability is largely a myth at the moment. A more accountable investment system is arguably overdue. Savers should surely have guaranteed rights to scrutinise decisions that are made on their behalf by the people who manage their money—the institutional investors.
At the moment, savers have very limited rights to information about what their money is being invested in. Should our constituents not be able to find out how those institutional investors are using shareholder rights that are being exercised in their name? Our constituents should also have access to information about the strategy of the pension or savings fund into which they have put their money, and the risks that are attached to that strategy. Surely they should be able to see an annual report on how the fund has implemented its investment policy over the year and how it plans to mitigate any risks in future.
Our constituents should also be able to question the people who look after their money. Is an annual meeting that much of an unreasonable ask? After all, it is only what companies with normal shareholders have to do. I understand that Legal and General is about to do exactly that, but most of its rivals in the savings market do not have any plans to ape it.
Should our constituents not have the right to be consulted on the investment and voting policies of the institutional investors into whose trust they place their savings and pensions? Should our constituents not also have the right to elect representatives on to the board or governing committee of the pension fund in which they are investing? These are sensible rules that would make the pension and savings fund market a little more accountable. They have been developed by the excellent organisation ShareAction, and I commend them to the House.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this important debate, which has become a highlight of the parliamentary calendar. We can hear MPs discussing a range of local and national issues—a smorgasbord, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) called it.
Today I want to speak about one local issue, which is of tremendous importance to my constituents. Cossham hospital now lies just outside the Kingswood constituency, but it is very much at the heart of local people’s feelings. People in Kingswood have come there to be born, to die, to be treated and to be cared for. My mother was a nurse for 40 years. She was inspired by the idea of nursing in the 1960s when, as a child, she had her tonsils out. She then went on to have a career in the NHS. I had the pleasure of attending an antenatal class at Cossham on Monday—[Hon. Members: “Hear! Hear! Congratulations.”] Thank you very much.
Cossham hospital is currently facing a threat, which relates to a promised minor injuries unit. Before I go into that, let me give Members a bit of context. The history of Cossham hospital is inextricably linked with the history of the House of Commons. The land was gifted by Kingswood MP Handel Cossham who actually died in the House of Commons Library. He was a collier who owned a lot of land, and he decided to gift this land to set up a hospital. When people talk about Cossham hospital, they are talking about not just a superb NHS facility but a hospital that belongs to the people of Kingswood. A huge amount of time and effort has been invested in this local facility.
Back in 2004, local NHS health care bosses at North Bristol NHS Trust decided to close Cossham. It was thanks to the enormous campaign and the marches of the Save Cossham Hospital group, which was then run by Graham Kennedy, that the local health bosses changed their mind and decided to keep the hospital open. I met the commissioner to talk about that decision, and he said that at the time they had been absolutely determined to close Cossham but that it was superb that it was open and that that had been exactly the right thing to do. That is worrying, because local health care commissioners who admit they have made mistakes in the past are, I believe, going on to make those mistakes in future.
After Cossham hospital was threatened with closure in 2004, the Bristol health services plan decided to keep it open, offering a wide range of services and a £19 million refurbishment, which has now happened. I am incredibly grateful for that refurbishment, but a minor injuries unit was also promised for Cossham hospital and that has yet to be delivered. South Gloucestershire clinical commissioning group is holding off the decision on whether to put in that minor injuries unit until October.
My worry for Kingswood and the eastern region of Bristol is that we will simply no longer have the health care facilities we deserve in our region. The decision to downgrade Frenchay hospital accident and emergency was, I believe, a disgrace. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and I have campaigned and called for several debates on the closure of Frenchay A and E and we are continuing to campaign to ensure that the community hospital at Frenchay is delivered for 2016. People in our area of Bristol and South Gloucestershire need the health care facility that a minor injuries unit would provide. It simply is not good enough for them to travel all the way around Bristol to go to the new super-hospital at Southmead. It is too far, and in some cases it might endanger people’s lives.
The minor injuries unit is still there to be put in and the room is empty. I call on South Gloucestershire CCG to think again and to listen to the voices of local people, particularly the Save Cossham Hospital group, which is now ably run by Reg Bennett. Reg has skilfully taken the politics out of the issue so that we have Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and the UK Independence party members lined up and agreeing that we need a minor injuries unit at Cossham hospital.
I have more than 1,000 petition signatures that I would like to give to Reg and the group to add to the thousands they have already collected. They are having a local meeting at Warmley community hall this Saturday. Unfortunately, for personal family reasons to do with the antenatal classes I mentioned earlier, I will be unable to attend that meeting, but my message to all those who attend is that they should keep fighting. As their local MP, I am absolutely determined that they should get the minor injuries unit. If they do not, there is a clear and present danger that local people in my area will be let down. Everybody pays for the NHS through their taxes and they deserve health care facilities at local points of need. They should keep fighting for Cossham hospital and for an MIU. I hope that the campaign will be successful and I will back it all the way.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who was formerly a member of the Select Committee on Health. It is good to see that he has not lost his interest in the health service and that he is keeping up the population at the same time.
These debates are always a good time to raise various issues on behalf of our constituents, and a number of Members have already touched on the theme I want to pursue, which is the relationship between the people and those who make decisions for them and why it is becoming such a struggle for people when their voice is not heard. This was mentioned by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and for Kingswood and by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). In particular, I want to cover how local authorities consult local people. I also want to touch on the NHS and access to treatment and services.
Let me start with the subject of consultation and illustrate it with three examples from Walsall South. In Stafford road, speed humps were installed and residents and I met council officers for a further consultation on removing them because of the noise and vibration they created. The consultation resulted in 34 out of 43 residents wanting the speed humps to be removed. One hundred and forty-eight people were contacted and 43 responded, but the council counted the 105 non-responses as though they were in favour, and therefore kept the speed humps against the wishes of local people.
Darlaston road residents contacted me to say that there had been a number of incidents, including one in which a four-year-old boy had to be airlifted to safety after a car had hit him. There have been other near misses. Residents want a signal-controlled crossing and presented a petition with 300 signatures to that effect, but still nothing has been done. Does someone really have to be injured before action is taken and before my constituents’ voices are heard?
On Walstead road, residents have had to suffer a traffic calming scheme that they did not want. A consultation took place in July for three weeks. Some people were on holiday; some were about to go on holiday. Traffic humps were bolted down along the road. They were different from any I had ever seen before. I have been over them and—you would not believe it, Mr Deputy Speaker—I had to clench my neck because it was so painful. One was placed near a traffic light and one by a zebra crossing. Local resident Tracy Clifford carried out a survey after they were installed, and 97 people responded, of which 73 reported that they had difficulty with noise or when they reversed their car out of their drive. The traffic island gets in the way and then they are abused by passing car drivers just for coming out of their driveway.
At our second meeting, residents came up with a valuable suggestion about having different solutions for different parts of the road. If only they had been consulted and listened to properly. Will the Deputy Leader of the House ask Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government to introduce some guidance on how consultations take place with local people? When my office rang the information lines of neighbouring local authorities—Birmingham, Sandwell, Stafford county council and Wolverhampton—they were told that non-responses were not counted as responses in favour, and they placed all their consultations on their website. Bristol city council has seven principles, the first of which is that consultations should be well timed and sufficient time should be allowed for people to respond. That, along with the other six principles, is eminently sensible. Guidance should be issued throughout England to make sure that non-responses are not counted as responses in favour. As one person said to me at a local residents meeting, if we do not vote in an election, we do not expect our non-vote to be counted as a vote for the winning party.
The residents of the park homes at Beacon Heights cannot get a bus at night. Centro conducted its survey in the afternoon when no one was using the buses. The residents did not want a bus service in the afternoon; the 65 residents want a bus service on Saturday and Sunday evenings. They are elderly, and that bus is all they need. We need my constituents to be listened to.
Our constituents need more information and transparency. Many complain to me about their local GP service, Sai Medical. Their complaints went unheeded by the surgery. They were told that they had to complain to the patient advice and liaison service. They were never seen by the same doctor, only by a continuous supply of locums. I had to have a meeting with the local clinical commissioning group, which told me that Malling Health, a company based in Kent, had a contract with NHS England. The Library found out that the Care Quality Commission had issued a damning report on this company. Malling Health at West Kingsdown medical centre used to hire staff who were not qualified to work with patients and had not been through recruitment checks, and there were no effective systems in place to prevent infection. Malling Health’s contract was terminated at the Brambles surgery in Essex. My constituents were right to complain, yet their voices were not heard. We do not have information. I did not have any information that Malling Health was running the GP surgery, yet the Government have just passed regulations under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. and with the care.data programme they want to know every single piece of information about citizens.
I made a simple request for a constituent to have an insulin patch pump. I had to write to the Department of Health, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and all my constituent’s GPs to get a vital service. A 13-year-old already has bruises on her leg from having to inject insulin every day, and she will have to do it for the rest of her life unless she has a pump. We should be listening to people and nurturing them, not placing obstacles in the way when they raise issues.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) talked about the reshuffle. I was pleased to see that the Leader of the House is now the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). Mr Deputy Speaker, you may already have had the benefit of Mr Speaker’s impersonation of the right hon. Gentleman. Now, every Thursday morning, we will have to listen to Mr Speaker refining his impersonations. I hope you will take the message back that they actually go on for far—too—long.
Valerie Vaz
May I also congratulate the women of the 2010 intake, and tell them, on behalf of the other women members of that intake, that we all knew they could do it? I ask them to bear in mind what Ginger Rogers said—that women have to do it backwards and in high heels. From one Rogers to another, I would like to say goodbye and good luck to Sir Robert Rogers, who was very helpful to me personally. He was very accessible and he gave me a copy—which I bought—of his wonderful tome “How Parliament Works”, which I have consulted on many an occasion. I wish him good luck.
Finally, I know it is not a popular thing to do, but I would like to thank the people who work in the public services, especially those who work in the passport office, who, every time I have asked for an intervention, have produced the passport for my constituents. Thank you to them—and to all the exhausted teachers, who do their job nurturing the next generation. I also want to thank the Library staff for their independent and impartial research and statistics in support of my work, and all the House staff. Lastly, I want to wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all the other Members a very happy recess.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who raised a number of very local issues. We particularly enjoyed all her impersonations. She may get some extra bookings after that.
For tabloid purposes, we are about to head off to a sun-kissed exotic beach for seven weeks, but, back in the real world of being a local MP representing the area my family and friends live in, I am looking forward to a busy, energetic summer, which will include my annual volunteering week. I will be supporting local businesses, which are expanding, providing new jobs and apprenticeships. I am doing lots of charity runs and charity bike rides, following on from the Tour de France, which came through my constituency a couple of weeks ago. I will be holding lots of advice surgeries. Oh, and I will be squeezing in a one-week break to recharge my batteries.
In the next seven minutes, I want to focus on by far and away the biggest local issue in my beautiful part of West Yorkshire—planning. The picturesque Colne and Holme valleys and Lindley are under threat from Labour-run Kirklees council, which is hellbent on supporting unsustainable house building. It is riding roughshod over local communities who are already struggling with infrastructure that is at breaking point. We—and yes, I say we, as I live in the lovely village of Honley—are desperate to preserve what is left of our green countryside in an already congested part of Yorkshire. Fair play, though, to Labour-run Kirklees; they are up front about it. They want to build houses, they want to build lots of them, and they want to build them on green fields. Even Labour’s local election candidates are honest enough to put it on the front of their election leaflets, and I praise them for their honesty.
Tomorrow night I will be joining Lindley community campaigners at Birchencliffe cricket club for the Save Grimescar Valley campaign meeting. We are fighting plans to turn a lovely, picturesque green strip of countryside, which separates Kirklees from Calderdale, into housing and industrial units. Thornhill Estates is applying for planning permission for 200 dwellings on provisional open land in Grimescar valley, and in doing so resuscitating the Kirklees gateway project. The Kirklees gateway project comprises 260 hectares—650 acres—of commercial and residential development with plans for a school, care home and eco-centre, although no nursery places. Lindley is already scarred by a similar controversial plan, which was passed three years ago, for 287 houses on Lindley Moor; a narrow 8-7 vote on the planning committee, with the casting vote by a Liberal Democrat councillor, saw the scheme go ahead.
The threat to Grimescar valley is the latest in a series of applications on provisional open land designated in the old unitary development plan for Kirklees, which is now decades old. Local wishes are being brushed aside. Labour-run Kirklees does not have a local plan; it withdrew its original, flawed plan in October 2013, and we await the start of a new one. As a result, we have a developers’ free-for-all: the old unitary development plan means that land designated as provisional open land is up for grabs. As well as Grimescar valley, developments are going ahead or being planned in Netherthong, Upperthong, Meltham, Slaithwaite, Golcar and many more of my Yorkshire communities. I have already brought the chief executive of Kirklees council and some of my local councillors down to meet the previous planning Minister, and I look forward to discussing these pressing planning matters with the new Minister.
We need a new and radical approach to local development. Confidence in local democracy and the Kirklees planning committee is at rock bottom. We need transparency on the planning committee. Why not have it streamed live and the votes recorded? Councillors need to be held to account for their votes. I am fed up of local councillors saying that they want to protect our green spaces, and then getting into bed with the local Labour group and voting for unsustainable developments. Yes, we need a brownfield first policy. Why is the Thirstin Mills area, a cleared brownfield site in my village of Honley, still empty? It has planning permission; why not build there, instead of on a greenfield site? Why is the Royd Edge dyeworks site, cleared at great expense, still empty? It has planning permission and is ready to go ahead.
Why are affordable homes that have been built in new developments across my patch still empty? Work is being done to bring thousands of empty properties and homes back into use, and I praise the Government for introducing new council tax powers to encourage owners to do up the properties and bring them back into use, by letting them out or selling them. Grants have been made to local councils, including through the future home builders plan, in which young unemployed people learn skills such as carpentry, plumbing and how to be an electrician by working on those properties, which are then brought back on to the market as affordable homes. Those are the sort of schemes we should be promoting and encouraging to bring empty properties in our communities back into use. They are sustainable because people who live in those homes do not need two cars; they can walk to local shops and local schools.
Let us regenerate our town centres. Why not encourage folk to live above vacant shops to stimulate those areas and have people living in them 24 hours a day? My award-winning Huddersfield university investing millions of pounds in new quality student accommodation will release thousands of properties formerly used by students—although they will need some investment. Let us stop doing the easy thing—and the cheapest thing for developers. Let us get smart, and let us protect our beautiful green countryside in West Yorkshire. The battle to save Grimescar valley begins in earnest tomorrow evening. I am up for the fight and so are hundreds—nay, thousands—of local folk, who really love where we live.
I would like to wish all hon. Members a very happy summer. As well as working hard, I hope we all get a chance to recharge our batteries. I thank all the wonderful staff here in the House of Commons, and I would like to pick out Betty, down in the Terrace cafeteria, who always has a smile and a lovely word for my children when they visit during the summer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who will become a father in just three weeks’ time—he will have a very busy summer indeed. Mr Deputy Speaker, have a lovely summer. We look forward to seeing you again in September.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
The one thing I agree with the last speaker on is that Betty is wonderful. She deserves the congratulations and the compliments.
I want to raise the issue of adults with autism and the possible problems the Care Act 2014 may bring. The Department is consulting on the criteria for support, and there are fears that adults’ eligibility to receive support could be damaged. I do not think that I need to take up the House’s time describing the condition. It is a terrible, life-long condition that damages and constrains a person from childhood to death, with no cure in sight. The fact that support can be withdrawn from adults with autism should concern the House.
It is wrong to think that children with autism are in a better situation than adults with the condition, but they have the support of legislation and they are surrounded by professionals, for example in schools. If those professionals are doing their job, support should be forthcoming. If the local authority is doing its job, it will be encouraging support and paying for it. However, too many adults with autism slip below the radar once they reach the age of 25 and lose what support they had, often with disastrous consequences.
The national criteria propose that the present banding of low, moderate, substantial and crucial be substituted with a sole criterion comparable to the present “substantial” definition. Although that gives some comfort to people across the country that support will not be determined by postcode, there is a worry that those people with needs that could be described as lower than substantial will have their support withdrawn.
That raises the difficulty of withdrawing the existing requirement for local authorities to provide support to individuals at risk of abuse or neglect. Some adults with autism can struggle to understand the intention of others. That can lead to them being taken advantage of and even abused by people they often think are their friends. Low-level support, such as one-to-one counselling sessions on understanding relationships and boundaries, can reduce the risk of a vulnerable person with autism becoming a victim of abuse. However, under the criteria in the regulations, that low-level support could be withdrawn.
Let me give the House some figures. The National Autistic Society has found that
“49% of adults with autism… told us they had been abused by someone they thought of as a friend, 27% have had money or possessions stolen by someone they thought of as a friend, and 37% have been forced or manipulated to doing something they didn’t want to do by someone they thought of as a friend.”
It is therefore very important that the regulations are tweaked to stop that happening.
The regulations propose that the inability to maintain relationships should make a person eligible for assistance, but forming or developing relationships in the first place is something that people with autism often need specific help with. Without that support, they can be particularly vulnerable to social isolation. According to the National Autistic Society,
“65% of adults told us they need prompting to wash, dress or prepare a meal. 86% of adults who need prompting have not washed, 70% have missed meals and 69% have not got dressed because they didn’t get this help.”
It quotes one individual:
“I don’t eat. I don’t change clothes, nothing except maybe get a drink of water and go to the bathroom when I can’t hold it anymore. Don’t take my meds either. I can lose entire days and nights that way.”
That is what is at stake. In the regulations, the definition used for determining whether an adult with autism gets support is “to be unable”. Those familiar with autism consider that that should be extended to include guidance and prompting. Someone with autism might be physically capable of carrying out a basic act of personal care, but often they need to be prompted, reminded or guided to do it. Prompting, in that case, means reminding, encouraging and explaining, by another person verbally or through the use of visual aids.
My last point is that adults with autism should receive community care assessments from people with specific expertise in autism, because someone who is not aware of the varied and hidden aspects of autistic behaviour could fail to understand that adult or could make the wrong decision as a result of being primarily influenced by the physical appearance of the individual. That has happened, and is happening, with disability examinations when mental health problems and their debilitating effects are not given due and vital attention by medical examiners who lack detailed mental health knowledge and tend to concentrate on the claimant’s physical aspects.
It is very important that I raise this issue in the debate, because the regulations are being formed now and will probably come to the House immediately after the recess. If that is the case, they will be secondary legislation, which is not amendable, so the current consultations and discussions with bodies such as the National Autistic Society have to be sympathetic and take on board those points. Otherwise, people who are already damaged will be damaged further, because we will not be able to change the regulations.
I will end on that note and wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the staff—particularly Betty, and Noeleen, Mary and Margaret in the Tea Room—and other Members a short but happy recess.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I want to take the opportunity provided by this debate to reflect on two cases involving constituents of mine that have caused me to ask, yet again, what can be done to relieve individuals and businesses of petty regulation and, more particularly, the powers given to officials to interpret the vast amount of legislation and regulation that comes forth from Government, the European Union, local authorities and the ever-increasing agencies of Government. The two cases are also linked to an inquiry being carried out by the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, into the accountability of executive agencies and quangos, or non-departmental public bodies.
Mr Gary Rockhill of the Dovedale hotel in Cleethorpes has been having a little local difficulty with the planning department of North East Lincolnshire council. It is not uncommon for small businesses to cross swords with the planners and I make no particular comment as to the rights and wrongs of the case. I merely want to address the powers available to enforce regulations.
When Mr Rockhill attended my surgery, he outlined the problems he is encountering, one of which related to the display of an A-board outside his premises. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who have served as councillors, will, I am sure, be familiar with these advertising displays, which seem to be so disliked by planners. Of course, councils should have powers to prevent A-boards from blocking the pathway if they are causing problems for pedestrians, the disabled, those with pushchairs and the like, but my question is: should those powers be as extensive as they are?
On 9 April, Mr Rockhill received a letter form Cofely, the council’s partner organisation, which enforces and administers the council’s planning functions. It stated:
“I am writing to you regarding the above property and the illegal advertisement you have placed on St Peters Avenue, Cleethorpes.
In connection with this investigation, the Council would like to invite you to a formal interview under caution at the Council offices. The caution states”—
these are familiar words—
“‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be taken in evidence.’ The reason for the interview under caution is that the Council suspects that an offence has been committed, and before any questions are put to you about your involvement or suspected involvement in that offence, the caution should be given so that your answers or silence may be given in Court in evidence.”
I remind Members that this is in connection not with burglary, drunken driving or any of the more serious offences, but with the alleged nuisance and inconvenience caused by displaying an A-board.
On behalf of Mr Rockhill, I wrote to the council’s chief executive:
“It would seem that sending out letters of this kind is, to say the least, heavy-handed. This is not a serious crime but a case of placing an A-board on the pavement…I am well aware that these are a potential hazard in certain circumstances though I have to say that, in my experience, the potential hazards seem to be in the eyes of officials rather than in reality. I would be very happy to walk around Cleethorpes with you when it is very easy to come across scores of examples of highway authority signs, lighting columns, litter bins etc that are a far more serious obstruction than Mr Rockhill’s signs.”
As I anticipated, I received a reply explaining that the council was acting perfectly properly, and in line with current legislation. Of course, councils need powers to deal with violations that cause inconvenience to those they serve, but are we seriously saying that we need such a heavy-handed approach? My question for the Minister is: should a Government who are both Liberal and Conservative allow such legislation to remain on the statute book?
My second example relates to another constituent, Mr Ernest Cromer. On Friday 20 June, Mr Cromer featured in Richard Littlejohn’s column in the Daily Mail, and he visited my constituency surgery on the same day. Mr Cromer is a former trawler skipper and, as Mr Littlejohn’s article states, he
“retains his love of the sea and fishing.”
The article continues:
“His daily exercise consists of walking 60 yards out into the”—
Humber—
“estuary to inspect his net tethered on the mud-flats to catch fish on the incoming tide. It’s a method used by locals on the banks between Grimsby and Cleethorpes for generations. On a good day, he might catch two Dover sole... Some days the net is empty. But if he catches more than a couple of fish, he gives them away to friends and neighbours.”
In no way can his operation be described as a commercial one. It does not sound as though it is akin to some foreign trawler moving in and hoovering up tons of fish. Do we really need the vast array of officialdom to protect us or, indeed, the natural resources of our seas and coastlines? On the 21 June, Mr Cromer’s story was covered by the Grimsby Telegraph, with comments from both me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) in his support.
Immediately following Mr Cromer’s visit to my surgery, I wrote to the North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority to express my concerns at yet another example of officialdom acting in a high and heavy-handed manner. A few days later, I received a reply from the authority’s chief officer, who I am sure has acted entirely properly and diligently in busily interpreting the vast array of legislation, rules and regulations that nowadays appear to be necessary to protect the natural environment. The first paragraph of his reply expressed his concerns:
“I would like to register my disappointment”
about
“public statements by your office, for your constituent’s position.”
Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I make no apology for defending my constituent’s position: I regard it as a fundamental part of the role of a Member of Parliament to defend constituents against the might of the bureaucracy.
The letter states that the statutory authority for the NEIFCA is the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, as updated by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The particular regulation covering Mr Cromer’s activities was first made in the early 1990s under section 5 of the 1966 Act and section 37(2) of the Salmon Act 1986. Apparently, there are 22 regulations in force in NEIFCA’s area to protect species including salmon, sea trout and eels. I do not doubt that serious thought went into making the regulations, and that there was a need to protect some species from illegal activity, but I cannot help asking why these species are still in existence when the Mr Cromers of this world have been doing for centuries exactly what Mr Cromer is now doing. If he used modern methods—as I mentioned, they can hoover up a vast tonnage of fish—I could understand it, but is it really being suggested that a couple of fish in his net every day will cause such major problems?
As an aside, the same applies to the vast array of industry on the Humber bank and elsewhere. From the 1950s onwards, vast swaths of land on the south bank of the Humber have been developed for industry—power stations, oil refineries and other heavy industry. That was done without all the environmental regulations that now apply to protect migratory birds, yet the birds are still there. The birds are now in need of protection that delays investment and the associated jobs. I have asked representatives from Natural England and other organisations why the birds survived the previous industrial development. As yet, I have received no convincing reply. I assume the answer is that nature adapts.
I do not believe that we should abandon the regulations that protect the environment across the board, but that they should be commensurate with the problem that they seek to address and that some accountability for the officials who implement them is essential. In the case of the IFCA, there is an advisory council, but how closely it monitors the activities of its officials is open to doubt.
The NEIFCA pointed out in its reply to me that the original article was inaccurate in linking the story to Europe. I am always keen to blame the EU and the link in the article was implied rather than factual. It did not blame a specific regulation or directive for Mr Cromer’s plight, but drew attention to the fact that the destruction of the fishing industry is linked to our EU membership, which is quite right. Admittedly, the Icelandic cod wars played a part in the demise of the industry, but the hostility to the local community of what was the Common Market and is now the EU remains. I do not care whether it is the EU or successive British Governments that have introduced the regulations, but there needs to be discretion in the way they are implemented.
To return to the letter that I received from the NEIFCA, it states that
“unfortunately and hopefully as you will appreciate, we cannot make one rule for one and not another and however well meaning, to allow a specific exception for Mr Cromer would in my view place the Humber Estuary at significant risk of environmental impact, resulting in completely unregulated and uncontrollable levels of activity, killing sensitive migratory fish and eel species…and placing the general public at risk.”
Really?
To conclude, we hear frequently that the prosecuting authorities, sometimes in serious criminal cases, have decided against prosecution because it is not in the public interest, yet for poor Mr Cromer, who is accused of catching a couple of fish each day, there can be no exception and no discretion. As the NEIFCA states,
“as you will hopefully understand, this specific byelaw regulation is in place for very sound reasons and my officers provide advice and enforce their provisions in a very even-handed and fair manner right across the board.”
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to differ.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow a number of other hon. Members who have spoken about housing, which is one of the issues that I want to raise. However, unlike the Members for the valleys—the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney)—who are against houses being built in their areas, and especially in greenfield areas, I would like to see more houses in my borough of Hackney and in London as a whole.
There were 671 new starts in Hackney South and Shoreditch in 2013, which compares with a constituency average in the UK of 185. Clearly, the average is a curious figure because it includes areas where development is more challenging for all sorts of reasons, but it shows that in one small London borough, where there is a will, more homes can be built.
I declare an interest in that I am a landlady. There are a large number of private renters in my constituency. We need housing across the board because London and Hackney continue to grow. The price rises are incredible because of the great shortage. More people rent privately than own housing in my constituency, and the number of people who rent social housing in my borough is greater than the number of people who own and rent privately combined. Hackney is one of the top two councils nationally for building new council homes. Even though that is good for Hackney, it is not enough to keep up with demand.
I have spoken about house prices and rent levels in my constituency before, but I want to remind the House about them. According to Land Registry figures, between March 2013 and March 2014, the percentage increase in house prices was 19%, meaning that an average home now costs £525,000—just over half a million pounds— which is up from £441,000 a year ago. The figures that I have are the median rent levels, but many homes are much more expensive. For a typical three-bedroom home, the rent is just shy of £2,000. For a one-bedroom home, it is £1,235.
We need more housing in Hackney, in London, and probably in other parts of the country too, and we must challenge the Government’s target of setting social rents at 80% of local private rents for new social housing—something that happily Hackney council continues to resist. Those rent levels would be unaffordable for many hard-working people in my constituency, and it would hoover up and scoop out loads of people living in inner-London, and change the nature not just of a borough but of a city where people live cheek by jowl, with incomes mattering less than their contribution to the community.
Part of the solution must be new longer-term tenancies in the private sector. Labour Front Benchers have called for three-year tenancies in the private sector, which I back. For tenants who want such tenancies that is great and should be offered, but it is not enough for families who need far more stability than a three-year tenancy. We must look seriously and cross-party—this will take time to implement—at some sort of financial incentive for private landlords who want to be long-term landlords and not just in it for the money to provide longer-term tenancies for families. It may be that they need a tax incentive or some other economic device to encourage them to provide longer-term tenancies with rent guarantees, as part of the mix of social housing more generally. That certainly needs to be part of the solution in London, to help boost the intermediate sector and make private renting a longer-term choice for those who wish to or have to take that option.
Finally on housing, we need to abolish the bedroom tax. This is a failed policy. It is easy to say, “Oh, it’s fair because people have an extra bedroom”, but when someone has lived in a home for 30 years, or was born there, or has adult children who come and go, to suddenly be charged £14 for that extra bedroom is not fair or reasonable. Often, people’s household circumstances change periodically. I have many constituents who have fallen out of work through no fault of their own and are looking for work, but in that period they have to pay the extra out of their benefits. They do not want to leave because they are optimistic that they will get a job again. One woman who came to see me had moved from a three-bedroom property to a two-bedroom property because her eldest child had left home, and she has—temporarily, she hopes—fallen out of work. She was encouraged to move to a two-bedroom social rented property, but the rent she pays for that is higher than the rent she was paying on the three-bedroom property. Now when she looks for work, she has to look for a job that pays even more to ensure she can cover the rent. That makes her search for work even more challenging.
Another example comes from Wenlock Barn estate in Hoxton in my constituency where more than 70 families on one estate are affected by the bedroom tax. They are not moving anywhere because those are their homes, and there are not many options that they can move down to. I challenge the Deputy Leader of the House to make clear in his response his party’s position as a party of government about the future of the bedroom tax.
I also want to mention GP services in east London and particularly Hackney. The Government have withdrawn the minimum practice income guarantee, or MPIG, but that unsexy sounding acronym is a serious issue for my constituents. I represent one of the most deprived areas of the country—although there are huge issues around the price of housing—and many people are living in great poverty and need health care support.
Yesterday I met Dr Sarah Williams who leads the campaign across east London to ensure we protect our GP services. Earlier this year I raised with Ministers during Health questions my concerns about how the withdrawal of the MPIG would affect the services that my constituents receive from their GPs, and I was told forcefully by the Minister that NHS England had the matter in hand. I happened to have a meeting in the next few days with NHS England and another London MP, and NHS England was clear that it was speaking with local GPs to try to find solutions to the issue. What I hear from local GPs, however, is not what I am hearing from those sources, and local GPs were unaware of the discussions that NHS England says it is having with them. Dr Williams told me, in her words, that the MPIG was introduced in 2004 “in perpetuity”, whereas Ministers have said on the record in the House that it was always supposed to be a temporary measure.
I am therefore asking for the minimum practice income guarantee withdrawal to be frozen. One seventh has been withdrawn because it will be withdrawn over a seven-year period, but perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House could pass this question on to Department of Health Ministers: how much overall will be drawn from the most deprived areas when the minimum practice income guarantee is withdrawn? Some GPs are very much in favour of the withdrawal. If we take away money from some practices and distribute it evenly across the whole, some practices will be net gainers. Many of my constituents have arrived from other parts of the country, and many have had poorer upbringings. All the data show that poor early upbringings have a long-term impact on health. We need GP services to be tuned in to that and ensure that we have the extra provision so that we have properly funded practices. I do not see why my constituents should lose those services in order to fund services in constituencies such as, to pick random examples, Carshalton and Wallington or Surrey Heath, where the needs are markedly less great.
In the short time I have left, I want to talk about child care, an issue I have raised many times. I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the country. More than a fifth of residents are under 16. Therefore, a lot of parents of young children are struggling to make ends meet because of the cost of housing if they are living in the private rented sector or trying to buy, and because of the lottery of child care. We have good child care in Hackney, but finding the right child care when they need it is a challenge for all parents up and down the country.
Often, we think we are lucky when we get good child care, but it should be there anyway. I am perhaps bolder than those on the Opposition Front Bench. I believe we should have universal free provision of child care. That would have to be funded over time, but the revenue from taxpaying parents would soon cover it. Very few parents I know can afford to work full time because the cost of full-time child care is so great. They would contribute far more to the tax regime if they could.
We should see child care as a cross-party issue. The Government are trying things, but they tinker at the edges. They are fiddling around with the tax regime and making it even more complicated for parents when we already have systems in place. Introducing a new system does not solve the problem of supply, which is the serious issue.
As I said to the Prime Minister in the past month, broadband is a national embarrassment. I have often spoken about that but it is a national concern. We are too wedded as a country to one technology. Broadband is too expensive, particularly for small businesses, which need it when they are growing but do not have the money to spend. Business grants of £3,000 have been added in, but that is like a sticking plaster—it is a bit like worrying about the scratch on the patient’s finger when they have a broken leg. We need a comprehensive review of broadband, and plans for infrastructure and roll-out, and for a competitive framework that delivers.
My final point is a reminder to the House that it is 100 days today since the abduction of the Chibok schoolgirls in north-eastern Nigeria. There is a demonstration today at the Nigerian embassy to ensure that we do not lose sight not just of those schoolgirls, but of the other abductions and atrocities that have taken place in Nigeria as a result of the activities of Boko Haram. As chair of the all-party group on Nigeria, I challenge the Nigerian authorities to ensure that their policing is done on human rights terms, and that there are no abuses from the security services. Not doing so would weaken the support that the international community gives to Nigeria. The state provision should be done properly and we should tackle the terrorists in the right way.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow so many fine speakers and speeches. I would like to raise three important constituency issues in my remarks.
First, Great Western Air Ambulance is based in my constituency at the Filton airfield site. It is run and supported by extremely dedicated and hard-working people. Like all air ambulances, it is a charity. The team who run the service have to raise the funds they need to keep it going—approximately £1.5 million a year. The charity receives no funding from the Government and, as a relatively new air ambulance charity, it has no cash reserves.
The Great Western air ambulance flies approximately 1,500 missions a year and provides emergency cover for 2.1 million people in Bristol, Bath, north-east Somerset, north Somerset, Gloucestershire and parts of west Wiltshire. It is one of the few air ambulances that works to the gold-standard critical care model, which means rushing a critical care paramedic and critical care doctor to the scene. Seven days a week, 365 days a year, it can be with the casualty within 20 minutes of receiving the emergency call anywhere within the region it covers.
On average, 20% of incidents that the Great Western air ambulance attends involve providing emergency care and transfer for children under the age of 16 and babies. The critical care team are volunteers, giving up their precious personal time to help others. Great Western Air Ambulance has managed to secure two full-time trainee pre-hospital emergency medicine doctors from University Hospitals Bristol medical school. I pay great tribute to Great Western Air Ambulance for its fantastic life-saving work.
Great Western Air Ambulance needs a new helicopter. Its current helicopter, a 1972 Bölkow 105, is no longer fit for purpose. It does not have the power to land at the new elevated helipad at Bristol Royal Infirmary or at Bristol children’s hospital. As I mentioned, 20% of its cases involve children. The helicopter is relatively slow to load up, start up, shut down and unload. The clinical stability of the patient and the confined space in the cab mean that the helicopter often cannot transport patients. Those limitations mean that patients must be transported by road. A new modern air ambulance helicopter will save time and, therefore, save lives.
With the help of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), I am supporting Great Western Air Ambulance’s charity bid for £1,020,000 from the LIBOR fund. That amount would pay for the first year of the EC135 helicopter’s running costs, allowing the charity to put its long-term financial position on a much more sustainable basis. I look forward to meeting the Chancellor to discuss this matter, along with my neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood and for Bristol North West. I will be playing a small part in fundraising for the charity by running a Bristol half-marathon in September.
The next matter I would like to bring to the attention of the House is the need for a new junction on the M49 in my constituency. I have had previous meetings with road Ministers, and there have so far been various bids for this junction by the Highways Agency, South Gloucestershire council and, most recently, the local enterprise partnership. A new junction on the M49 would provide essential infrastructure investment to help unlock the potential of Avonmouth Severnside. Avonmouth Severnside is the largest brownfield site in western Europe, extending five miles along the Severn estuary between the north of Bristol and adjacent to the M5 and M49 motorways. Planning permission for commercial space and development has been granted, but much of the land has not yet been utilised. The new junction would link Avonmouth Severnside growth area to other key economic centres in the south-west.
Currently, there are access issues, with industrial traffic having to go a long way around, and often through, picturesque villages. The solution is simple: a junction on the M49 that would open access across the enterprise area. The junction would be good for business, jobs and the economy, both in my constituency and across the region. Work should start without delay.
The third issue I would like to highlight relates to the Frenchay residents user group. I would like to pay tribute to the group, which is known as RUG. It was set up as a local residents group to engage with the local community in relation to plans to redevelop the Frenchay hospital site and to ensure that local residents’ voices were heard, represented and considered. RUG has had some notable successes. One was to prevent the magnificent lime tree avenue on the site being chopped down, and another was to provide support to the village green application, which will preserve around 30 acres of green space in perpetuity for the local community.
RUG has grown in strength, with more than 1,000 members. Last Sunday, it became the new Frenchay residents association. It has a constitution, and has elected its first president and committee. I was honoured to take part in the first meeting by proposing the new constitution and the election of the first president and committee members. The first president is Frenchay resident of more than 50 years, Bob Woodward OBE, who was honoured in the Queen’s birthday honours list this year. Bob founded the children’s leukaemia charity CLIC in 1976, after his son, Robert, was diagnosed with cancer. Sadly, Robert died in 1977, aged only 11 years old. Bob went on to raise more than £50 million for the charity and has dedicated his life to charity work, including for the Jack and Jill Children’s Foundation, the Children’s Hospice appeal and the Starfish Trust. I am sure Bob will be a fantastic president of the new residents association. I wish him and the new residents group all the very best in continuing their great work to safeguard Frenchay’s best interests.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I do not want to comment on the many interesting contributions this afternoon, but I want to pick up one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) about the minimum practice income guarantee, which has been in the public eye in the way it affects practices in London, but also has had an impact across the country. In fact, five GP practices in Sheffield are affected, including two in my constituency. I have pressed Ministers in Health questions and met NHS England, and I have had a similar experience—warm words and reassurances but no sign of significant practical action to alleviate the impact on those practices working with the most challenging patients in the city. Those practices face a tipping point, and I join her in urging the Government to reconsider the withdrawal of MPIG over the next seven years, because, if they do not, a number of practices will fall by the wayside.
That was not what I rose to speak about. These debates provide a useful opportunity for us to reflect on the past year and to learn lessons for the remainder of the Parliament. I am proud to represent a multicultural constituency in a multicultural city, and I want to talk about a community that I have worked with over many years but which is feeling increasingly beleaguered: our Muslim community. It is long established in Sheffield—over three or four generations—and I have worked with it for more than 30 years, challenging extremism, since long before I was a Member of Parliament. I have to say that the extremism we have challenged over that period has largely come from the white community: from the National Front, the British National party, the English Defence League and others.
The community now feels threatened. A community leader said to me recently:
“People feel under attack all of the time, not in a physical way, but that they’re always under suspicion.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) described the problem very well in a recent article in The Guardian. She said that
“this lazy discussion (practising Muslim = extremist = on the conveyer belt to terrorism) is getting just a little tired”.
The members of my local community are not just tired of the narrative, but worried about it. People who have worked for years to promote community cohesion say to me that the situation has never been worse. We have to act on this lesson for the remainder of the Parliament, because a toxic public discourse is developing in which religious conservatism, political extremism and national security issues are often dealt with as one when it comes to the Muslim community.
Everyone in this place has an important role in helping to frame that public discourse—today we had a significant debate about the issue in Birmingham schools. The bullying and intimidation of staff; improper employment and governance practices; the promotion of one branch of a faith to the exclusion of others; and a lack of financial transparency are issues that we have to take extremely seriously and which should be investigated seriously, as they have been, but to frame them as an Islamist plot and to link them to terrorism by appointing the former head of the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism command to investigate is profoundly unhelpful, because it fuels division, rather than reducing it. As another of my Muslim constituents told me recently,
“Everything you do is questioned, by the Government and by your neighbours. Muslims are seen as terrorists.”
The press plays a role in creating such a climate. Newspaper headlines linking the appalling events associated with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, in Iraq and Syria, with threats to the UK, as reflected in a recent Daily Telegraph headline, “Are the British jihadists going to turn their guns on us?”, fuel enormous suspicion. A recent article in the Evening Standard on women jihadists told the story of two 17-year-old British girls arrested at Heathrow and went on at length about the threat posed by women converting to Islamic terrorism, before pointing out that they had been released without charge. We have even witnessed hysteria over people eating halal meat. The Daily Mail described that—in a front-page horror story—as
“a stealthy takeover of Britain’s supermarket shelves”.
The way in which we frame discussion and the way in which we address issues need to be approached carefully. It was not helpful for the Prime Minister to contribute an article to the Daily Mail which was accompanied by a front-page headline reading “Be more British, Cameron tells UK Muslims”. A debate about British values is fine, but let us be careful how we frame it. Let us also recognise that when the Prime Minister talks about
“a belief in freedom, tolerance of others”,
it is not helpful for some of his Back Benchers, at the same time, to introduce private Member’s Bills to legislate for what women can and cannot wear.
All this is not without consequence. According to Tell MAMA, a voluntary organisation with which some Members will be familiar—it measures and monitors anti-Muslim attacks, and, unfortunately, its funding has been withdrawn by the Government—the number of attacks on Muslims increased significantly over its last reporting period, between May 2013 and February 2014. That contrasts sharply with the general figures produced by the police and the Government on hate crime incidents.
Careless words cause real damage. As we look forward to the remaining part of the current Parliament, there are three things that we could do. First, all of us—on all sides—need to be enormously careful about the way in which we use language, and the Government in particular need to think carefully about the way in which they frame their debate on British values. Secondly, we need to recognise the good work that is done in all communities to tackle extremism, and to recognise that extremism exists in all communities. Thirdly, we need to work harder at building community cohesion. It would be useful for the Government to reflect on the decision to cut the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government for community rights, integration and the big society from £38.6 million in 2013-14 to £27.2 million in 2014-15, at precisely the time when we need to work harder to build community cohesion. If we fail to rise to that challenge, we shall be driving communities apart when we should be pulling them together. Let us make those our objectives for the remaining months of this Parliament.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I hope that my constituents will forgive me for not mentioning my constituency or any part of it. I know that it is traditional to do so in summer adjournment debates, but for some reason we have not been given an opportunity to make speeches about the plane that was downed over the European continent, and I think that that was remiss of whoever made the decision. I think it important for us to debate that incident and the ramifications that I believe it will have in this country, in relation to its foreign and energy policies and in general.
Indeed, I do not think that we should be adjourning today. I think that we should all be given an opportunity to reflect on such a dreadful incident. I struggle to work out what has to happen for a debate to take place when 300 people—300 innocent people—have been blown out of the sky over the European continent by a surface-to-air missile, most likely by individuals backed by proxy by a state with which we retain diplomatic relations. What needs to happen for us actually to think that it is worthy of this mother of all Parliaments to debate the implications of such an appalling occurrence?
Three years ago, it was thought appropriate that we should extend the Session to discuss phone tapping and the influence of Rupert Murdoch on politics in this country. At the time, I commented that I thought that was out of date and that I was more concerned about the influence of Google and Facebook on politics and that Mr Murdoch was very much a man of the past. A year ago, we were recalled because of an international crime that had been committed in Syria. We all flew in from various parts of the world to participate in the debate and to discuss what was undoubtedly an appalling act. How can we witness the shooting down of a plane, with 80 or so children being blown out of the sky and landing on the ground, and a 10-year-old child being found strapped in a seat with a look of horror on its face, and not debate that?
Britain’s role needs to be clearly defined—indeed, it needs to be redefined. We have lost a sense of what this country stands for and what it is about. We do not seem to take our responsibilities in the same way as we perhaps once did. To my mind, the 20th century was about defending, and trying to spread the value of, democracy and liberty. Will the 21st century be about the rise of autocratic regimes that we try to placate, that we want investment from, and that we want to be involved in the critical infrastructure of our nation? I find this perplexing. I am rather baffled that this generation of politicians, of all political colours, seems comfortable to engage in such commercial dealings and is prepared to look the other way when anything uncomfortable is thrown up, in order to secure an economic future—or, dare I say, because it is politically expedient to do so. That applies to both sides of the House; it is not a party political point.
Britain at the moment finds itself in debt. The nation’s debt will have virtually doubled in this Parliament. People talk to me about austerity Britain and I look at the numbers and I think, “Well, we’re still spending more money than we’re getting in, so we clearly haven’t learned our lessons.” We remain dependent on people lending us money to service that debt and we are increasingly dependent on imported energy in the form of gas and food and the like. That level of dependency in terms of both debt and energy is perhaps one of the reasons why we look the other way when tragic events take place—events we wish we could ignore, and which may impact on our short-term geopolitical targets.
What frustrates me even more is that wherever I look in the world, I see a dearth of true leadership. Please give me a list of names of people leading countries around the world who are strong leaders—people who are prepared to stand up for particular values and principles, and who are prepared to put men and women in the line of fire to defend those principles. I fully understand that Britain is rather war-weary—I do not want to comment on the recent exploits in various countries around the world—and that the country is, of course, thinking that this is not our problem. But when 10 Britons are blown out of the sky, and when over 190 Dutch—just remember how brave the Dutch people were in the second world war on our side—are blown out of the sky, I think it is our problem. What have we done? We have made a few telephone calls, and are threatening a few sanctions. It is just not good enough.
I find it pretty disgraceful—in fact, I am quite embarrassed—because an international crime has taken place. We knew the location of this site—I presume there have been US satellites trained on that part of Ukraine for the past few months—so why did we not go in and secure the site? We have the capacity to do that. Why have I had to watch journalists picking through evidence? How come there were not international observers at the site within 36 or 48 hours, to protect that evidence and to secure those bodies so that they do not fester in unrefrigerated train carriages? I am rather embarrassed that we did not have the courage and did not seek to get the support of the Americans, the Dutch, the Germans or the French in order to go in and secure that site. That does not reflect well on Britain and on western democracies.
My frustration is that there is no reason why Britain cannot be that strong nation it once was—that country that stood up for particular values and principles. We need to rediscover valuing the right things in life. We need to value invention and finding the 21st century equivalent of the Watt steam engine, which made us strong in the first place. By doing that, we would not be so dependent on these countries with which I do not want to have commercial dealings. We would not be dependent on these countries that have no concept of a free media and on countries in which human rights are a secondary, perhaps tertiary, thought. I want to be a part of a country that stands for something, that means something in the world and that is respected around the world. I fear that at the moment, because of our level of debt and of dependence, and our complete absence of any vision or leadership, we are being less of a country than we should be and most certainly less of a country than the globe desperately needs.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It was a pleasure to listen to the thought-provoking contribution of the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee). I had forgotten how wide-ranging and interesting the pre-recess Adjournment debate can be. We have heard contributions from hon. Members championing individuals, for example, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) championing Mr Cromer; discussions about children’s TV programmes such as “The Herbs”, which many of us will fondly remember watching; and speeches about the role of the 1966 World cup and how West Ham was instrumental in making sure the cup was won for England. I want to make a contribution about the NHS.
I am growing increasingly concerned about the NHS in my Hull constituency. In 2010, the NHS, both in Hull and across the country, had high levels of patient satisfaction—the highest levels in its history. Of course there were challenges in 2010, but the NHS was well placed to deal with them. Under a Labour Government, Hull had many new health centres: we had a new women and children’s hospital; a new eye hospital; a new oncology centre at the Castle Hill site, just outside Hull; and the new Hull York medical school opened in the city, so that we could produce our own doctors for the future. As an MP, I received very few complaints about the NHS then.
In the past two years, however, especially since the wasteful £3 billion top-down NHS reorganisation, which nobody voted for and for which there was no call in the coalition agreement, things have deteriorated. I worry that the only person who seems to understand or know how the fragmented NHS now operates and fits together is the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), and I note that he is leaving the House of Commons at the next election, so I am a bit concerned about the situation we find ourselves in today. The number of complaints I have received from my constituents about the NHS has doubled in the past year, going from 16 to 34 in 2012-13. This year, I have already received 27 such complaints.
I want to run through a few of the issues I am most concerned about, the first of which relates to parents trying to seek a diagnosis for their children where there is a concern that the child may have autism or be on the spectrum. The clinical commissioning group in Hull tells me that the standard for this diagnosis is supposed to be 20 weeks, but two constituents have come to me in the past few months saying that they have been told it will take more than 12 months for a child to be diagnosed. That is unacceptable. We all know that the earlier we can get children into the kind of services that will help them, the better. The outcomes will be better for those children. The CCG tells me that it is doing everything it can to address the problem, but that is not a wait that should continue for very long, and I hope the CCG is able to get it down.
I want to raise an issue that a parent brought to me about children regarding Down’s syndrome. There is no national care pathway for this group of children. There is good practice around the country, but that good practice is not in every part of the NHS, and it should be. With the changes to the NHS and to the role of the Department of Health, I am worried that the drive to ensure best practice around the country may now be fragmented and that we may see a return of the postcode lottery.
The headline story in today’s Hull Daily Mail is that almost 4,000 patients in East Yorkshire are now forced to wait more than 18 weeks to see a hospital consultant. The areas in which they have to wait are orthopaedics, neurology and colorectal and thoracic medicine. It is a concern that ill people have to wait to be seen.
Finally, I have had complaints about A and E and the acute assessment unit at Hull Royal infirmary. The complaints are often about waiting times to be seen by doctors. Many people say that they think the staff are doing a good job, but are overstretched. A constituent sent me an e-mail in which she said:
“My husband was admitted to Hull Royal Infirmary on New Year’s day with a major asthma attack due to a viral chest infection. He received excellent care by the staff both in the ambulance and those on duty. However, the overcrowding in A&E gives serious cause for concern. Many dozens of poorly people were waiting on trolleys in the corridors. The staff were run ragged.”
She said that her husband had to wait 11 hours to get the results of an X-ray and blood test. She went on to say:
“If A&E is the barometer of the Health Service then it is sadly in trouble. The NHS had improved so much under Labour.”
Let me read out another case that was sent to me by my caseworker:
“The constituent’s father had been unwell for over a year. He was admitted to Hull Royal Infirmary…where he was on the Acute Assessment Unit Ward with suspected tuberculosis. When the constituent visited him the next day, they found that: the drip in his arm had not been put into a vein; he had been laid in his own urine; there was no way for him to attract the nurse’s attention; and nobody had checked on him for 6 hours. He was discharged the following Tuesday, however he was still poorly and had difficulty walking. He still had a cannula in his arm. The constituent had to go back to the hospital to collect his medication, and she found out that the nursing staff didn’t know why he had been discharged. The constituent said she was later told by a nurse and her family’s GP that he had been sent home to die.”
Those are just two examples from my growing postbag. I am truly shocked—I am sure that other Members are too—to hear these harrowing accounts of the care that my constituents have received.
Admittedly, not all the problems with Hull’s NHS as reported in our recent CQC report, such as the totally unacceptable bullying culture, may be entirely made in Whitehall. However, these problems seem to have come to the fore in the past two years, after the NHS reorganisation.
There is another matter that I want to raise, one that I have raised before with the Secretary of State during Health questions. The former chief executive of Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Phil Morley, suddenly resigned just before the publication of a very poor CQC report, which highlighted the bullying culture in the trust. I was shocked to read, just a few weeks later, that he has now resurfaced as the new chief executive in Harlow, Essex. I thought that the new Health Secretary was going to end this revolving door of chief executives moving from trust to trust, but he has not, and I am very anxious that we should deal with the matter.
I am also still waiting for an answer to another question. The CQC report mentioned a shortage of junior doctors in our local hospitals. I do not understand that. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we have the Hull York medical school in Hull, which was designed to train doctors for the local area, so I do not understand where the junior doctors are going.
I also want to mention the privatisation going on under the coalition’s NHS reforms. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has tabled a private Member’s Bill that will have its Second Reading in November and would scrap the competition framework set out in the coalition’s NHS legislation. I hope that the Liberal Democrats might support my hon. Friend’s Bill.
Let me raise just one more issue to do with health. Last winter, A and Es around the country received extra money to cope with the winter pressures: some £250 million was made available. Hull did not get any of that money, but the CQC report to which I have referred made it quite clear that the inspectors felt that A and E needed extra assistance and support. I say again, as I have on many occasions, that Hull often seems to miss out on moneys that are very much needed in a city that has considerable health inequalities and where people develop chronic illnesses much younger than they do in other parts of the country.
The NHS is a key issue for many of my constituents. I will be out and about over the summer listening to their concerns about the NHS and about what is going on locally. I am seriously worried by what has happened over the past two years. I remember very clearly the Prime Minister saying in 2010 that the NHS was safe in his hands. Four years on, I do not particularly think that he has kept that promise, and I think that over the coming 12 months we will start to see more and more issues raised about the state of the NHS.
I finish by taking this opportunity to wish everybody a good recess, particularly the staff of the House, who serve us so well.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I add my support for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who raised the issue of the plane being shot down over Ukraine and the problems that has caused, with all those people, from the Netherlands in particular but also from this country, being killed. We must send a message that that must not happen again and we must do much more about it, so I endorse his comments.
I want to refer first to the A303/A30. As we leave here for our recess, many people from all over the country will be moving down to the west country for the holidays. If they come from Birmingham, they will come down the M5 all the way to Exeter and will then get on the A30 down into Devon and Cornwall. That is great, but then we have all the traffic that comes from London. We want to see as many visitors as possible, because as my suntan shows—it has all come from Devon, not from foreign parts—we have wonderful weather. Everybody is most welcome. However, as visitors come from London, they come down the M4 and must also join the M5, so when the Birmingham traffic meets the London traffic there is absolute chaos. As you represent one of the Bristol seats, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that.
I am delighted that we will have a statement in the autumn, all being well, from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury giving money towards dualling the A303/A30, because it is essential that we have a second route in the west country. The traffic from London would then go down the M3, pick up the A303 and go on into Devon and Cornwall through Somerset and Wiltshire, and we would split the traffic between the midlands and London. At the moment, when the M5 or M4 is blocked, there is absolute chaos and hours and hours of traffic jam. The whole length of the A303/A30 needs to be dualled. There are five sections that need doing. The first is in Wiltshire at Stonehenge. It is extremely expensive because the powers that be seem to believe that we need a tunnel. I will not comment on the merits of that one way or the other, but it is expensive. The end that I represent, going into the Blackdown hills, is also expensive. I do not want to see the Government go shooting down the A303 and then shoot off on the A358 up to Taunton, because that road should be complementary. I am happy to have the A358 dualled, but we need the A303/A30 dualled all the way into Honiton to provide that second arterial route into the west country. Otherwise, if people join at Taunton, everything will be mixed back up on to the M5 and there will be complete chaos. That is why it is essential to dual the A303/A30. We can find a way to dual the route through the Blackdown hills without damaging the environment; we just have to be imaginative and make sure that we do it.
I welcomed the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), to my constituency. He drove the route with me to see where the problems are, and I look forward to the Government doing something about it in the very near future.
As we move into the 21st century, the one thing that matters to most, if not all, our constituents is access to fast broadband. Some of my constituents cannot even get snail’s pace broadband, let alone anything that is fast. There are huge problems even now in getting broadband into the Blackdown hills area, and places such as Upottery. I have an awful lot of farmers in my constituency who want to claim their single farm payments online. It is almost impossible to get access in some areas, so we really need to do something about it. I welcome what the Government have done already. Devon and Somerset county councils, along with BT, have put more than £100 million into delivering broadband, and Government money has been put in too. We have to make sure that it happens.
We have had a problem in the past—I think it is getting better—in that BT seemed a little secretive about where it was going next. It is all very well to be secretive about these matters, but of course people on the ground see the BT vans turn up and have a rough idea who is going to be connected and who is not, even if it does not appear on a BT map. That is where I hope that we are learning the lessons. I look forward to having broadband throughout the constituency. Unfortunately, a lot of spots are hard to reach. We are raising money in Devon and Somerset to deal with that, but Government money is necessary. It could be done by BT, or perhaps there could be some competition from other companies to deliver broadband to the hardest-to-reach areas. A little more competition might be a good thing. I have worked with the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), on broadband.
My constituency also has a lot of beef cattle and a lot of sheep. Recently we have seen the price of beef drop significantly, as has the price that farmers receive from cattle. One of the most worrying things is that a year ago 57% of the value of a beef animal went directly to the farmer, whereas now it is 53%. The processors, retailers or whoever are taking too much money out of the market. It is expensive to raise beef cattle, and not only are the cattle very good to eat but they look after the wonderful countryside that everyone is going to drive down the A303 to see. We look forward to people eating those animals when they get there, but we need to make sure that farmers get a decent price for them so that they can carry on producing this excellent meat.
When you come to Devon, you can also have some great lamb, Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is what you like to eat. I am not sure whether you do, but if you do you are most welcome to come to Devon and eat some of it. Again, it is a case of making sure that the farmers who produce that food get a fair market price because they are the ones who look after the countryside.
I have been delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be able to speak in this pre-recess debate. I look forward to coming back in September. In the meantime, I say to you, the Speaker’s Office and all the staff of Parliament, thank you very much for looking after us so well, and we look forward to returning in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in the pre-recess Adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) is not here at the moment, but he did his introduction. I always look forward to his introductions, because they are always full of fun and he refers to many things. But there is one thing that he referred to that I did not agree with: not attending premier league football matches. I am a Leicester City football supporter—as I have been for 45 years, just to put it on the record as other Members have done—and we are back in the premier league for the first time in 10 years, so we are very pleased. I would urge everyone to go and support Leicester City whenever the opportunity comes.
I should like to raise an issue that is close to my heart, one that I feel is extremely important in England, Scotland and particularly Northern Ireland. That is the role that the loyal Orange Order plays in our society. Throughout the years, especially in the summer months, we commemorate the brave actions of William III, Prince of Orange, and we celebrate the actions of 1690, which secured religious freedom and toleration for everyone. It is always good to remember that it is toleration and religious liberty for everyone. The Orange Order is a Protestant fraternity, with members throughout the world. Grand lodges are to be found in Ireland, in Scotland, in England, the United States of America, Canada, new Zealand and Australia, and in many countries across the African continent. Therefore you would not be surprised to learn, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as a member of the Orange Order, I feel a great sense of pride and camaraderie with my brothers and sisters in lodges throughout the world.
The Orange Order is an integral part of the community, raising money for many local charities, as well as helping to raise funds for those in developing countries and supporting disadvantaged children in local areas. One example of such charitable work was the work centred on a district lodge in Randalstown that produced badges to raise over £16,000 for the Royal Ulster Constabulary/Police Service of Northern Ireland Benevolent Fund and the Royal Engineers Benevolent Fund. Those charities were chosen because of the brutal murders of two soldiers in Antrim and, earlier in the year, PSNI Constable Stephen Carroll by dissident republicans in 2009. As well as the established Grand Master’s Charity Appeal, the Lord Enniskillen Memorial Orange Orphan Society is an institution that has a magnificent record for helping boys and girls who have been deprived of the love and the contribution of a parent, either through death by natural causes or as a result of continuing violence in Northern Ireland.
Parades are a key factor in the Orange Order celebrations, as people will know, the biggest of which takes place on the twelfth of July each year. This year we had no bother whatsoever. Indeed, many people said to me, “It was that good this year, I wish every day was the twelfth of July.” That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it is always good to have a parade that goes off without any bother, and it is always good to have an opportunity to enjoy the celebration of that occasion.
The parading tradition that the Orange Order upholds is an honourable and historic tradition, which was the norm for other fraternities in the past. The parades of the Orange Order are the largest public Protestant witness of their kind anywhere in the world. In Northern Ireland we are very pleased to know that they are attended by people from both sides of the community, who enjoy the pageantry of the occasion. The parades are a glorious display of pageantry. The flags and banners are full of religious, cultural and political symbolism, depicting biblical scenes, famous people or events in history, and in themselves portray the rich cultural heritage of our people in pictorial form. The music provided by the accompanying bands is of a very high standard and in rural areas especially people will come across an instrument that in many people’s minds is synonymous with Orangeism—the Lambeg drum.
I remember that 10 or 12 years ago, when a group of young people came from Germany to meet some of our young people in the Ards peninsula, the thing that those German young people enjoyed most of all about the twelfth was the Lambeg drums. It was good to know that they have that attraction in other parts of the world.
Of course, parading is loved throughout the world, as we all know, from the fantastic carnivals of Rio or the mardi gras in New Orleans to the St Patrick’s day parades in New York and Dublin. There is a great tradition of parading in other cultures and for other celebrations as well. Those are fantastic celebrations in their own right, but to me, nothing can quite compare to the sheer thrill of marching on the twelfth of July, seeing the delight in spectators’ faces and the various colours that an Orange parade bears, be it in the various collarette colours or in the vibrant images on the banners. My own lodge is LOL 1900, “Kircubbin True Blues”, so it will be no surprise to learn that our collarettes are blue.
This year in Northern Ireland, we witnessed a very peaceful twelfth of July. Unfortunately, due to some ludicrous decisions by the Parades Commission, many lodges were prevented from returning home via the straightforward route. Under the leadership of the Orange Order, a six-minute protest was held, with demonstrations across Northern Ireland. Every lodge and the accompanying bands stopped marching, silenced their instruments and stood in solidarity to represent the six minutes it would take for the lodges to pass the so-called contentious area and return home. The issue is one that greatly concerns us all across Northern Ireland. I congratulate the order on that response, because it was undoubtedly its careful and responsible leadership that led to such a glorious and peaceful twelfth.
The Orange Order represents an important part of our community, but it means even more than that, particularly this year. The Orange Order represents Unionism, so it was extremely poignant to see the many lodges and bands that came to Northern Ireland from Scotland. I have kept up to date with the latest statistics and national opinion polls, so I am under no illusion that Scotland will opt to leave the Union rather than stay within it, but the very fact that the question has arisen is sad for Unionism. Each time I stand in Westminster, I love to see the four national emblems and four flags of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, and know that this is where they all merge to form one flag and one identity: that of being British. This is where our strength lies and this is where we need to remain.
It should be remembered that the order has a worldwide membership. The structure that is Orangeism has its basis in the coming together of men and women of good will who are determined to use what power and influence they can muster to ensure that civil and religious liberty is maintained. Members of the Orange Institution are pledged to uphold the Protestant faith and liberty under the law. Orangemen are neither bigots nor extremists, standing for tolerance and compassion towards all; they also stand for the underlying principle of the Christian faith and the dignity and rights of the individual.
The Orange Order represents civil and religious liberty as it always has done, but today it means much more than that: it stands for unity and Unionism at its deepest level. It allows those of us in Northern Ireland who want to celebrate our British heritage and culture to do so and to enjoy the fact that we represent an essential part of the United Kingdom. We are proud to be part of the United Kingdom—I emphasise the word “United”—and hope to remain so for a long time. To sum up, the Orange Order is a fantastic organisation. It promotes Christian values, friendship and unity. Orangemen share common interests, beliefs and goals, which tie all of us together. It is a bond of the deepest kind.
Perhaps not all Members are aware, but love is in the air in the House of Commons: this week, three MPs are getting married. The hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) is getting married in the morning of 25 July, and in the afternoon something more stupendous is happening, as the hon. Members for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) are marrying each other. It would be remiss of us not to add our congratulations to all three of them as they enter into the honourable institution of marriage. With that in mind, we wish them a happy marriage, good health and long life.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you, the other Deputy Speakers and the Speaker, and your staff, for all your graciousness and good humour and for the fair way you conduct the business of the House. It is greatly appreciated by us all, and even more appreciated by me. Thank you very much.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I would like to follow almost exactly the same theme as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who made an extremely thoughtful speech. We must not underestimate the seriousness of the current international situation. Never in my life have I seen the world in a greater mess, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Palestine, Israel, Egypt, Libya and central Africa, and we must also remember the problems in North and South Korea, and those are only some examples.
While we in the west are decreasing our defence spending, Russia is rapidly expanding its own. In 2013 it spent more on armaments than the United States. Russian defence spending increased by 4.8%. Under Russia’s state armaments plan, Moscow plans to spend $705 billion to replace 70% of the country’s military equipment by 2020. Some 45% of its ships will be new by next year. However, in the west, and particularly in Europe, defence is seen as a low priority. Spending on social security dominates and military security, which is the first duty of government, takes a back seat. Are we sleepwalking? The west won the cold war, but right now it does not look like we are winning the post-cold war.
We, the British, are strong supporters of NATO, yet we are still prevaricating about spending a definite 2% of GNP on defence, which is an alliance commitment. Even that is not enough; we should be increasing defence spending well beyond that. For instance, how are we going to man, equip, fly from, sustain and protect two massive aircraft carriers currently being built in Scotland? Looking at the projected military budget for 2020, I simply cannot see how we can afford it. Where will the money come from? I cannot see how we can do it, based on current projections. We must increase our defence budget beyond 2%. Although I understand and support the need for some targeted overseas aid, I am none the less surprised that we spend one third of the defence budget on such aid each year.
Defence is much too serious a matter to be fiddled, but NATO members, particularly in Europe, do so year in, year out. They certainly do not pay their NATO club dues. Surely what is happening in Ukraine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell pointed out, is a serious wake-up call. A French defence strategist recently described NATO as
“an alliance of the unable and unwilling” .
I am not sure that he was wrong.
The situation in Ukraine is a total disaster, and tragically it is one that we seem unable to affect. Politically, as my hon. Friend suggested, we will huff and puff internationally, particularly in the United Nations, but probably with little effect. Economically, some states might tighten sanctions on Russia, but they are severely constrained by their interdependence with Russia. Militarily, the Foreign Secretary has already ruled out armed action, but surely there are some measures we might contemplate. Let me suggest two of them.
First, would it be a total flight of fancy or madness for a UN force of some sort to have flown into Ukraine, at that state’s request, to secure the crash site of flight MH17? Of course there would be huge Russian protests, but at least that would have shown that we are very angry about what has happened and that we mean business. It is just a thought, but perhaps it is not as crazy as it might seem at first sight.
Secondly, perhaps a more acceptable option would be to position NATO troops permanently, or in rotation, in eastern Latvia, eastern Estonia and eastern Poland. I think that should definitely be on the agenda of the forthcoming NATO summit. Again, Russia would denounce such a move, but so what? President Putin has asked for it by his actions. He would protest long and hard, but at least it would prove that NATO was not a paper tiger, as some think, and that it has teeth.
I wish everyone in the House a really good recess, particularly you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you have been so nice to me, and even called me to speak occasionally. I thank everyone in the House, particularly my colleagues, who have been good friends. I thank the Clerks of the House, the ladies in the Tea Room and, in particular, the staff in the Strangers Bar.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise, because I want to raise six issues, but I will take only a couple of sentences on each one.
It will be world hepatitis day on 28 July. The Hepatitis C Trust briefed Members two weeks ago about the number of hepatitis C sufferers in this country. There are now 250,000 in the UK and most remain undiagnosed. New treatments are able to cure 95%, but awareness and testing are extremely low, so only 3% of sufferers receive treatment every year. I want to put that on record and urge the Government to increase the awareness of hepatitis C in our country and to prioritise diagnosis and treatment.
I want to raise three issues with regard to the fire service. In the Christmas recess debate I raised the ongoing dispute between the Fire Brigades Union and the Government on pension age and pension protection, and I wish to do so again because the dispute has not been resolved. The Northern Ireland Administration and the Scottish Government have agreed with the FBU that a retirement age of 60 is too old for the physical demands of the firefighting job. They have also agreed on a retirement age of 55 with no financial penalty, but the UK Government will still not budge. I urge the new fire Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), to break the deadlock and enter into meaningful negotiations. I hope she will agree to meet the FBU parliamentary group to discuss the matter. We are willing to meet at any stage during the recess, if it will help to resolve the dispute.
Another issue is the ongoing discussions about the unresolved pension arrangements for defence fire service and rescue firefighters. In 2015, these firefighters will contribute 12.55% to their pension, which is the highest contribution in the fire service across the country. They will pay more than any other firefighters, but they will receive yet fewer benefits. They have still not had a decision from Government about their pension age. I, along with a number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who has just left his place, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), wrote to the fire Minister last week, urging her to resolve the matter. We thought it would be resolved months ago, but it has not. I urge the Government to look at the matter, because these firefighters consider their pension to be insecure and require a decision from the Government.
Thirdly, I want to draw the attention of the House—this is a cross-party issue—to the Mayor of London’s attempt to change the representation on the London fire authority. He is promoting a statutory instrument that will enable the replacement of London assembly and borough representatives on the fire authority with his own appointees. It will cut the Labour representation in half and remove all Lib Dem and Green representation. I urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to refuse to agree to the introduction of the statutory instrument, but if it is introduced I urge Members to vote against it on a cross-party basis.
May I tread into Northern Ireland again and talk about welfare reform there? The Government are seeking to impose their welfare reform legislation on the people of Northern Ireland, including the bedroom tax, the harsh benefit sanctions, the disaster of universal credit and work capability assessments, with all their adverse consequences. Sinn Fein has looked at the hardship that such measures have caused in England and Wales and has met several representatives in this country, Wales and Scotland, and it is concerned about what has happened here, especially to the most vulnerable—children and people with disabilities. It has been agreed that those welfare reform proposals are not appropriate for Northern Ireland and not supported by the people, and that they should therefore not be implemented.
The Government’s response has been to impose a £13 million fine on the Northern Ireland Administration for 2014, which will rise to £87 million in 2014-15 and to £114 million in 2015-16. That was contained in a letter I was copied into from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is somewhat bizarre, because at the same time he sent the letter, he was saying publicly that he would vote to scrap the bedroom tax after the next election—somewhat contradictory, but I suppose unsurprising of the man. I urge the Government to think again. The proposals threaten not just to impose a significantly harsh welfare regime on the people of Northern Ireland, but to undermine the whole concept of devolved government.
I want to turn to Hillingdon council, which I raised in the last pre-recess Adjournment debate. Again, I desperately urge the Government to launch an independent public inquiry into the administration of Hillingdon council. Eighteen months ago, I brought to the House for debate Transparency International’s report on the potential risk of corruption and maladministration in local government in this country. Transparency International is the organisation that specialises in preparing reports on openness and transparency in Governments overall, and in calculating levels of corruption across the world to produce a league table of states.
Transparency International looked at the changes in local government administration and decision making in this country in recent years—under the previous Government and under this one—and it expressed concerns about the risk of corruption and maladministration in local government in this country. I believe that Hillingdon council is a prime example of what Transparency International was talking about. In Hillingdon, we now live under an elective dictatorship. It is a prime example of the lack of openness and transparency in decision making.
I believe that the use of the argument that commercial confidentiality prevents open discussion of decisions and issues before the council is used to cover up incompetence and maybe worse. I would just give the example of this week’s cabinet committee papers. On 25 July, the cabinet will meet, but of the 12 items with reports on the agenda, seven are marked as restricted and will not be publicly published. Not only are the general public denied any access to those reports, but any opposition councillor who in any way informs the public about any items in those reports will be threatened with criminal action. I believe that that is unacceptable: it is actually undermining local democracy within my area.
I have raised that matter on several occasions. On one of them, I used the example of Triscott House, which is a residential home for elderly people. When it was renovated, there was a delay of 18 months as that dragged on, and ladies in their 80s—one was in her 90s—lived out of packing cases while waiting to be rehoused back into Triscott House. I demonstrated that that was because the council had fallen out with a contractor, and I exposed on the Floor on the House that it had laundered money to pay the contractor through another contract. I now find from a cabinet report that the council is now at risk of incurring a £1 million payment to the contractor as a result of the settlement of the dispute. That all arose from the fact that the leader’s decision was not reported publicly at all, which is a disgrace.
I do not think that the Government can stand to one side when such practices are undermining confidence in local government and democracy overall. I therefore again urge them to establish a full independent public inquiry to reassure my constituents that local democracy can be restored to my community.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about jobs and skills in Pendle. I will talk about the progress that has been made and the challenges that we still face.
Pendle’s local economy relies heavily on manufacturing and that sector has had a rough few years. Some 1.8 million manufacturing jobs were lost under the last Government and by August 2009, 2,239 people in Pendle were claiming jobseeker’s allowance. Our local schools were also near breaking point, with the lack of school places meaning that children were being taught in temporary classrooms in playgrounds, in converted attics and even in a basement at one school that I visited.
We are making significant progress in tackling that. Thanks to the doubling of funding for new school places under this Government, the popular and heavily over-subscribed Laneshaw Bridge primary school became the first Pendle primary school to benefit from a new multimillion pound building, which increased the school’s capacity from 154 to 210 children. Plans were then drawn up for three more brand-new primary school buildings. The new £5 million Barnoldswick Church of England primary school, which has just been completed, the new £6.1 million St Paul’s Church of England primary school and the new £8 million Whitefield infant school in Nelson are all due to open in September this year. Those four new schools, along with the expansion of others, such as Reedley primary school, which I visited last week, and the £6.2 million investment at West Craven High technology college, represent a capital investment of more than £30 million in our local schools.
Crucially, those new buildings are not being delivered through private finance initiative contracts, as were two of Pendle’s secondary schools under the Building Schools for the Future programme. The new schools have been fully paid for and will not saddle taxpayers will large bills from private companies for decades to come.
There is also a £3.6 million investment in the outstanding Nelson and Colne college, which the former skills Minister, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), visited in May. Nelson and Colne college has been pivotal in delivering the Government’s ambition of a record number of apprenticeships. In 2009-10, 470 people started an apprenticeship in Pendle. By 2012-13, the figure had increased to 1,150. That is an increase of 145%, which is hugely welcome to young people in my area, especially the 3,600 of them who have started an apprenticeship in Pendle since the Government came to office.
In March, we saw the official opening of East Lancashire’s university technical college in Burnley by His Royal Highness the Duke of York. The new £10 million Visions Learning Trust UTC will provide young people with vital engineering and construction skills. It is supported by large Pendle employers including Rolls-Royce, Weston EU, Graham Engineering, Fort Vale Engineering and Barnfield Construction.
Added together, those investments represent a real boost to education and skills in Pendle and are ensuring that our young people have the skills that our local employers need. They have also undoubtedly helped towards the 41% reduction in youth unemployment that we have seen in Pendle since May 2010.
Turning to the overall jobs situation, the number of Pendle residents in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance has fallen from a high of 2,239 in August 2009, which I mentioned earlier, to just 1,305 in June this year. That is a fall of 42%. That has come about not by accident, but thanks to the Government’s long-term economic plan and the steps that have been taken by our local authorities to support job creation in the area. For example, when one of Pendle’s largest employers, Silentnight, went into administration in 2011, there was concern over the future of its site in Barnoldswick. I visited it soon afterwards to discuss how the company could be supported to remain in Pendle. Very quickly, a package of support was put together by then Conservative-led Lancashire county council. That support meant that by March 2012, the company was not just staying in Barnoldswick, but was looking to create an additional 140 jobs. I was proud to take the Prime Minister to visit Silentnight in May to see a company that is going from strength to strength.
The local jobs market has received a significant boost since July last year, when the Government agreed with the arguments that I and others were making and approved £5 million of additional business support via the regional growth fund to help local mid-sized manufacturers to expand. In the past 12 months, that money has been distributed by Regenerate Pennine Lancashire through the accelerating business growth grants to help 14 business across Pendle, including Optimill in Colne, Mackintosh in Nelson, ACDC in Barrowford, Standel Dawman in Nelson and Pendle Polymer. Between them, those businesses have benefited from almost £1 million in grants, creating well over 100 jobs and safeguarding many more. I am actively working with businesses such as Wellocks and New Call Telecom to support their major expansion plans that could create more than 200 jobs on the Lomeshaye industrial estate in Nelson.
The recent announcement of assisted area status for Pendle is an important step forward for my constituency. The previous assisted area status map drawn up under the previous Government in 2007 included parts of Blackburn, Hyndburn and Burnley, but not a single part of Pendle. As part of the consultation on the new map, Pendle council and the Lancashire local enterprise partnership argued for four Pendle wards to be included, but I met Ministers and made the case not just for those four wards, but for going much further. I am delighted that in the end it was agreed that 13 Pendle wards should be included—more than half the borough—with assisted area status covering businesses stretching from Reedley and Brierfield through to Earby. The new map came into force on 1 July and will remain in force until 2020, which will deliver a long-term economic boost to my constituency. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) for his help in securing assisted area status for my constituency.
Sadly, all is not well with Pendle’s largest employer, Rolls-Royce, which has sites at Bankfield and Ghyll Brow in Barnoldswick, and currently employs more than 1,000 people. Rolls-Royce has been a major employer in the town since acquiring those sites shortly after the second world war, but the numbers employed have fallen over the years. Most worryingly, under the last Government Rolls-Royce opened a new factory in Singapore to manufacture civil wide-chord fan blades—the same process currently undertaken in Barnoldswick—as the company opted to invest abroad rather than in the UK.
In January the company contacted me to say that following a review it expected the loss of 27 jobs at its Barnoldswick sites. By March that figure had risen to 120, and last week we had confirmation that total proposed job losses would be 156. Consultation meetings have been ongoing since March and the company has been looking at mitigation options, including voluntary severance leavers, individuals taking roles elsewhere in the company, and the release of agency workers. Regrettably, however, those job losses will start soon and will be phased in between now and the end of the year.
I appreciate that all companies need to keep their costs down and run as lean an operation as they can in today’s marketplace, but the number of job losses is deeply regrettable at a time when that flagship British company is growing and winning new orders across the globe. In addition to my regular meetings with Rolls-Royce, trade union representatives, and regular visits to the site since I was elected, I wrote to the chief executive, John Rishton, in June. In my letter I pointed out the potential for its sites in Barnoldswick to expand, the new University Technical College in Burnley where Rolls-Royce helps with the curriculum, and the new assisted area status that covers the site. In his reply, Mr Rishton said that he was appreciative of the support the aerospace sector is receiving from the Government and that the company was making investment in the Barnoldswick sites, but that the reduction in the work force was still necessary. I am sure he will realise that as Pendle’s MP, and as vice chairman of the all-party group for aerospace, I will continue to make the case for investment and job creation in Barnoldswick.
Four years ago I delivered a maiden speech in the House in a debate about building a high-skilled economy. I mentioned manufacturing, skills, and the outstanding Nelson and Colne college. I am proud of what we have been able to achieve in Pendle since then, but there are many challenges still facing the area and our economic recovery is not guaranteed. I wish all right hon. and hon. Members an enjoyable recess, and particularly you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of the House.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond briefly to this debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for initiating it. It seems to be a return to the traditions that we had until 2010-11, although we are using a slightly different format today. I do not intend to cover all the issues raised because I want to provide the Deputy Leader of the House the maximum opportunity to respond, but I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) was one of the most thoughtful and powerful that I have heard this year. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take the opportunity to provide a substantive reply to him on the possibilities for recall during the summer recess if the situation overseas deteriorates.
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in wishing hon. Members who are getting married this week all the best. I am sure the whole House wishes them all the best for their futures.
A number of hon. Members have taken the opportunity to thank the staff of the House. On behalf of the Opposition, I join in thanking them, in particular Sam, Elaine, Joanna and Russell, our hard-working and very talented civil servants in the Opposition Whips Office, whom I know will have a very good summer without Members getting in the way of running the business.
A number of long-serving staff have retired or are in the process of doing so, including the Librarian, John Pullinger; Christine Gillie from the Library, who has provided many years of high-quality briefing on education; James Roberston, who started 20 years ago in the Serjeant at Arms Department, and who most recently served as director of accommodation and logistics services; Janet Rissen and Judith Welham, who have given excellent HR advice over many years; Amanda Waller, who has served a number of Committees and who has most recently served in support of our delegations to parliamentary assemblies; Chris Weeds, who has been engaged in providing education; and Clare Cowan, who started Parliament’s outreach efforts. We thank all those public servants, as well as many others whom I have been unable to mention and who are moving on this year, for all their efforts.
Of course, one other retirement is taking place in just a few short weeks. Sir Robert Rogers is held in the highest regard by all Members and all members of the House of Commons service. It is worth noting briefly how much the House has changed in the 42 years since Sir Robert joined the House service. The Clerk of the House at the time was Sir; the underground car park was a hugely controversial building project, opposed by many in the House service and many Members of Parliament; and Parliament had not yet found additional office accommodation. The Norman Shaw buildings as we know them were yet to be acquired, and were described just a few years after Sir Robert arrived as the Savoy of office accommodation, which perhaps goes to show how much Parliament has changed during Sir Robert’s time.
I am sure I speak for all Members when I wish all staff members who will be returning—Hansard, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks and everyone else—a very enjoyable and peaceful summer.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is fair to say that you will be aware that not many Scottish Members of Parliament will be here during our September fortnight. Not only on behalf of the Scottish tourism industry, but on behalf of the referendum campaign, my hon. Friends and other Scottish MPs, I extend a very warm welcome to all Members of Parliament who wish to spend a bit of time this July and August, and indeed September, coming to Scotland, seeing the sights and knocking on those doors to keep the UK together.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I have the rather daunting task of responding in the 30 minutes that remain to the 26 contributions we have heard this afternoon. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating the debate.
As is customary, we first heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who has just returned to his seat. He displayed a high level of optimism—perhaps his level of optimism was the same as that of many English people about our chances of success in the World cup. His optimism was for his chance of promotion in the reshuffle. I encourage him to maintain that level of optimism.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about working-class Conservatives. There was a bit of banter between those on the two sides of the House about who could claim the highest number of working-class antecedents. He touched on many other issues: his concerns about Barclays bank; the residential home and its lift service; the probation service and its payments; and the Royal Mail dog awareness campaign. I can confirm that I, too, participated in the campaign. I was able to confirm to Royal Mail that, like most Members of the House, I did indeed have my backside bitten by a dog on one occasion when out canvassing. I am not quite sure why the person I canvassed, having failed to open the door to me when I knocked on it, felt it was necessary, at the point when I was leaving her house and had just reached the gate, to let her dog out so that it could viciously attack me.
My hon. Friend talked about Southend being the alternative city of culture, which I think is probably true. He talked also about diabetes treatment, an issue that comes up frequently in the House. He is right to highlight that. It is a very significant health issue with the potential to drain a very high level of resource from the NHS. He talked about mental health. He is right that in the past it has perhaps been the Cinderella health service, but the Government have tried, through parity of esteem and additional funding, to recognise mental health as something to which we need to give greater priority. He also talked about the importance of dealing with arthritis.
My hon. Friend talked about the concept of a national cemetery. I am afraid that I cannot give him any comfort on that. I have tried to identify which Department would like to take responsibility, but at the moment it is proving somewhat difficult to identify the lead Government Department. He bemoaned the fact that Southend did not have as many centenarians, but said that he was working to boost their numbers. Finally, he talked about the world record-breaking attempt that Rossi Ice Cream is going to conduct for the largest number of people licking an ice cream. It was not clear to me whether it was the same ice cream they would be licking, or whether they would each have a separate ice cream.
We then moved on to the contribution from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). He is not in his place, but I would like to respond briefly to the points he made. He paraded his working-class origins, although he said that having served as long as he has in this House he probably cannot claim that any more. He talked about cycling, of which I am also a great supporter. He thought that we needed a cycling champion, but I think we have at least a couple in Chris Hoy and Sir Bradley Wiggins. He thinks that we perhaps need other cycling champions. He talked about Thames crossings and the need to provide additional access, which would be welcomed. One difficulty with additional access is whether it creates more traffic, but I am sure he is on top of that issue. He highlighted the importance of having a clean and fair general election in Tower Hamlets, on which I am sure that we all agree. Some of what happened there, including the logistics, in terms of the length of time taken to complete the election, was absolutely astounding.
The hon. Gentleman talked about leasehold reform, and I suspect that all of us will have encountered leaseholders who are up against some real challenges. He also talked about the need to increase house building. Again, I think there is a cross-party consensus on that. He raised the issue of the telephone company Zamir. I will certainly make sure that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is aware of the problems that company is having in its dealings with Bangladesh. He referred to Gaza, as did a number of other Members. I agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister said on this issue. First, we must condemn absolutely what Hamas is doing. Hamas needs to stop launching rockets at Israel. At the same time, Israel must stop the military strikes it is conducting on densely populated areas, because it is inevitable that they will lead to an unacceptable level of civilian casualties.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), who is in his place, for his work in representing his constituents on housing and development. He highlighted the scale of the proposed developments in his constituency, and the contrasting views and demands in different parts of the country. Opposition Members have talked about the need to expand housing provision. He rightly wants to defend the interests of his constituents, who are concerned about the very high level of development they face. He also said it was important to consider the issue of VAT on housing renovation. That is an idea which, although not Government policy, I have some sympathy with as a means of bringing back into use houses that are in need of renovation.
We then listened to the contribution from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who is no longer in his place, on the issue of Grangemouth. We have all followed that story, and I think we can all welcome the outcome, which has secured the jobs of many thousands of workers. He also highlighted his support for fracking and methane extraction, which given that our nation needs energy diversity, are potentially important sources of energy. He also referred to the extractive industries transparency initiative, which he has referred to in previous pre-recess Adjournment debates, and highlighted something that I was not aware of and which other Members might not have known either: in some places in Nigeria, such as Rivers state, it is having a positive effect. As we all know, the presence of oil can often be a poison, rather than something that contributes positively to the development of a country, but at least in Rivers state it is making a contribution. He then tried to tempt me to get involved in Nigerian politics. For me, coalition politics is sufficient, without my getting involved in Nigerian politics.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) mentioned his support for complementary medicine. My friend Evan Harris—I wish he was still here—who has strong views on the subject, could have had a lively debate with him. The hon. Gentleman described the progress of a policy from being opposed to being fully adopted—from “mad and dangerous” to “can’t find anyone against it”—but then he talked about wearing four hats; I was worried he was still at the mad stage, as opposed to everyone agreeing with him. He also referred to astrology—it is probably best not to say any more about that, although he does not need to be an astrologer to know he will probably get some e-mails expressing frank views on astrology and its merits or otherwise. I agreed with his final point, however, about the need to make everyone in this country happier. I think we are trying to do that. I hope I am making all Members who contributed happy by responding to at least some of their points.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who unfortunately could not stay—she let me know beforehand—talked about the importance of integrating health and social care and rightly sang the praises of carers, as we all often do in this place. It gives me the opportunity to sing the praises of the Sutton carers centre in my borough, which does a good job of supporting carers. I hope that this Government, and previous Governments, have recognised the importance of carers and are putting measures in place to support them. The carer’s assessment is part of that, the existence of which she has successfully highlighted to try and ensure that more people access it. She asked why the NHS was not being made responsible for identifying carers. I think local authorities, too, have a clear public health role and responsibility to do the same.
The hon. Lady also talked about the spare room subsidy. It is clear what the Liberal Democrats said on that issue. We support the principle of what the Government have done, but the Department for Work and Pensions has produced a report highlighting certain problems with the present scheme, and of course we will work within the coalition to get our Conservative partners to accept that action needs to be taken as a result of that report. If that is not possible, we will return to the issue in our manifesto at the general election.
The hon. Lady also mentioned air pollution. The Government are committed to working towards full compliance with current EU air quality standards. In recent decades, there have been considerable improvements in air quality, but we are not complacent. As a London MP, I am aware that air quality is a serious issue that we need to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) referred to the 40th anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, whose importance I think we all recognise. Since its introduction, the number of employees killed at work has fallen by 85%. That is a substantial drop, although there is clearly more to be done. My hon. Friend pointed out that there had not been a single loss of life during the building of the Olympic stadium, which I think is a real tribute to the safety standards that were adopted. As he said, it is a great pity that other countries—including Qatar and, indeed, Brazil—have not managed to achieve the same result.
Like my hon. Friend, I should be worried if anything were happening that would reduce the health and safety of workers, but certainly nothing that the Government are doing would have that effect. He referred to appendix 4. I am afraid that I do not know the details of appendix 4, but I will ensure that he receives a reply, because I know that the issue is of interest not only to him, but to other Members of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—who is not in the Chamber—talked about sporting bodies and the importance of looking seriously at the health impact of playing football. A range of football-related issues arise in the House regularly. During business questions, we have frequently encouraged Members to apply to the Backbench Business Committee, because it is clear that there are enough sport-related concerns to justify a wider debate on the issue.
I certainly agree with one of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I was shocked to see the German and Argentine players stumbling around on the sidelines and then going back on to the pitch. I cannot understand why they were allowed to do that. My son plays football, and I know what happens at junior level. All the advice is that someone who is thought to have concussion should be taken off the pitch, and medical help should be sought. That person should not be sent back on to the pitch.
On Russia, which was raised by a number of Members, the hon. Gentleman underlined the importance of standing together and trying to persuade France and Germany to work on the issue. I hope that that will be possible, notwithstanding the business interests that those two countries have in relation to Russia.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is present, mentioned an e-petition, and drew attention to the success of e-petitions generally and what they could lead to in terms of parliamentary debates. I am very pleased about the debate that took place as a result of that e-petition. He then referred to the issue of caste, which is clearly controversial. Some believe that it is an issue even in the United Kingdom, in the context of people’s ability to obtain jobs in, for instance, the national health service. That has been raised with me in the past. I think we shall have to agree that there may be differing views on caste.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about Gaza, about a number of free schools in his constituency—it is clear that a great deal is happening to education there, and that he is very proud of it—and about the fact that managing the steps from the platform to street level at Stanmore station requires one to be an Olympic athlete. I shall ensure that the Mayor is aware of that, as it is a Transport for London issue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Anmer Lodge and the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, as he had done during our Easter Adjournment debates. He is clearly as determined to ensure that his local hospital is rebuilt as I am to ensure that St Helier hospital is rebuilt, and I have no doubt that both of us will continue to campaign on those issues.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Barnet football club, Tesco, the NatWest closure, and the “hated no right turn”, of which none of the rest of us were aware, apart from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas)—who, I understand, is training for the London triathlon. My tip is that if he has not done his swimming training yet, he will have a real struggle. It is not really possible to engage in the other two events without the swimming; I know that. I wish the hon. Gentleman good luck.
The hon. Gentleman also raised an issue to do with football. That again suggests there is potential for the Backbench Business Committee to deliver a comprehensive debate on football matters, if Members approach it. He asked if I could secure for him a letter from the Department for Communities and Local Government on the Harrow council funding issue, and I will endeavour to do that and to flag that up to them. He also raised concerns about pensions and reforms to the pensions system. I hope he agrees that some of the changes the Government made are positive, but he highlighted some specific issues about pension funds and the need for greater accountability and accessibility, and I hope some of them will follow in the footsteps of the Legal & General, which he highlighted as having taken positive action in this respect and which has, perhaps, set an example for others.
We then had a contribution from the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is in his place. I commend him on his campaigning on Cossham hospital, and, indeed, his mother on the work she used to do—or may still do—as a nurse. I also have some advice for him in relation to antenatal classes, particularly if he is attending the birth: the second one is easier, but he may find that he faints in the first one. I just give him that word of warning. He made a very strong case for the maintenance of services at his hospital and I hope his campaign is successful.
The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) talked about the need for best practice guidance in relation to consultations, and she asked whether I will introduce that. I can confirm to her that it has already been introduced, so I have already delivered that, but it was in November last year. There are best practice guidelines for consultations, therefore, although I must confess I am not sure whether there is the level of detail that would confirm whether a non-response should or should not be counted, so she may want to look at that and see whether it is the case.
The hon. Lady also raised concerns about her GP surgery and the legislation we have just passed, and I think she suggested that the Government want to know absolutely everything about their citizens. That is certainly not what the data retention proposals are about. She highlighted that in her view the reshuffle the Government —or the Conservatives—have just undertaken is actually about creating more opportunities for Mr Speaker to impersonate leading Ministers. He has not heard that, but he may be practising once he has read Hansard later.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) highlighted his volunteering work, as he has done in the past, and I commend him on that—he is not in the Chamber, but I commend him none the less. He also highlighted planning issues, which is one of those difficult areas for Members of Parliament where on the one hand we need to represent constituents who might have children still living at home who cannot afford to move out, while on the other hand we have constituents who do not want to see developments in their backyard. He highlighted the importance of developing brownfield sites, too, which the Government clearly support, and bringing flats above shops into use.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) rightly highlighted the importance of speaking out for adults with autism who are not in a position to do that themselves and concerns he had that they may drop below the radar—I think that was the phrase he used—and that, although the banding proposals may ensure there is no longer a postcode lottery in the provision of care, he believes it may in fact mean some people will drop out of receiving the support they need.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who is in his place, referred to Mr Rockhill, who got a formal caution for displaying an A-board. Like him, I would have hoped the local authority could have demonstrated a degree of common sense in its approach. He also referred to a constituent who should not be spreading his net in the bay, and again I think a modicum of common sense might have resolved that, but he might also like to know of a case involving a county council that asked a local borough council to take down the knitted bicycle bunting erected for the Tour de France because of the damage it might have caused to the heritage lampposts. That is another example of people perhaps being a little over-zealous in their application of the rules and regulations.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) referred to the need to build more housing. As I said, there is a cross-party consensus on that; there may not be a similar consensus on where the houses should be built, though the need for them is clearly demonstrated. I believe she said her local authority is building council homes, and I am pleased to say that my local Sutton council is doing the same thing and has set up its own company for that purpose. She highlighted the need to encourage responsible private landlords to offer longer tenancies. We have all had constituents in our surgeries who dealt with someone who may potentially be a good private landlord but who had provided them with only a year’s tenancy, and I think we would all want to see that addressed.
The hon. Lady referred to her concerns about the withdrawal of the minimum practice income guarantee and how it may lead to a transfer of funding from poor areas to richer areas. I do not know whether she is right about the impact in my constituency, but she asked whether I could secure a response from the Department of Health and I will do that for her. She also referred to broadband and I will pick that matter up shortly. She rightly reminded everyone that it is 100 days since the schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram and almost no action seems to have been taken—that is very depressing. Like others, I experience a degree of bafflement about the lack of any concrete action in that respect.
The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who is in his place, talked about the need for a new junction on the M4. I know that has been considered, but I am afraid it is not in the current programme. He rightly highlighted the very good work done by the Great Western Air Ambulance and the support it provides to 2 million people, and his desire to see it funded from the LIBOR fund. He also talked about residents user groups, and his constituent Bob Woodward OBE and the work he has done in raising huge amounts of money for CLIC.
I will ensure that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) also receives the response that will go to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about the minimum practice income guarantee. He talked about the work he is doing with Muslim communities, and I agree that we need to ensure they do not feel under attack because of the conflagration of different things that they might feel is targeted at them. We should all be very careful about the language we use in that respect.
As other hon. Members have said, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made a very thoughtful and hard-hitting statement. I guess the issue is: what can we do in concrete terms about Russia? Are some of the options that were put forward viable or would they inflame the situation further? That is the challenge to which the Government have to respond. Clearly, there is the possibility of a recall if that is necessary—if things develop—but we did have the Prime Minister’s statement on the issue.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is also in her place, had concerns about the NHS. I agree that the NHS faces challenges, but there are a range of measures, be it on hospital-acquired infections, mixed-sex wards, or the record lows for the 18, 26 and 52-week treatment targets, where things are more positive. I am of course very sorry to hear about the poor care her constituent received, although from what she was describing I think it was not a resources issue; it was more of a communication issue, potentially within the hospital and upon release of the patient.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who was not able to stay, referred to the A303. All Members who have been on holiday in that area probably want to see action taken, and we await the autumn statement later this year, which we hope will be positive on that. He also raised the issue of broadband. We have invested heavily in broadband—£790 million—but I agree that, in certain parts of the country, it has not yet delivered the goods that people want to see.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the Orange Order, and its motto “Toleration for everyone”. Clearly, that is particularly essential in a Northern Ireland context, and is something that we all want to support. We support too the charity work that it is undertaking.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—
Tom Brake
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government—or the international community—are failing in relation to Russia. I hope that it is possible to bring together the different players to ensure that action is taken, but we will have to wait and see what happens.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a number of issues. I will, if I may, highlight world hepatitis day to which he wanted to draw attention. He also talked about hepatitis C, and the need for greater diagnosis and publicity. He is also a doughty campaigner on behalf of the fire service, and he raised a number of issues in that regard, as he does on a regular basis in pre-recess Adjournment debates and at other opportunities. He referred again to Hillingdon council. He is clearly an assiduous campaigner and will not let the council off the hook if he thinks that it is up to no good.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is in his place, talked about the important investment in schools and businesses in his constituency. Quite rightly, he highlighted the fact that, unfortunately, Rolls-Royce is having to retrench in his constituency, but I am sure that he will work with other community representatives to campaign on behalf of the aerospace industry to ensure that Pendle recovers from the loss. I commend him on the first and, I think, only use of the “long-term economic plan” phrase, which gives me an opportunity to say that the Government are building a stronger economy and a fairer society.
Finally, I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to long-serving members of staff—John Pullinger, Christine Gillie, James Robertson, Janet Rissen, Judith Welham, Amanda Waller, Chris Weeds and Clare Cowan—for all their efforts in the House in recent years.
Thomas Docherty
It was remiss of me not to mention this before. I mentioned Sir Barnett Cocks, who was the Clerk when Sir Robert first arrived. I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of this, but after Sir Barnett retired he published a book about Parliament. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea if the Clerk, in his newly acquired time, was able to bring out a publication on how Parliament works, and after that, perhaps one on cricket as well?
Tom Brake
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sir Robert may have heard his entreaty to produce such things, but I will also use this as an opportunity to thank Sir Robert on behalf of all Members. Members should consider the range of things in which Sir Robert has been involved. Let me name just a few. He was involved in implementing the Modernisation Committee’s reform of the legislative process; writing the “Shifting the Balance” report of the Liaison Committee, which was a major step in Select Committee innovation before the Wright Committee; proposing the idea that the Prime Minister should appear before the Liaison Committee; and writing the so-called 75-point plan in the options for Commons reform, which are gradually being worked through. On the more administrative side, he began to grapple with some of the biggest challenges that we face, such as the need to invest substantially in ensuring that this building is fit for purpose for members of staff, Members and peers in decades to come. Sir Robert will be sorely missed by all Members of the House, and I have personally enjoyed his friendly, informative and experienced advice in the years that I have been here.
With that, I will finish by thanking all the staff—the police, the Clerks, the Chief Clerk, Sir Robert, staff in the Tea Room and everyone who supports us to enable us to do the job that we do. Without them it would not be possible, and we would not get the enjoyment out of it that we do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Petitions
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I would like to present a petition from a large number of my constituents about an incident that happened in Lahore. I have already raised the matter with the acting high commissioner for Pakistan.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Pendle,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the killing of eleven and injury of over eighty more civilians in Lahore at the Minhaj-ul-Quran Complex on 17th June 2014 was an act of terrorism carried out by the Government of Pakistan and federal Government of Punjab and further that a local Petition from residents of Nelson has received over 2000 signatures.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Government of Pakistan and federal Government of Punjab to bring the perpetrators of the violence to account and refer the incident to the International Criminal Court.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001382]
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am here to present this petition on behalf of my constituent Mrs Paula Trail. In January, Mrs Trail was walking her King Charles spaniel Lacie, who was attacked and tragically killed by two other dogs. Since then, more than 400 people have signed a local petition and more than 1,750 an e-petition calling for penalties to be imposed if a dog is dangerously out of control and injures another dog.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduces legislation so that penalties can also be imposed on owners if their dog injures another dog.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners welcome the changes that the Government have made to its guidance on “controlling your dog in public” as it is now against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control in private places such as your own home and a neighbour’s garden; further that the Petitioners believe that, although improved, the updated guidance does not go far enough as penalties are only imposed on owners if their dog injures a person or a guide dog; and further that a local petition on this matter has received over 400 signatures and an e-petition over 1,750.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduces legislation so that penalties can also be imposed on owners if their dog injures another dog.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001377]
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is my duty and privilege to introduce a petition on behalf of those whose school transport is being adversely affected by changes in Essex county council policy. The petition contains no fewer than 527 signatures.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Harwich and North Essex,
Declares that Essex County Council’s new home-to-school transport policy has removed school transport funding for residents of Wivenhoe with children attending the Colne Community School in Brightlingsea; further that the Petitioners believe that the policy does not recognise the long-term close community link between Wivenhoe and the Colne Community School; further that the cost of running an underutilised service to the allocated catchment school would better be spent on transport to the Colne Community School; and further that the journey time to the Colne Community School is likely to be the same as, or shorter than, to the allocated catchment school.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Essex County Council to continue to provide residents of Wivenhoe with equitably funded home-to-school transport to the Colne Community School in Brightlingsea.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001378]
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The petition concerns the provision of a direct bus route from Hounslow West to West Middlesex hospital. It has also been supported by residents in Cranford who are similarly affected. There is currently no direct bus services from these heavily populated wards to the main hospital serving Hounslow residents. Carers, the elderly, and disabled and unwell constituents in Feltham and Heston are forced to change bus services when making what can be a difficult journey to the hospital. The issue is particularly acute in poor weather and attempts to amend bus services to provide a direct service have so far been unsuccessful. There are seven signatures attached to this petition, representing seven of the 236 who have signed a similar petition directly to Transport for London.
The petition states:
“The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to liaise with the Mayor of London and Transport for London to ensure that a direct bus service from Hounslow West… to West Middlesex Hospital is provided.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Hounslow,
Declares that the Petitioners strongly believe that there needs to be a direct bus service from Hounslow West Tube Station, Bath Road, Hounslow TW4 to West Middlesex Hospital, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7; further that just over two years ago on 19 June 2012 the Petitioners wrote to the Operation Manager of Transport for London regarding the bus service and regret that the reply received from a Customer Service Adviser was not encouraging; further that the Petitioners provided four possible review options for one of the service routes which was turned down; further that in a reply on 11 July 2012 TfL noted that the entire bus network is reviewed on a regular basis to make sure that passengers are given the best possible service; further that the Petitioners replied to this letter of 11 July and are still awaiting a reply; and further that passengers travelling to West Middlesex Hospital have to change buses at Hounslow Bus Garage to visit admitted patients and attend appointments which the Petitioners believe can be particularly difficult for the elderly and disabled.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to liaise with the Mayor of London and Transport for London to ensure that a direct bus service from Hounslow West Tube Station, Bath Road, Hounslow TW4 to West Middlesex Hospital, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 is provided.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001379]
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is my duty and privilege to raise concerns put to me by Councillor Kareema Marikar and the trustees and elders of the Sri Lankan mosque in Harrow about human rights in Sri Lanka. The petition reads:
The Petition of residents of Harrow West,
Declares that it has been reported that violent attacks on Muslims in the southern Sri Lanka town of Aluthgama beginning on 15 June resulted in the death of four Muslims, and injured more than 80, with many homes and businesses destroyed; further that the Petitioners believe that it is of particular concern that eyewitnesses have reported that the police stood by and refused to intervene during the violence; and further that international human rights organisations have called on the Sri Lankan authorities to fully investigate the attacks and identify those who incited the violence.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons takes action to raise concerns regarding the violent attacks on Muslims with the Sri Lankan authorities.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001380]
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I present a petition, which has 800 names, on an important local issue. The three lead signatures are Ruth Claire Smith, Joanne Harrison and Ian Richards. The petition reads:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
The Humble Petition of residents of Hatton Park, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
sheweth,
That the Petitioners believe that the proposed change of use of 34 Hatton Avenue, Wellingborough into a behavioural management home (application number WP/14/00385/COU) is unacceptable as the location of the development is unsuitable both for the proposed residents of the home and for the local residents.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to work together to reject the current application and relocate it to a more suitable site.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001381]
HMRC (Scotland)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to have the final Adjournment debate before the House departs for the summer recess. The future of HMRC jobs in Scotland is an issue close to my heart. It is hard to grow up and live in my constituency without developing personal connections with what is known locally simply as the tax office. A number of my friends and family have worked or work at HMRC Cumbernauld, and it is by some distance the largest employer in my constituency, currently employing about 1,400 staff working across the spectrum of tax, benefits, debt management and the like. It is the UK’s largest tax office. Hon. Members have doubtless at one time or another had communication with HMRC Cumbernauld—not, I hasten to add, because of anything untoward, but simply because that is where so many tax communications are sent from and to.
In 57 days, Scotland will make its decision on whether to remain in the United Kingdom with England, Wales and Northern Ireland or whether to leave, and Scots are weighing up a wide array of issues and interests as they come to a judgment on that decision. That is why every survey of Scottish public opinion illuminates the public’s desire for more information and facts on the issues in hand. Some things are, by definition, uncertain about what would happen if Scotland was to leave the United Kingdom—things that will depend on negotiations with the rest of the United Kingdom, which will depend on the future performance of the Scottish economy in particular. But Scotland’s role in HMRC is not one of those things about which there is uncertainty. The arithmetical facts are these.
Across the UK, HMRC employs 70,000 people. More than 9,000 of those posts are in Scotland. In percentage terms, 13% of UK HMRC staff are in Scotland, a significantly above-population-share of the total. More than 3,000 more posts are allocated in Scotland than a population share would provide. That is testimony to the excellent job that Scottish HMRC staff in Cumbernauld, in East Kilbride and elsewhere provide. It is hard to argue otherwise than that this indeed is a Scottish HMRC jobs dividend. Leaving the United Kingdom would bring to an end Scotland’s role in HMRC. That is surely uncontroversial—a fact, not an opinion.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, but is not his timing just a little bit unfortunate? The Westminster Government are actually closing HMRC offices as he is on his feet. I know he does not like Scottish independence and I know he does not like what the Scottish Government are doing, but can he grudgingly accept the fact that we are having no compulsory redundancies in Scotland, which would mean that HMRC staff would be much better treated in an independent Scotland than they would be by the Westminster Tories?
Gregg McClymont
I will come to a couple of the hon. Gentleman’s points, but on the issue of HMRC jobs, I am sure he will agree that it is an arithmetical fact that Scotland has a significant dividend from UK HMRC jobs. That is because of the professionalism of staff in Scotland, but it is something that must be put on the record.
Let us tease out a little further these arithmetical facts and then, I think, what we might judge an outcome to be for Scotland after leaving the UK and ending our membership of HMRC. We know as a fact that Scotland has significantly more tax-collecting jobs relative to the UK as a whole. Is there any reason to imagine that an independent Scottish state would need those surplus tax-collecting jobs relative to the size of the UK tax-collecting system? It seems to me that it is hard to imagine why that would be the case. The jobs dividend in Scotland regarding HMRC posts does not reflect different Scottish conditions regarding tax collection, but simply historical decisions and the excellent work undertaken by the Scottish tax office staff.
I have also heard it said by those who might accept in a conversation the arithmetical facts around the number of Scottish HMRC jobs—perhaps by the hon. Gentleman and certainly by others—that there will be no compulsory redundancies, and of course new civil service posts will be needed in a separate Scottish state, the implication being that surplus tax-collecting staff would be transferred to those posts. As the hon. Gentleman said, the SNP Government have given a promise that there will be no compulsory public sector redundancies, but is that promise from Alex Salmond worth the paper it is written on? It is easy to promise something, as things stand, when it looks, as things stand further, as though that promise will never be tested, but let us think a little more about the state, the structure of the Scottish economy and the civil service and public sector jobs therein.
Scotland does not have a small public sector. Our public sector is significant— bigger than that of the UK as a whole. I was glancing through the Scottish Government’s most recent statistics, and they clearly show that Scotland has more public sector jobs and significantly more tax-related public sector jobs than the UK as a whole. I welcome that—it is a credit to the staff and their professionalism—but it suggests that the slack to absorb surplus tax-collection posts in a separate Scottish state will be hard to identify. I say that based on the arithmetical facts, but also as a judgment about the relative size of Scotland’s public sector. Indeed, if we add to that the difficulties that Scotland would inevitably face as it transitioned into an entirely distinct and separate state, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other independent experts have observed, one has to question, with some substance and credibility, what that would mean for those tax-collecting jobs in Scotland, and particularly in the largest tax office in the UK in Cumbernauld.
It is my judgment, based on those arithmetical facts, that defending existing public sector provision, not increasing the size of the public sector, is likely to be the reality faced by my constituents working for HMRC in Cumbernauld. In the end, the argument about what happens when we have a substantial surplus of tax-collecting jobs is about whether those posts can be absorbed in the wider Scottish public sector. That is a fundamental question in the referendum debate. There are facts, as I have set them out. There are also judgments, and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) takes a different view, but it is surely incumbent on all of us to give the Scottish people all the facts as they bear on the debate and to let them draw their own conclusions.
The role that HMRC plays is important for my constituency and for Scotland. The next Labour Government are committed to tackling the tax gap. It looks as though in the last financial year the tax gap widened again, despite the Government’s efforts to close it. In my judgment, closing that tax gap will not be achieved without using the professionalism and experience of Scottish HMRC staff.
I am not suggesting that this is the only issue we face in the debate before 18 September—not at all—but for constituents of mine who either work in the tax office or who have friends and family who work there, the issues need to be put on the record and the facts displayed; then a judgment can be made by the people of Scotland.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend knows, I share a very small part of Cumbernauld with him, and I know he is speaking for the people of the constituency. Does he agree that the problems he has identified, which are very clear, bring into focus the fact that in East Kilbride we have the headquarters of the Department for International Development, and there is no way that that can be sustained by a population reduced to 8.4% of the previous total?
Gregg McClymont
I thank my right hon. Friend for that typically wise intervention. Those are significant issues, and I think that it is incumbent on us all to put the facts on the table as Scotland approaches the decision it must make on 18 September. The role Scotland plays in an integrated United Kingdom, through DFID, HMRC and other public institutions, must be weighed, balanced and measured in that debate. I thank him again for his sagacious intervention.
Finally, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I was delighted by the recent news that up to 170 new permanent posts are to be filled at HMRC Cumbernauld. Can he update the House on where HMRC is in that process? At the same time, around 40 jobs are threatened in the regional post room in HMRC Cumbernauld, and a decision will not be made until the autumn. I hope that he will agree that for the staff working there, that uncertainty is unwelcome. I seek further clarity from him on those questions.
On that note, I thank the House for the opportunity to put on the record some of the arithmetic on the role of Scotland and my constituency in HMRC, and to make a plea for these issues to be discussed in a spirit of constructive debate and starting from the basis of facts.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) on securing the debate. He continues to make a firm, clear and eloquent case on what is, understandably, a hugely important issue for him and his constituents: the future of the HMRC office in Cumbernauld.
Before dealing with some of the detailed points the hon. Gentleman raised, I would like to explain some of the context behind the changes occurring in HMRC staffing. As hon. Members will be aware, HMRC is currently reshaping itself in order to become a more modern, flexible and cost-effective organisation that can deliver better and more personalised services for customers, increased tax revenues through greater compliance activity and, crucially, better value for money for the public.
In order to provide the best possible value to the taxpayer, HMRC has had to downsize. In fact, it has been steadily reducing the number of employees since it was formed nine years ago. Over that time it has reduced its staff levels from around 97,000 full-time equivalents in 2005 to around 60,000 now. On top of that reduction, and as part of its increased work on digitisation, HMRC will soon be implementing a new system whereby it will scan incoming post. The rational behind that change is that it will remove the need for sorting and transportation. Instead, correspondence will be moved to where it can be dealt with instantly, ensuring that taxpayers’ queries are dealt with more quickly and effectively.
However, a consequence of that change will be that fewer staff will be needed to handle post, which will have an impact on HMRC’s five regional post rooms, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I should point out, however, that with regard to business presence and work force size, the recent changes have not had a disproportionate impact on Scotland. In April 2011, around 13% of HMRC’s work force were based in Scotland, and at the end of last month, following the significant reductions it has achieved across the UK, the proportion of its work force based in Scotland remains around 13%.
As it reduces in size, it makes sense that HMRC will need to bring its people together into larger sites where they can work more flexibly and more easily share the costs of office space and IT. In May 2012, HMRC made the concluding announcement about the estate changes it would be making during the spending review period. That saw, as the hon. Gentleman has said, a number of its offices across the country announced for closure, but at the same time it was also confirmed that there would be 16 strategic locations nationwide until at least 2020. Two of those are in Scotland—Edinburgh, encompassing Bathgate and Livingston, and Glasgow, encompassing Cumbernauld, East Kilbride and Paisley.
Pete Wishart
The HMRC office in Perth was, of course, closed in the past year under this Government’s stewardship. How many jobs has HMRC lost in Scotland under this Government, how many offices have closed and how many jobs does the Minister foresee going in the course of the next five years?
Mr Gauke
I reiterate that the changes in Scotland reflect those across the United Kingdom. The proportion of jobs is identical to what it was three years ago. It is the case that HMRC has reduced significantly in size since 2005, and it is anticipated that it will continue to do so across the United Kingdom. We have stated that we anticipate that staff numbers will fall to about 54,000 by the end of this financial year, although, to be fair, HMRC is expanding its staff in particular areas. There is no reason to believe that Scotland will be disproportionately affected by further reductions. That has not been the history of what has happened in the past.
HMRC continues to review its business, work force and estates needs, and is currently in consultation on a proposal to close a further 12 smaller offices during 2015, two of which are in Scotland—namely Glenrothes and Irvine. Those are all smaller offices and HMRC, for the reasons I stated previously, believes that it makes more sense, and will deliver better value to the public, to bring those staff into larger workplaces. I should make it clear, though, that the consultation on those decisions will, of course, include the consideration of equality impacts and will involve HMRC’s employees, their trades unions, Members of this House and other local interests.
It is also worth bearing in mind that, while the number of general business roles has been reducing in size—as HMRC tries to increase compliance-related yield—the number of roles in that specific area is increasing. Hon. Members may be aware that in June, HMRC advertised up to 2,100 vacancies primarily in compliance roles—up to 680 of which will be based at offices in Scotland. Many of those will be at the newly opened compliance centre in Edinburgh, and HMRC’s debt management and banking business aims to create up to 170 jobs in Cumbernauld, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has pointed out. Therefore, as HMRC’s work moves forward, new opportunities are opening up for its work force, including in the Cumbernauld constituency.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the September referendum and the future for HMRC staff should there be a vote for the Union to come to an end. Neither the Scottish Government nor the UK Government know for sure what will happen if the people of Scotland vote to leave the UK. In the event of a majority vote in favour of independence, both the UK and Scottish Governments agree that negotiations would be needed. Both Governments have agreed that negotiations to establish a new Scottish state cannot begin unless—and until—there is a yes vote in the referendum. That does not mean, however, that representatives of the UK would or could facilitate everything that the Scottish Government have said they hope to achieve through independence.
If the people of Scotland were to vote to leave the UK, the negotiations that would follow would be unprecedented, highly complex and incredibly detailed. There are too many unknown factors at this stage to say how negotiations would proceed and how long they would take. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Scottish Government’s White Paper set out what they would like to happen if Scotland became an independent state; it is not a blueprint or a legally enforceable document, and it cannot predict the outcome of the negotiations between the UK and the new Scottish state. In fact, much of what is included in the White Paper depends on the agreement of the UK Government and numerous other public bodies and organisations. In this instance, I therefore cannot get into any detailed discussion of what might happen should such an event occur. However, the hon. Gentleman was quite right to raise, on his constituents’ behalf, concerns about uncertainty for HMRC employees in the event of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom. I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of Members of the House when I say that I hope that those negotiations never come to pass.
To return to specific HMRC matters, HMRC as an organisation has to work within its resources and to fit its future shape. Its plans to deliver an increasingly modern service for its customers, while increasing tax revenues, depend on making changes to its structure and the size of its work force. The changes to date are making an impact and helping it to provide a much better service for the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, last year it secured nearly £24 billion in additional compliance revenues—a record—and it achieved its best ever customer service levels, and all that was done by about 2,000 fewer staff, who oversaw £235 million of efficiency savings. The staff are doing an excellent job. Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman about the job losses in his constituency, which he mentioned, and with the staff themselves, we need to make sure that our services continue to provide the best possible value to the public. We remain committed to a consultative approach to ensure that any changes are managed in the very best way possible.
May I just make one further and final point, Mr Speaker? As the last speaker before the summer recess, I am the last hon. Member to speak from the Dispatch Box or indeed anywhere in the House and to turn to the Table to see the reassuring presence of Sir Robert Rogers. I know that the House has already had an opportunity to pay tribute to him, but I will just put my thoughts on the record. He has brought to his position an enormous amount of authority and a great love for this House. In an environment that can sometimes be a little heated, he has been a consistent embodiment of a sense of fairness, decency and not a little kindliness. In his distinguished career, he must have listened to many thousands of speeches delivered by many hundreds of right hon. and hon. Members. As the deliverer of the last of those speeches—and, I hope, on behalf of the many hundreds who have spoken before me—may I thank him for his outstanding service and wish him a long and happy retirement?
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Proposed Closure of Barclays Branches in Suffolk Coastal
NHS Service Provision in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Refugee Camps
(10 years, 3 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
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this joint debate with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and I am honoured, Mr Sanders, to serve under your chairmanship—for the first time, I think—on this, the last day of term.
During the past year, I have visited a number of refugee camps around the world. What has really struck me is the disparity between the conditions in different camps. In March, I went to the middle east as part of my work on the International Development Committee. I was given the opportunity to visit the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, which is currently home to more than 82,000 people fleeing the conflict in Syria.
Despite the fact that it is the fourth largest refugee camp in the world, Zaatari is remarkably well run and the quality of life for its resident population is comparatively very good. The accommodation provided there was far better than I have seen in any other refugee camp in the world, with the refugees living in portacabins. Although living conditions were basic, it was clear that the issues caused by overcrowding were not as prevalent as in other camps. For example, a family of up to five could live in one of the portacabin units; if a family was any larger, a second unit would be provided for them.
The relative comfort in which Syrian refugees live in Zaatari is largely due to the fact that the camp receives a lot of funding from other middle eastern states, and it is pleasing to see that aid being put to good use. Having seen its living conditions, I think that Zaatari has a greater sense of permanency than many other refugee camps I have visited.
Most people in Zaatari believed that they would be going home to Syria in a relatively short time. The reality is that in many cases there is nowhere for them to go home to because many homes no longer exist. It is perhaps a good thing that the refugees there enjoy a higher quality of life than those in many others camps do. Achieving that quality of life should be reflected in the management of camps all over the world.
The services available for children and young people in the Zaatari camp are much better than what camps usually provide, due to the provision of child friendly spaces. Obviously, a number of children in the camp have witnessed the horrors of the fighting in Syria and even seen members of their families killed. The child friendly spaces scheme, run by various global non-governmental organisations, is designed to give children a safe place to play, to ensure that they can continue to have a childhood and can recover from the emotional and psychological scars that conflict has caused. Many young children in the Zaatari camp start off by being able to draw only guns and tanks, but after the work of the NGOs they start to draw pictures that are much more normal for children of their age, and they even start smiling again.
I was delighted to see the particular focus on education at Zaatari. UNICEF, which runs the education programme at the camp, has set up a compound of 14 classrooms and runs two schools a day, with girls being taught in the morning and boys in the afternoon. That dedication and commitment to ensuring that the children of the camp have a good education is unusual, and will serve to mitigate some of the disruption caused to the children’s lives, and, most importantly, normalise them. It should also ensure that when Zaatari’s young people leave the camp and eventually return to their country, they will have some of the skills they need to enter the work force and thrive.
The quality of life of the residents of Zaatari is significantly better than that in many of the camps I have visited. For instance, £1 million has been spent on laying down gravel on the site to reduce the nuisance and health issues caused by excessive dust, because the camp is situated in very arid conditions. Although dealing with dust is a lesser concern than providing education, addressing it has ensured that the lives of those living in the camp are much more comfortable; people there experience far fewer chest problems, including asthma in children, than they would otherwise.
The other measure that normalised the lives of Zaatari’s residents was the way in which food was provided in the camp. As I am sure many hon. Members will have seen, food provision in refugee camps typically consists of a rationing-style system, in which residents queue and are allotted a set amount of certain types of food every day. In many cases, refugees will eat the same thing day in, day out for the length of their stay, which often runs into years. That approach undoubtedly prevents people in camps from making their own choices, and I believe that it leads only to institutionalism.
In Zaatari, residents are given smartcards, which function like cash and can be used to buy whatever their holders want, albeit from a relatively limited choice, in the supermarket-style food stores in the camp. Although choosing what to eat may seem a small concern, it is important in helping to normalise the lives of those living in the camp. I would like the approach to be rolled out in refugee camps across the world.
In stark contrast, on a visit to Rwanda with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association earlier this year, I was presented with a sense of disorder and listlessness at a camp for refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo. There was a huge number of young men, many of whom had been there for years; they were bored and had nothing to do. Those young men had no hope, and no chance of escaping and getting a normal life again.
Early marriage was common, due to the absence of any enrichment programmes or provision of education. We all know that education is particularly important for young women, as statistics show that those who receive education are likely to put off marriage and having children until later, meaning that they have better prospects and, above all, better health. This particular camp demonstrated that that is true. I learned that mortality in childbirth there was very high, because many of the girls and young women were getting married far too young, as there is nothing else for them to do.
Although there is a clear discrepancy between the provision of facilities in Syria and in other refugee camps, in camps outside the middle east a similar divide exists along gender lines, and provision for women is of particular concern. In the South Sudanese camp that I visited, toilets were non-existent and people defecated openly; when the rains come, the camp is flooded with human excrement. I heard stories of the women and girls there being too afraid to go to the toilet at night for fear of being raped. Given the duration of the crisis in South Sudan, it would make sense for more permanent toilet facilities to be built, which in turn would reduce the risk of rape that the girls in the camps face every day. However, there must be some sort of security for the toilets, so that women’s and men’s toilets are separated.
What is most shameful about the situation is that the guidelines for the protection of young girls, which specifically mention the need for the provision of lockable toilet facilities, have been in place for the last 10 years in the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s paper on gender-based violence. It is absolutely essential that that advice should be followed in the running of refugee camps globally. In line with their strong stance on violence against women, particularly in conflict, I urge the UK Government to put pressure on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other NGOs to ensure that women are adequately protected.
It is clear that there is a huge disparity between the conditions in refugee camps such as Zaatari and those in Africa. When the residents of refugee camps eventually leave the camps, it is important that they should be able to reintegrate into normal society. Achieving that requires an emphasis on the provision of education, ensuring that children whose lives have been torn apart by the horrors of war can continue to grow emotionally and psychologically, and, most importantly, become contributors to their communities, with reasonable job prospects.
Maintaining normality is key in ensuring that adult refugees leave the camps as functioning members of society. It is clear from how Zaatari is run that self-sufficiency is encouraged there. Although the introduction of supermarket-style food provision is a positive thing, and a welcome change from how food is distributed in the African camp that I described, more could be done to encourage refugees to be more self-sufficient, ultimately ending the dependence that the camps create.
Perhaps one way to do that would be to encourage more micro-economies to be created in camps. Such micro-economies would serve to normalise life for refugees and provide lives more like the ones they will experience when they eventually leave. The fact is that the Syrian refugees in Zaatari are more educated than those in camps elsewhere, but it seems unfair that they should be able to demand one type of camp, and get it, whereas people in camps in Africa, who are generally less educated, have to put up with much more basic facilities.
It would make sense for the Department for International Development to ensure that, in its aid policy and work with NGOs, substantial facilities are put in place in camps. The disparity between the facilities available at Zaatari, compared with the other camps I have described, marks unfairness in how they are organised.
Although Zaatari marks what could be the global standard for refugee camps, more than 70% of Syrian refugees in Jordan and 100% of them in Lebanon live outside them. Although refugees living outside are more likely to lead lives that are more typically normal, there is a challenge in keeping them safe. Many of them are living in basic rooms, with little sanitation and poor water, but they are at least kept in family units, in individual—albeit very small—apartments.
Organisations that run the camps, such as the UNHCR, are experienced in identifying vulnerable individuals and giving them the care that they need, but that is obviously problematic when those vulnerable people are not in camps. Living outside the camps presents a number of other problems, in that refugees have to pay for their own accommodation. Of the non-camp dwelling refugees in Jordan, 90% are now in financial crisis. One reason is that refugees must obtain work permits to work in Jordan, which can often be expensive. Another factor is that some 33% of households are run by women who have been widowed by the war.
One way of assessing the needs of refugees in non-camp settings is to create community boards, consisting of elected representatives from the community. That initiative has been successful within camps and provides aid agencies and NGOs with a useful way of monitoring refugee populations. CARE, the NGO, has been running similar schemes for Iraqi refugees, and they have been very successful. Like that organisation, I believe that community boards should be rolled out in refugee populations across the globe.
Although the UNHCR does a fantastic job of co-ordinating humanitarian efforts across the middle east, especially in Jordan, it goes without saying that one of the bars to providing assistance to, and improving conditions for, refugees who do not live in camps is its reach. For example, many Syrian refugees in Lebanon are unable to access services, due to their inability to travel because of sectarian concerns. In this instance, co-operation between NGOs in these areas and the UNHCR is essential. It is to that end that I would like DFID to use its relationship and influence with the UNHCR to encourage NGOs to co-chair working groups.
It is obvious that there is much to be done in standardising the quality of life of refugees around the world. Nevertheless, it is often easy to overlook the fate of those who do not go into camps. It is vital that provision be made for those people and that they are not rendered more vulnerable as a consequence of not having entered camps. With that in mind, I strongly advocate greater co-ordination between NGOs and the UNHCR, to ensure the widest possible delivery of services and the setting up of community representative groups as standard practice with non-camp dwelling refugee populations.
I have not yet mentioned the current crisis in Gaza. People there are living in schools because they have had to flee their homes. DFID should consider what money it can forward to those vulnerable people, who probably have no homes to go back to now because there has been so much bombing. They are in a desperate situation. I hope that the Minister will take back to the Department my feeling, which is that I should particularly like it to get involved and help the Palestinian people to have as much of a normal life as they can under the circumstances.
Mr Adrian Sanders (in the Chair)
I said privately to hon. Members that, if they wished to remove their jackets, they could. I now say that publicly.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Sanders.
I congratulate my colleague the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on driving forward the desire to have this debate. She and I visited a refugee camp in northern Rwanda and we were both struck by what we saw there. That sparked the idea for this debate.
I want to talk about two issues. I am not as expert as the hon. Lady on the situations in camps around the world, but I do want to talk a bit about my experience visiting Rwanda and, perhaps more pertinent to the Minister’s role, about the UK’s role in resettlement and making sure that we play our part, as a nation, to support and tackle the humanitarian crisis around the world.
As a constituency MP in Hackney South and Shoreditch, the issues in Rwanda and other parts of Africa are pertinent, day to day. I can stand at bus stops in Hackney and have many conversations about the situation at le petit barrier, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or what is going on in other parts of Africa, particularly west Africa. Partly because of resettlement, which I will come to, these are real, living issues for communities in my constituency and throughout the country.
We visited a camp for Congolese nationals in northern Rwanda. As the hon. Lady said, we were both shocked by some of the things we saw there. It was overcrowded and there was a high number of young people, most of whom had nowhere to go and nothing to do. This is not to be hypercritical of the UNCHR, because it was clear that education was being provided up to age 11 and a few older young people had been provided with education in the community, through support from the Rwandan Government. However, with education only up to age 11, a lot of young people are idle, without the skills necessary to integrate into society and without either families or the support and ability to access anything beyond that stage. There is little education and no skills training.
We met a couple of articulate young men, who spoke both good French and very good English, we felt, and had the benefit of some education beyond the age of 11. They were desperate to play a role as young men, but felt stuck in the limbo of teenage years.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is speaking about education and young people. Given the air of permanence that is emerging in some refugee camps—we do not want to consider that as a long-term solution—does she agree that, in trying to assist, we need to turn our minds to issues such as education and health care, as well as to the immediate problems, to ensure that those communities see that there is life beyond the next few months and to help them plan for the long term?
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. It was striking that people still believe that there is a chance of going home. We met young people born in the camp I just mentioned, who believed that there was a chance that they would be able to go back to war-torn, militia-ridden parts of the DRC—we know it is a challenging country—but who are held in limbo. We must have a big discussion as an international community about whether it is sensible to limit education. It is right that education is a basic provision—it is all funded by taxpayers around the globe, not just in the UK—but it cannot benefit our wider international community if cohorts of people misplaced through war and conflict end up in such a state of limbo and then quickly become uneducated parents.
I will not repeat the excellent points made by the hon. Lady about girls. The girls in the Rwandan camp, as in camps around the world, become mothers while still children themselves, because there is little else for them to do. Becoming a mother is a rational choice for them, because it gives them a purpose in life. However, in overcrowded conditions, where families are all living cheek by jowl and are crowded in, sleeping together, it is no surprise that pregnancy is rife.
The camp met with UN requirements—there was no sign that it was badly run—but the challenges in that region mean that camps quickly become overcrowded. This one had been closed to new admissions, but of course the birth rate means that the number of people carries on growing.
It was striking that children talked about going home, but for many there could be much better immediate prospects locally, as the hon. Gentleman said, if they could be given support to integrate—although perhaps not always in the country where the camp is located—through a proper regional integration and relocation policy. That would not mean that those refugees never had the chance to return, but it would give them the chance to build skills and opportunity, so that, if the happy day came when they were able to return to the DRC, they would be able to contribute massively more. We saw that directly with some of the MPs and Senators who accompanied us on visits around Rwanda. Most of those Rwandans had been refugees who fled Rwanda and worked in other parts of the world. They kept their skills up, had a good education and then came back to lead Rwanda out of the horrors of the genocide of 20 years ago. We can see what happens when people have support; there was a direct contrast.
On the UK’s role, I had the privilege when I was a Minister in the previous Government to have some oversight of the gateway scheme, through which the UK Government take refugees from United Nations camps around the world. The Government accept those who meet the UN criteria. For the record it would be useful to remind Members what those are. The categories for vulnerable people include
“women and girls at risk…survivors of violence and/or torture…refugees with medical needs or disabilities…LGBTI refugees at risk…vulnerable older adults…refugees in need of family reunification and…those who face serious threats to their physical security, especially due to their political opinion or belonging to a minority group.”
The first categories are probably more pertinent, day to day, in camps.
When the Government talk about reducing immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands, we must not lose sight—I hope the Minister will make clear the Government’s position on this—of our international humanitarian responsibilities in this regard. When I became a Minister, we were accepting 500 people from the camps annually, but we aimed to raise that to 1,000 a year. Can the Minister tell me what the figures are over the past two or three years, so that we can see what the trajectory is and what the projections are? If not, perhaps she can write to me.
We also face pressures—I will come back to the gateway scheme in a moment—within the European Union, where Mediterranean countries continually receive boatloads of desperate and vulnerable people from north Africa. Discussions about burden sharing, as those countries put it, absorb a lot of time at EU Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings. We need to have a greater and wider view on the matter. I sat next to the Maltese Minister for three years. Every time I sat next to him, he asked whether we would take refugees who had arrived in Malta. We were, however, also trying to take refugees from camps around the world. We need to see that bigger picture across the EU much more. Some EU countries take good numbers of people from UN camps. Others take very small numbers. We need to look at that as part of a wider strategy. It is a sensible strategy for Europe to enable those in great need to resettle in Europe, where appropriate, and have them contribute to the European Union. It sends a message that we are supportive, but it is important that we have immigration controls more generally.
On the gateway project, it was a privilege to work with the Home Office officials who work to support resettlement. They visited the camps—I was prevented from doing so at the time by pregnancy—to see for themselves the families that they, working with the UN, felt could be relocated in the UK. There was a joint resettlement between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, so that there was a critical mass of people from a particular region, which meant that there was language support and the other support necessary for that group. Scotland was also very good at receiving groups of refugees. The idea was that local authorities would bid to take on refugees from the camps, and there was no shortage of willing volunteer local authorities. I was slightly worried that there would be.
It is perhaps pertinent for the Minister to take this back to some of her colleagues in Government, but what was heartening was that communities—often, churches and community groups—that knew they would be receiving people who had lived through desperate times would work positively to receive and welcome those people into the community. The media coverage locally was positive and it was seen as humanity, not as a burden to the UK.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I endorse what the hon. Lady is saying. Bradford as a community accepted the Rohingya—I believe they were part of that gateway programme—which shows that, even in an area where there is tension from increased immigration, there is still a positive and welcoming response when people understand the circumstances of where these groups are coming from.
Meg Hillier
Absolutely. It is wise for all of us who sit in this House and have the opportunity to speak about these issues to be moderate in our discussion of immigration. I was a Home Office Minister and I partly dealt with immigration issues. I absolutely believe that we should have an immigration policy and criteria, but the rhetoric that sometimes comes out—unfortunately we often saw that coming out very negatively during the European elections—is deeply unhelpful. I am sure the Minister will want to put on record her position and that of the Government on how they want to support people from around the world whose lives have been torn apart by conflict.
When I was a Minister, we looked at the Canadian model and it would be interesting to know whether there have been any further developments on that. The model could boost the numbers by allowing local groups, particularly religious groups—churches and mosques and others—to raise money locally to accept more from a particular community into their area, effectively match-funding some of the Government money going into the project. The model would build on the good will and humanitarian support that is embedded in the British psyche and ensure that we do everything we can to support these groups.
On the wider issue of refugee camps, we have to have a bigger debate internationally. We all look at the issues, particularly what is happening in Syria, where many have been displaced. A young man, Chris, who is going to Palestine, came to visit me at my surgery yesterday. He said, “Remember that a lot of the people in those camps have already been displaced once. They are being displaced again.” There are whole areas of the world where people are not settled and do not have the right to a stable home, to education and to get on with their lives. They do not have that opportunity. It is important that as a community, not only in the UK, but in the EU and the other partnerships in which we work, we recognise the instability that that causes to the world.
Our Government need to do all they can to support and stabilise what is happening in Syria. It is difficult for one Government to achieve that alone, and that is why we must work with our international partners. We must also ensure that we think about the long-term consequences of having camps that sit, grow and become communities that are almost sub-sections of a society in their own right. We must also ask questions about whether that is desirable in the long term. We should be shifting the boundaries of the debate, helping more of those refugees to resettle, whether that be in the region or elsewhere, and giving them the chance, as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire put it so eloquently, to normalise their life so that they can adapt, when the opportunity arrives, to life outside of the enclosed and artificial environment of the refugee camp, of which there are many around the world.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Sanders—it is the first time, I think, for me and thee. I do not know whether I need to mention this for any particular protocol reasons, but I would like to thank the Council for European Palestinian Relations for supporting me and a number of other parliamentarians in a delegation last November to Jordan to see a number of camps, including Zaatari. That is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I will come back to it in a moment.
I want to talk about what is often regarded, certainly by its members, as a forgotten group of refugees—those from Gaza in the refugee camp in Jerash, Jordan. I suppose I cannot talk about them without talking about Gaza today. The Gazans I will be talking about are those who fled in 1967, which causes particular problems for them with citizenship, but there are 1.8 million or so Gazans who cannot flee from Gaza today. They are hemmed in by air, sea and land by what many regard to be a brutal and powerful military force, and they are at the mercy of that force. Our thoughts must be with them, as they should be with innocent Israelis who are caught up in this and are under threat from rocket fire in retaliation—others would deny this—for the suppression. Either way, whatever the reason, it must be condemned. Hopefully, more and more innocent Israelis will see that the way to their security is not through military or other suppression of the Palestinians.
When we visited Jordan, we were fortunate to meet the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister and have a wide-ranging conversation. It is unsurprising that they thought the numerous wars surrounding Jordan, which it has sat amidst for many years, can be traced back to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The expulsion and displacement of Palestinians across the region has created tensions and animosity towards Israel. We raised the issue of Palestinians wanting to flee Syria and the policy of denying them access to Jordan. Some do get through, but the response that we received, which must be accepted, was that more than 2 million Palestinian refugees are registered in Jordan.
It is difficult to deny that Jordan is making a phenomenal contribution at huge cost. Yes, it receives funding from other countries and from agencies, but we must never forget the contribution that Jordan, which is sat in the middle of all this, makes year in, year out. As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) mentioned, many of the 2 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan—some 70%—actually live in people’s homes with them. You covered well the fact that that is not an ideal situation. Just because they are not in a refugee camp does not mean that they are living well. They are often in poverty and in situations that create understandable tension in those homes.
The scale of the Zaatari refugee camp is staggering. It is unbelievable. The majority of the refugees are Syrian, because they are flooding over the border. As I said, Palestinians are not actually allowed into the country—bizarrely, they are seen as Syria’s problem and therefore are not eligible for refugee status in Jordan. Some do get through, but the policy is not to allow them in. The camp was opened in July 2012 and when we there at the end of last year it was estimated that there were some 120,000 refugees, 60,000 of whom were under 17, which is mind-boggling. Every day, 4 million litres of water are brought in and garbage and the sewage from the 1,500 toilets must be disposed of. Simply coping is a mammoth task. Schools and hospitals do exist, and additional funding has gone in since our visit, but it is hard to believe the scale of the enormous task before the Government and the agencies in dealing with, for example, the vaccinations of 60,000 children.
Around the time when we were at the camp, a figure of 80,000 was regarded as being its core, settled population. When we were there, 300 to 400 refugees were arriving every single day. Busloads were arriving not on one or two days a week but day after day, and they all had to be accommodated, sorted out and provided with somewhere to stay. Many were leaving and heading back to try to find work. Harvesting, for example, means that some will come and go, depending on whether they have work to return to. They will be in danger, but they have to go back.
I was left with a couple of memories, the first of which is the fantastic work being done by the various United Nations organisations. All the UN workers there are incredible human beings who face unbelievable circumstances. My second memory is of the resilience, ingenuity and enterprise of the refugees themselves. When we walked down the middle of the camp—you will remember it—there were some 650 stalls, selling everything under the sun, which shows that enterprise and initiative can flourish even under the most difficult of conditions.
I want to discuss the Gaza refugee camp at Jerash, where conditions are stark compared with Zaatari. Whereas most of the Palestinians to whom I have referred have been granted Jordanian citizenship and enjoy all the related rights, the refugees who came from the Gaza strip, which was Egyptian-controlled in 1967, are almost stateless. They are regarded as Egypt’s problem, because they were under Egyptian jurisdiction when they fled Gaza and took refuge in Jordan. The camp was opened in 1968 and is somewhat smaller than Zaatari, holding some 20,000 refugees. They live in deprived conditions and do not enjoy the rights that come with citizenship. They cannot vote or work for the Government and are not supposed to benefit from Government services. They also cannot progress educationally. Schools do exist, provided by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, but those who attend are treated as international students. Many have lived there since 1967, but they are still treated as international students for the purposes of tuition fees.
Perhaps the clearest example of the difference between the Zaatari camp for Syrian refugees and the Gaza refugee camp for Palestinians is that, although it was some two years old at the time of our visit, the Zaatari camp is being upgraded with a fully functioning sewage disposal system. The Gaza camp, which was created some 47 years ago, still does not have a sewerage system. There are 20,000 people but no sewerage system.
We met some remarkable people on our visit to the Gaza refugee camp in Jerash, including a dozen or so young girls from the local school parliament. The school has over 1,300 girls, so conditions are cramped, and next door is a boys’ school of a similar size. The schools cannot contain all the pupils, so both operate a shift system with morning and afternoon schools. The girls were brilliant and inspirational. They are full of self-confidence and are quite outspoken about demanding that something be done to support them. They told us of their high ambitions and their desperate desire for access to higher education. The teaching in the schools is delivered by UNRWA and is of a high standard, but resources are of course quite pitiful by our standards. There is internet access, and I told those girls that I would try to establish a link with a school in my constituency, which has now taken place, so there is a link between Laisterdyke high school in my constituency and the school that we visited.
The young girls’ tales were of hardship and family stress. I mentioned resilience and determination, but that camp was more than 45 years old, and they must fear that in practical terms little will change in the future, because of their failure to gain citizenship however long they might have been there. Unlike some of the camps in Lebanon that we have heard about, people in the Gazan camp are free to come and go as they please, but there remains an overwhelming sense of lives being constrained, and indeed they are constrained. People are not starving, but the diet is poor and there is deprivation and stress, all of which take their toll on refugees’ health.
As I said, the refugees are not fully accepted in Jordan. Most have temporary Jordanian passports, which they have to renew every two years, and let us not forget that many families have been there since ’67 or ’68. The unemployment rate is very high, at 81% for women, which is double the rate of non-Gazan Palestinians elsewhere in Jordan.
Most donors want to contribute aid to much higher-profile areas—I am sorry to have to say that—such as Gaza itself and the west bank. My plea is not to forget the forgotten group of refugees who seem to have been left behind when so much is quite rightly done in many other areas. They have the unique circumstances of being almost stateless and of feeling forgotten.
Mr Adrian Sanders (in the Chair)
Will Members remember to make their comments through the Chair and not use the term “you”? Just a polite reminder.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to make a contribution, Mr Sanders, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) for securing this debate and creating the opportunity. It is a pleasure to follow all the speakers, as it will be to listen to those who follow.
I am pleased that the issue has been raised today, although I feel that we do not remind ourselves of it often enough. It is good to have such debates, because they give us the opportunity to remind ourselves of the appalling conditions that refugees endure on a daily basis. Unfortunately, because they are not in our backyard, we tend to have the ability to forgo images of cramped tents, dirty water and malnourished children. It is important that we remind ourselves of those in the world who need help and about how our Government can help those who need help most.
For thousands of people, that is their everyday life—the hardships and challenges that they face every morning when they wake up. In the United Kingdom, we complain about traffic jams, the tube or queues for coffee in the morning. Thinking about the challenges that others have in the world puts things into perspective, and this debate gives us that opportunity.
The number of refugees and asylum seekers worldwide has exceeded 50 million for the first time since the first world war. In 2014, that is a sad statistic to read. The largest refugee camp is the Dadaab camp in Kenya, with a total of 355,709 refugees recorded as living there, 95% of whom were Somalis. Registration facilities were closed in October 2011, so in excess of 500,000 refugees are now reckoned to call Dadaab “home”. As the hon. Lady indicated, we do not want the refugees to think of the camps as home—the camps are not home, but a staying point until they can go back to where they come from.
Médecins sans Frontières conducted interviews with refugees living at the camps in 2013 and its findings were truly shocking, with 41% complaining about the condition of shelters that did not even protect them from the rain, while a further 11% had no access to toilet facilities. The situation is no different in Ethiopia’s Dollo Ado camp, which is home to almost 200,000 people, of whom 170,000 are Somalis. In February 2013, it was estimated that between 150 and 200 Somalis were arriving at the camp each day. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the International Medical Corps found that refugees in Dollo Ado were at risk of malnutrition and poor hygiene facilities due to overcrowding. Such conditions are being compounded every day.
In Jordan, the Zaatari camp houses 122,673 refugees, but provides slightly better conditions than those I have mentioned, boasting three schools, two hospitals and a maternity clinic. That is not the norm but, none the less, lots of problems still exist there. As in every refugee camp, women are at high risk of violence, which perturbs me greatly. That is one of the things that has come to my knowledge as an MP that I would not otherwise have known—the level of violence against women in the camps, as well as elsewhere. In 2013, according to a UNICEF report, Syrian women and girl refugees felt unsafe using toilets and communal kitchens; in some instances, they simply did not leave the tents that they were housed in, staying there for safety.
Refugee camps are particularly dangerous for women and children. For example, on 6 June, members of the Danish Refugee Council went to the Ifo camp in Dadaab to train men in the prevention of and response to sexual and gender-based violence. In the Ifo 2 camp, the Kenya Red Cross held sessions for adolescent girls on issues of HIV/AIDS, early marriage, forced marriage and female genital mutilation. Although that work is commendable, the fact that such training and sessions are necessary shows just how commonplace sexual and gender-based violence is. Reports suggest that that is the same in refugee camps worldwide, which worries me greatly. The Minister, I know, is well aware of those issues and I look forward to her response. Such violence is truly devastating, and we must do more to stop it.
The situation at the camp in the Gaza strip, which is home to 110,000 refugees, is fairly bleak, with some 90% of the water unfit for human consumption. Concern about poor drinking water and, in turn, the spread of disease is widespread across the camps. In South Sudan, the Yida camp, which contains about 71,000 refugees, has witnessed a sudden cholera outbreak—the disease is spread by poor hygiene conditions and a lack of drinkable water. We have had many debates in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber about the need for better drinking water. Wateraid helps, but the need is a basic one in refugee camps, because of the poor hygiene conditions.
UN aid agencies have claimed that hundreds of thousands of refugees live in unacceptable conditions in the camps, blaming food and safe drinking water shortages. Those two problems combined can lead to, and certainly seem to aid in, the spread of life-threatening diseases, such as cholera, malaria, jaundice and malnutrition. In South Sudan, in one camp, officials have reported cases of hepatitis E, which is yet another disease spread through contaminated water.
UNICEF estimates that 400,000 children aged under five will need treatment for malnutrition. To put that into perspective, I should say that the population of Belfast is more than 280,000 and that of Newtownards, the home of my constituency office, more than 77,000—a total of some 358,000. The entire population of the city of Belfast and the town Newtownards still do not account for that number of 400,000 children—that is the vastness of the issue.
We must remember that the global theme for this year’s world refugee day is “1 family torn apart by war is too many”. Refugees have suffered inconceivable losses, from family members and friends to their homes and neighbourhoods, because of conflicts going on in their countries and beyond their control. Sometimes they are involved neither physically nor personally. The camps should be a safe haven for them, but instead many are faced with squalid conditions, widespread disease, a lack of food and water and, for women in particular, fears of being subject to violence and even rape, in a place where they should feel safe.
I understand that tablets have been provided in some camps in an attempt to purify the water, and that although people have tried to teach refugees how to stay healthy and safe, that is not always possible or indeed enough. I appreciate the difficulties of funding for camps, but an attitude that there is only so much that we can do is not good enough when we are talking about an average of 10 children under five dying in those camps every day. That is the magnitude of the issue.
Furthermore, some Syrian refugees are not even receiving aid because they are too scared of endangering themselves or their families back home by registering with UN agencies and, in turn, camps. Even though they have escaped, they cannot register because that would have an impact on their families back home.
For me, without doubt the greatest tragedy is that there are children who have lost out on so much: their childhoods, their education, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred, and their homes; in some cases they have lost family members and friends. According to UNICEF, nearly 2 million Syrian children have dropped out of school since 2012. Climbing trees, playing football in a park or visiting a neighbouring village are normal activities for children as far as we are concerned, but for children in refugee camps such activities are distant memories. Half of the total Syrian refugee population in Iraqi Kurdistan are children. Camps provide very few child-friendly spaces or schools and there are a limited number of areas where children can play.
The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire has a passion for this subject. I have spoken to her before about it and listened to her comments and questions on it in the House. It is clear that she understands the issue. We hope to hear a significant response from the Minister on how best the Government can help those refugees in far-off camps.
A total of 328,000 people have left South Sudan to head for neighbouring countries. At Kakuma refugee camp in north-west Kenya, 1,750 children arrived alone and over 5,000 accompanied by an adult. So far, over 2,000 children have arrived there in need of psychosocial support and assistance of all kinds. The figures are simply horrendous.
We in this Parliament have a responsibility to those in a less fortunate position than ourselves, no matter where in the world they are. For many, the camps are only just better than the war-torn states that they have fled from. There is an old saying, “Out of the frying pan, into the fire”; for many refugees, that is exactly how it is. They still face the prospect of death, although it comes in a different form—from disease or starvation rather than from bullets or rockets. Many live in fear of physical and sexual violence each time they leave the security of their tents. For many children, education is simply out of the question and they face very uncertain futures. That is why this debate is so important.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
To misquote Charles Dickens in 2014, these are the best of times and the worst of times. It is an age of wisdom and an age of foolishness. There is a season of light, there is a season of darkness. There is a spring of hope and there is a winter of despair.
To look at the worst of times, others have set out graphically the vast scale of the problem. There are 50 million refugees, and huge numbers of Syrians, for example, are fleeing that conflict zone—it is that country I particularly want to focus on. We debate the issue on 22 July with conflict in Gaza and Israel, with no cessation of rockets or hostilities, no durable ceasefire and no progress to a two-state solution. At the same time, Russia and Ukraine are in a separatist dispute that is producing ever more refugees, and there has been the horrifying loss of flight MH17.
One could say that the debate brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) is particularly timely because there is a risk that while all those atrocities are going on and being shown on the television, conflicts and refugee situations that have been going on for a considerable time have almost been forgotten. It is a fantastic aspect of the House of Commons, first, that when we get this job we gain a greater understanding of the huge complexity of the problems faced around the world and secondly that, on a hot and steamy morning, Members from four different parties are here, making the case that we genuinely all care, on a cross-party basis, about the suffering of the individuals involved in these situations.
I will touch briefly on what I consider to be the best of times. In January this year, I travelled with a number of colleagues to the Nizip 2 camp. It is on the River Euphrates, a wonderfully peaceful and soulful spot on the Syrian-Turkish border that is revered in religious history. Right next to the Euphrates are 17,000 people in the Nizip 2 camp in a combination of tents and containers.
We are debating the conditions in refugee camps. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire, I have had the privilege of seeing the amazing work that the Turkish Government in particular are doing to make the Syrian refugees, who have fled primarily from Homs and Aleppo, feel very welcome. I have also seen the quality of care and of the camps there. My hon. Friend talked about the gold standard of the camps that she visited; I recommend wholeheartedly the efforts of the Turkish Government in looking after Syrian refugees in Nizip.
We travelled there to see in particular how taxpayers’ money is spent. One of the benefits this Parliament has over the previous Parliament is that the argument that international aid is money worth spending is almost overwhelmingly won. It was patently clear that British taxpayers’ money was being used constructively and properly, particularly in the systems for payment for food and the debit card system for the supermarkets there. That drives away the dependency culture and creates an independence that is vital. The House of Commons Library debate pack featured an outstanding article by Mac McClelland in The New York Times from 13 February 2014, which is helpfully entitled “How to build a perfect refugee camp”. If anyone wishes to understand how we should be doing it, that sets it out.
In Nizip we saw many things. I can only praise the container system there—it works and is way better than the usual tents and the difficulties with those. I certainly praise the remarkably open and welcoming approach of the Turkish Government. It was refreshing to see people so frank in their desire to help their fellow man and also to see the degree of support given by a multitude of agencies: DFID itself is very much involved and there is support from UNICEF and from some of the Arab nations, particularly Qatar.
It was noticeable that the quality of life and the optimism about going home, as well as the lack of a dependency culture, were so much better in Nizip because of the quality of the camp. It was not creating a dependency culture but a desire to regroup and to go home at some stage in the future. That is what I understood from all the people I met during my time there. My hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Mr Newmark), for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) also attended, and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) did the majority of the organising. We were all struck by the fact that these were people who, fundamentally, simply wish to go home.
As for the situation going forward, I have to raise the fact that on 29 April this year I held a debate with this same Minister about aid and relief getting into Syria. It was six or seven weeks after the passing of UN Security Council resolution 2139. I will remind the Minister of what she said on that occasion. That resolution was adopted unanimously, which is rare for Security Council resolutions on refugees. It calls for an immediate end to all violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights, and demands that all parties fully implement the provisions of the Security Council. It asks them immediately to lift the sieges of populated areas and—this is the crucial point— provide unhindered cross-border and cross-line access for UN humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners, stressing the need to end impunity for violations.
I regret to say that not a lot has happened about implementing resolution 2139, so I would very much like the Minister, who promised on 29 April to take the matter back to the United Nations, the Secretary of State, and the individual organisations involved, to explain why aid is still not getting through—why that is not being enforced by the United Nations—given that a Security Council resolution makes it clear that it should be provided, and should get through. The overriding impression is that a resolution was passed and that nothing was done about it.
One cannot talk about the future without hope springing up, and, much like the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), I was tremendously struck by the young women and children whom I met at the Nizip camp. They were overwhelmingly positive about the life they would lead in the future. We did a straw poll of the year 6 and 7 children we met. Most of the young ladies wanted to be doctors; most of the young men wanted to be engineers. All intended to go back to their country, rebuild it, and look after the people.
I met a young man called Suleiman, who had come from Homs and had left behind many members of his family. He was a qualified engineer, aged about 21. He was trying hard to teach people in the camps. One could talk a lot more about the quality of the education. Today’s debate is about conditions in refugee camps, and I urge DFID and the humanitarian agencies to bring more attention to bear on the quality of education, because a silo system is operating, to some extent.
The overriding impression is that individual charities, DFID and the nations that are involved provide fantastic amounts of basic aid, and then allow limited education to be provided, effectively from within the camp. I am utterly convinced that we could do more to provide education, and assistance with education, in individual camps. That might include providing books, with charities organising that in the camps. There is massive need, and there is a huge role for DFID and others to play. Without a shadow of a doubt, I want more such work to be done.
The need for refugee camps will clearly never disappear. The quality of what I saw at Nizip was amazing. I look forward to visiting Jordan with the Tearfund charity, which has invited me to go there in the near future. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire, and look forward to a response from the Minister about resolution 2139.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Sanders.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for us to discuss the vital issue of refugees and the conditions in the camps where so many have no choice but to reside. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who spoke movingly of the camp for Congolese refugees that she saw in Rwanda. She was eloquent in speaking about the many issues that have to be faced. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) made important points, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his comprehensive remarks about the serious challenges that exist. Finally, I have not visited a refugee camp, but the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made it clear why it is important for Members of this House to do so, and to share with us the experience of people who live in camps. I commend the work he has done on that.
There is a simple fact at the heart of today’s debate. The world’s refugee problem is growing, and that trend shows no sign of reversing. By the end of 2013, according to estimates of the UNHCR, there were more than 51 million people worldwide—almost the population of England—who had been displaced, whether by persecution, conflict, violence, or human rights violations. Over the 12 months of 2013, 1.1 million people became refugees or asylum seekers, while just 415,000 returned to their countries of origin. The net impact on the global numbers suffering displacement is clear from those figures; there is a rapid and continuing expansion. The cost and impact of that growth falls overwhelmingly on the poorest nations. Developing countries host 86% of all the world’s refugees. In the light of such figures, it is absolutely right that we should discuss what we can do both to pre-empt the process of people becoming refugees through conflict prevention and poverty alleviation, and to improve the lot of those who are already displaced—particularly the vulnerable millions scattered across the world’s refugee camps.
As has been mentioned by several Members, the terrible, unabating conflict in Syria is one of the key drivers of the upward trend in refugee numbers, as civilians forced from their home by the violence stream across the borders of neighbouring countries. Many end up in refugee camps, while others filter informally into the existing Syrian diaspora communities in those areas. More than 2.8 million refugees have fled Syria, and the vast majority are now located in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. There is still much to do to improve conditions for refugees housed in camps in those nations, but it is right to pay tribute to the work of the Governments of those countries, all of which have their own significant domestic issues to deal with, for their commitment to and support of hundreds of thousands of new residents.
Perhaps the starkest example of what I have described is Lebanon, which is home to more than 1.1 million Syrian refugees—a figure equivalent to a quarter of that nation’s permanent population. Given the unimaginable strain that such situations place on the often fragile and overburdened systems of health, education, employment and security in host countries, it is essential that the UK should do what it can, alongside the international community and the development sector, to support people in refugee camps.
Hon. Members have already mentioned some high-profile failings at refugee camps, and I will not describe those again. They are often due to a shortage of support, a lack of planning or a failure to learn the lessons of previous experience. In the Syrian crisis, the Zaatari camp, just across the border in Jordan, is worrying in many ways. Apparently uncapped expansion of the camp has been allowed, way beyond what local resources can support; later arrivals have been housed in makeshift, unsanitary conditions, in tents with little protection from the extremes of heat and cold of the Arabian desert. The camp sprawls over five square miles, with limited and often constrained food supplies. Security is limited, and violence—especially sexual violence—is a threat and a worry, as are health facilities that are less than we might want. There are also constraints on education provision.
However, as hon. Members have described in depth, incredible work is under way to improve the situation at Zaatari, and some of the other Syrian camps have learned the lessons. Those lessons include localising facilities around the camps rather than concentrating them in one spot, improving access and reducing potential for conflict. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for International Development has visited the Azraq camp, which is also in Jordan. It works on the basis of villages, each with its own clinic, playgrounds and facilities, and there is accommodation in prefabricated huts housing a maximum of five refugees each. That is hardly a great home, but it is better than what passes for refugee accommodation elsewhere, as was forcefully described in the opening speeches. What is the Minister’s assessment of the effectiveness of that model, and what logistical and technical support is her Department providing to Governments in conflict-ridden areas, who suddenly find they must establish such camps, so that lessons will be learned and best practice will not go to waste?
The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire asked, as I do, whether the Minister has had the opportunity to examine the effectiveness of top-up cards for refugees to pay for food and supplies—the shadow Secretary of State saw that in the Azraq model—instead of relying on sporadic handouts of aid.
The financial and resource strain that a sudden influx of refugees places on host nations such as Lebanon, Jordan and countries in Africa is unimaginable to us. Inevitably, with the need to provide shelter, water, food and security for hundreds of thousands of newly arrived refugees, other needs, including education, tend to be neglected by the host nations. The hon. Member for Hexham made that point well. Yet a failure to provide at least a basic education can have the most damaging long-term impact. Those who flee conflict and violence are often disproportionately young, and it is the young we are trying to remove from the violence. In Lebanon, there will soon be nearly 500,000 children of school age in camps, yet few have access to schools in the camps or in Lebanon’s towns and cities. The Lebanese Government lack the funds and teachers to provide that education safety net.
As the Syrian conflict drags on, the prospect of many children missing out completely on education rises, ingraining illiteracy and poverty. Will the Minister update us on what support her Department is providing to help to ensure that when refugee numbers are so great that they overwhelm the resources of host nations, young people, particularly those fleeing Syria, can receive at least a basic education? Will she assure us that her Department is making long-term funding available for education for young Syrian refugees, as well as supporting emergency schemes to get some basic provision in place now?
All too often, refugee situations, whether in Syria, Palestine, Somalia, South Sudan or the Central African Republic, switch from being short-term humanitarian emergencies to long-term challenges for the refugees, the host nations and the international bodies that support them. Refugee camps that were intended to be temporary become homes to hundreds of thousands of refugees for years, or even decades in the worst cases. It is crucial that we choose how to use our limited resources sensibly. The urge to give aid to tackle an emergency refugee situation is strong and often right, but we must examine carefully how that can be balanced against the long-term funding that is so necessary in refugee camps that persist for many years, to ensure that they do not become homes for the hopeless—those without education, without health care, even without the hope of moving out of extreme poverty and living their lives securely.
I pay tribute to everyone in this country who supports the City of Sanctuary movement and all UK volunteers who work to support refugees. Their work is not unnoticed, and we are very grateful for it. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire on securing this debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the many vital points that have been made this morning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
It is a pleasure, Mr Sanders, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing this important debate and all hon. Members on their contributions. Hon. Members throughout the House are genuinely committed to the plight of refugees, wherever they are in the world. Meeting the needs of refugees and other forcibly displaced people is at the centre of the UK’s humanitarian work, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it. I will try to respond to as many points as possible.
The debate is timely. A month ago, on world refugee day, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that in 2013 the number of refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced people worldwide had, for the first time in the post-world war two era, exceeded 50 million people. The increase from 2012 has been driven mainly by the Syria crisis, as many hon. Members said, but there have also been major new displacements in Africa, notably the Central African Republic and South Sudan.
My first visit to a refugee camp was to the north of South Sudan where refugees came across from South Kordofan and Blue Nile. That was also when I had my first trip in a helicopter, because there were no roads and the rainy season had started. The logistics of bringing in life-saving supplies were quite extraordinary in the direst of circumstances. Having to fly everything into refugee camps there partly explains the cost of the camps. I will go into the different costs, because where camps are situated and the countries they are in are critical to those costs.
This rise in the number of refugees is part of a worrying global trend reflecting the complexity of protracted crisis situations with regional and cross-border dimensions and the quadrupling of overall humanitarian need over the past decade. Increasingly, many refugee situations are continuing for extended periods. In 2011, a UNHCR study of 30 major protracted refugee situations found that the average length of displacement now is almost 20 years, compared with an average of nine years in the early 1990s.
Many hon. Members referred to the longevity of the camps, and I reiterate that primary responsibility for the assistance and protection of refugees lies with the host state. The UNHCR is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide, and to seek durable solutions to refugee displacement. I agree with all hon. Members who have said that we must normalise situations that last for a long time by providing skills, education and the hope of life beyond the camps. Solutions may include voluntary repatriation, assimilation within new national communities or resettlement to third countries. In 2013, refugee returns were fewer than 500,000.
The focus of this debate has been conditions in refugee camps, but it is important to note that the majority of today’s refugees do not live in camps. In 2012, a UNHCR study showed that only 35% of the 9.5 million refugees assessed lived in planned camps, and that the majority were living in private or rented accommodation. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) referred to that, and I will respond in due course. More recently, it was estimated that 86% of Syrian refugees live outside camps.
It is critical to ensure that those with responsibility for meeting refugees’ needs are able to tailor their responses to different contexts. Camps are not usually the preferred solution for refugees, because they are expensive and often do not have good security. I have seen jealousy in host communities. Many hon. Members referred to education, and when it is provided in camps in countries where children outside the camps are barely in school, the balance must be carefully considered. My Department must consider the context or there may be all sorts of trouble between those inside and outside the camps.
The 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol laid down the basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees. The UNHCR has further developed them into detailed standards and guidelines in every sector of humanitarian assistance and protection. Today’s debate has rightly highlighted the fact that conditions vary widely from one camp to another. The issue is complicated. It depends partly on the political willingness and economic ability of a country to host refugees. In the middle east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire said, host states are relatively wealthy compared with those in Africa and perhaps more politically willing to help with refugees. Certainly, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said, the Turkish refugee camps are of the highest quality. They are quite astonishing. I was at an iftar meal, as I am sure many Members in the Chamber have been. It was a Turkish evening, and the quality of the camps was referred to many times over.
Conditions vary widely depending on how well the camp has been planned in advance and where it is located. Often, as I said, camps are situated in very poor circumstances without proximity to natural resources such as water or wood. The capacity of the camp to expand to more refugee influxes is also a factor, because if different cultural groups are sited in the same place or in close proximity, it results in overcrowding and tension.
A number of Members raised the issue of women and girls in refugee camps. As I am sure everyone knows, DFID puts women and girls, and particularly preventing violence against women, at the heart of all its development programmes. The Secretary of State gave a call to action to address the danger to women and children and their vulnerability in refugee camps, as has been mentioned. One of my earliest meetings was with a number of the agencies involved, and I said that this was a first-order issue. For a long time, food, water, shelter and sanitation were the first-order issues, but it is now becoming recognised that that is not enough any more.
Pauline Latham
Is it not true, however, that in these camps, we still do not separate the girls’ and women’s toilets from the men’s toilets and provide security so that they can go safely to the toilet without fear of rape?
Lynne Featherstone
My hon. Friend is right, but that is beginning to happen. Camps are at a variety of stages in their evolution. The newest and most modern camps most definitely have separate, safe toilets and all those things, but other camps that have been in existence longer do not necessarily have them. The issue has been raised and everyone is now aware of it. The Secretary of State’s call to action has highlighted the issue and put it on the front page, so that the agencies understand that it is as much a part of humanitarian aid as the more traditional first-order issues. I think we all recognise the danger that women are in. They are vulnerable if they go outside the camps to look for wood; they are at risk of violence and sexual assault, and we have called on others—UN agencies, donors and non-governmental organisations—to do the same as we have and put women, girls and children at the heart of their humanitarian response.
I want to try and answer more directly some of the questions that have been asked. I thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Hexham for their contributions. Education and food were raised in particular. Enrolment rates in education are higher in camps than outside—in Iraq, they are 57%, in Jordan, they are 67%, and in Turkey, they are 80%. There are three schools in Zaatari and 20,000 children, but there are still problems maintaining regular attendance and reducing the overcrowding in classes.
On food, in camps in Jordan refugees receive a daily allocation of bread and food vouchers valid for two weeks. Those can be redeemed at shops inside the camp, which also benefits the local communities. It is a kind of win-win situation. In one camp, the Emirates Red Crescent provides full catering. Malnutrition rates in those camps remain low, but there is a real spectrum in what is available and where. DFID certainly encourages the use of our cash transfer system, and we are very proud of it. That is one of the great innovations of recent years, because it ensures that money is spent locally, so it benefits the community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East said, the ingenuity of refugees in camps beggars belief. Stalls arrive and there is a marketplace, and I understand that there is also not the best-tasting alcohol—not in the Muslim countries, but in Africa for sure.
Lynne Featherstone
I will try and get through the points that all the Members have raised, and if I have time, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
Gaza was mentioned. Currently, only UNRWA, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society have sufficient access even to respond. DFID is funding both UNRWA and the ICRC, and we have increased funding to both in response to the crisis. More than 100,000 people are now taking shelter in schools and communal buildings under the aegis of UNRWA. The Secretary of State announced £2 million of funding yesterday to the flash appeal, which was launched by UNRWA, but it is a moving situation, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East appreciates. It is relatively new.
On the Palestinian refugees from Syria, many of them have fled Syria to Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere. They receive assistance from UNRWA in Lebanon and Jordan, and from the UNHCR in Egypt, because UNRWA does not have a mandate in Egypt. There are reports that the Palestinian refugees are finding it increasingly difficult to cross the borders out of Syria, which is a cause for concern. The UK has so far provided £25.5 million to UNRWA to assist it in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
Dr Lee
Has the Minister’s Department made any assessment of the need for additional medical services, particularly in the Zaatari camp in Jordan? I say that in the context of a debate I held a few months ago in the House, which was on a mobile army surgical hospital facility that Britain could build up and deploy in a place such as Zaatari.
Lynne Featherstone
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will write to him on that, because it adds a whole new area to the debate and I have only three minutes left.
The gateway protection scheme was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. We want to focus our assistance on the most vulnerable people, rather than subscribing to a quota scheme. We have a vulnerable persons relocation scheme, which runs in parallel to the UNHCR’s own Syria humanitarian admission programme. We are determined to ensure that our assistance is targeted where it can have the most impact on the most refugees and those at the greatest risk. Our programme focuses on individual cases where evacuation from the region is the only option, and in particular, we are prioritising help for survivors of torture and violence and women and children at risk. The gateway protection scheme is operated by the UK Visas and Immigration partnership, as the hon. Lady knows, because she was a Home Office Minister. That is the Department from which the immigration side comes. It offers a legal route for resettlement for up to 750 refugees to settle in the UK each year.
We continue to be very concerned about the plight of the Syrian refugees. That crisis is not abating, and the UK has been at the forefront of the humanitarian response. The UK’s total funding for Syria and the region is now at £600 million, which is three times the size of its response to any other humanitarian crisis. My fear is that there are protracted crises looming, all coming together at a time when the world’s humanitarian effort is at its greatest, and resources are being severely stretched.
The UK tackles these issues in three ways. The first is at the global level, by providing support to the UNHCR to fulfil its mandate. In 2013, 43 million people relied on UNHCR assistance. We have a strong engagement with the UNHCR and participate in its executive committee. We also provide predictable and flexible global funding that allows the organisation to respond to the most urgent need.
The second way is through engagement on international humanitarian reform and, together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, international advocacy on the rights of refugee and other vulnerable populations. I can assure hon. Members that there is a real debate—for a long time the humanitarian effort was stuck, but I think that is moving now and the debate is opening up. The third way is at the country level, where the UK is engaged in many of the world’s most severe crises.
Effectively meeting the needs of growing refugee and other forcibly displaced populations is placing ever-increasing demands on stretched host states and the humanitarian system. The majority of those needs are concentrated in protracted crises in fragile and conflicted states. Access is a nightmare in many countries, and the situation is terrible. I appreciate the difference between the camps, but I think it is explicable by the circumstances in which those camps arrive—
Mr Adrian Sanders (in the Chair)
Order. We now move on to the next debate. I call Mr Paul Burstow.
Care Home Top-up Fees
(10 years, 3 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
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity under your chairmanship, Mr Sanders, to debate an issue that is of growing importance and will increasingly find its way into the mailbags of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The issue is how much people pay for care in the 10,000 or more care homes up and down England and, in particular, whether the top-up payments that some residents and their relatives make to secure care home accommodation are fair and transparent. With the Department currently consulting on draft guidance for the Care Act 2014, this is a good time to turn the spotlight on these issues.
The legal framework setting out what local authorities need to do when a resident who qualifies for means-tested support enters a care home has been fairly clear for a long time. The “Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide” and the 2004 choice of accommodation directions are straightforward, at least in so far as they clarify that, if local authority-supported residents would like to move into more expensive accommodation—for example, they might want to secure a place in a home nearer their family—they can, provided that a third party, normally a relative, can pay a top-up payment, make that choice. The rules are also clear that if, for whatever reason, no care home places can be provided at the rate that the local authority would normally pay, it is the responsibility of the council, not the resident or their relatives, to pay more to secure reasonable care home accommodation.
The rules are clear. The trouble is that evidence is mounting that they are being broken. Local authorities are confused about how to apply the rules consistently, so that families can be informed about the rules on choice and choose more expensive accommodation, knowing that that will involve additional costs, while at the same time being protected from paying a top-up payment for essential care that it is the council’s responsibility to pay for and meet.
An estimated 54,000 local authority-funded adults are part-paying their care home fees. That is 28% paying top-up fees. Just over one in 10 of all care home placements involve someone paying a top-up fee.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, because up and down the country and certainly in my constituency of Huddersfield, there is real concern about this issue. Does he agree with the finding of a recent survey that many councils do not know what is going on? It is not that it is malign; they just do not know what is going on.
Paul Burstow
That is really the thrust of this debate. Whether it is malign or not, it is ignorance, and when it comes to a local authority, that ignorance is not acceptable.
The problem is that the people I am talking about are often out of sight and out of mind. We do not know how many of the 54,000 people who pay a top-up know that a top-up is intended to allow relatives to pay a little extra for a care home place that is above and beyond the “standard” level available from the council. We do not know how many of the 54,000 people know that their council or care home should not be requesting a top-up for any care; it should request it only for a higher standard of accommodation.
Based on the evidence that I have seen, I believe that we need to examine whether the rules governing choice and charging for residential accommodation are working as intended and that we need to look again at what we can do to clarify local authorities’ responsibilities now that the legal framework is being strengthened by the Care Act. We need to get this right because top-ups look set to grow in number, not least with 35,000 more care home residents qualifying for some level of means-tested support when the upper capital threshold is increased to £118,000 from 2016. It is in councils’ interests to get it right because, again thanks to the Care Act, there will be a new appeals process for each local authority. Unless the often grey area of top-ups is sorted out, it is likely that a growing number of residents will be challenging the decisions that councils have made about care home fees. Councils can take steps to minimise the risk of legal challenges, but they need the Government to provide clear and practical guidance on what they are required to do and, crucially, what they cannot do.
Mr Sheerman
May I intervene very quickly just on that point, because it is very important?
Mr Adrian Sanders (in the Chair)
Order. It is for the Member who secured the debate to give way.
Paul Burstow
I will give way, but I need to stress to the hon. Gentleman that this is a half-hour debate and I need to make quite a few points myself.
Mr Sheerman
I was trying to intervene on this point only because it means so much to some of my constituents. Some of them have said that the trade association for care homes, which is a very powerful one, should have a charter of rights. As someone goes into a home, it should be there and should show the clear responsibilities and clear duties of care.
Paul Burstow
That is a very good point and one that I am sure Care England and other organisations representing care homes would want to take on board.
It is important to understand the scale of the problem. Research carried out last year by the charity Independent Age highlighted the fact that 72% of local authorities—there was a very high response rate to this freedom of information request—were unable to demonstrate that they met their legal obligations with an overview of top-up payments in their area. In other words, they were not routinely monitoring and reviewing whether third parties remained “able and willing” to make top-up payments. That is a core requirement of the existing guidance. The onus is on councils to check that families are not unwittingly making top-up payments for care that should be paid for and met by the council as part of its duties to meet assessed, eligible needs. Those payments can range anywhere from £31 a week to perhaps £131 a week. In some cases, it is probably even higher than that.
The research also found that just under 30% of councils said that they did not hold or collect information about top-up fees in their area. This was a typical quote from a council:
“As a Council we’ve never had any involvement in top-up care home fees...The Council does not know how many top-ups are in place, in any financial year”.
Perhaps most disturbing was that so few councils knew what was taking place in terms of top-up fees arranged between care homes and families in their area. Almost 80% of councils did not routinely check up on the health of top-up payments as part of their annual reviews, and 75% of councils did not signpost families of care home residents to independent advice before entering into third party top-up agreements.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, just for two seconds?
Paul Burstow
I hope that this debate will help with that. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) are here and will, I am sure, help to spread the news about the debate. My hon. Friend makes a good point. I attempted to get a 90-minute debate. We have a half-hour debate, and I am very grateful that other hon. Members are here, supporting me on this very important issue.
What is driving an increase in top-up payments is the key question. I think that an issue of funding is at the heart of this. More specifically, personal budgets are being set at a rate that simply does not reflect the actual costs of purchasing large numbers of care home places. My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that, in the three years from 2010, local authority baseline fees fell by almost 5% in real terms and rose by 1.8% in 2013-14. It is hard to imagine that that has not had some impact in terms of the numbers of requests for top-up payments during this period.
The problem affects large numbers of people across a wide range of local authorities. The local government ombudsman has said as much. She found Southampton guilty of maladministration causing injustice in the situation of an older woman. The council had sought, wrongly, additional fees beyond the assessed contribution, because no care home places were available within the council’s usual rate. The ombudsman published her report. She considered that that was in the public interest, because
“councils across the country are faced with similar situations”.
The LGO also carried out an investigation into a council near me, the London borough of Merton, in which a contracted private home asked a family to pay a top-up fee that the LGO says it had no right to demand. The report from the LGO serves as a stark reminder to councils that they cannot contract out their legal responsibilities. It was hoped that these reports by the LGO would stop councils turning a blind eye to care providers taking payments from relatives, on the basis that that is outside the agreed care contract. However, the practice continues to affect families up and down the country, which makes the need for today’s debate all the more urgent.
In her report on complaints in relation to adult social care, the LGO revealed that she receives complaints that
“providers have sought to charge…‘top-up fees’ in circumstances where the person’s care needs should be fully covered by public funding.”
The investigations have shown that 17% of all complaints received last year included concerns about the financial elements of care provision; that more than half of those complaints in 2013 raised issues about fees being charged where they should not be; that in 50% of these cases the LGO is upholding complaints; and, specifically in relation to top-ups, that people are
“not being given clear and comprehensive information about their financial liabilities.”
Let us not forget that we are talking about an increasingly frail care home population. The Alzheimer’s Society estimates that eight in 10 residents live with dementia or significant cognitive impairment. Given that, what is the Minister’s assessment of the LGO’s most recent report on all complaints made in 2013, which concluded that complaints about local authority social care increased by 16% and that the LGO often finds fault with top-ups being charged when they should not be? Does the Minister agree that the problem seems to be getting worse?
Soon-to-be-published research by Independent Age based on in-depth interviews with 13 councils reveals a wide variation in local authorities’ practices for arranging top-up fees, in terms of who the contract is with, the terms of the third-party agreement, what and how much information and advice is provided, and how the affordability of a top-up payment is assessed. It is essential that the regulations and the statutory guidance that are being developed in the Department address each of those issues. Perhaps the most striking aspect of that research, which I believe will be presented to the Department later this week, is that none of the councils that participated in the research had any openly agreed or consistent approach to reviewing whether third parties remained willing and able to pay top-up fees. That is a serious problem, which risks becoming bigger still when own-resource or first-party top-ups are permitted much more widely from April 2016.
There are many stories about the subject, and I suspect that other hon. Members who are present have stories from their constituencies. I want to refer briefly to two stories, one from the Alzheimer’s Society and one from Independent Age. The Alzheimer’s Society has told me that it was recently contacted by the daughter of an 84-year-old mother who has dementia and is virtually bed-bound. The mother lives in a nursing home, and the daughter agreed to pay a top-up payment of £35, but that payment keeps being increased and now stands at £75. The daughter feels that the payment is becoming unsustainable, but she is worried about the consequences of not paying and the impact of moving her mother to another care home. Families have to make such hard, emotional and often distressing choices every day.
The example from Independent Age is no less typical. The organisation was contacted by a daughter whose 87-year-old mother has only £7,000 in savings. The mother has Alzheimer’s and has been in a hospital for a month, and she has now been assessed as needing residential care for her own safety. She wants to live near her daughter in Gloucestershire, because her daughter is the only child. The council in London, where the mother lives, has explained that it will pay £441 towards the mother’s care but it has only found one placement at that rate, which is nowhere near where she wants to live. The local authority is trying to achieve a quick outcome, because it wants her to be moved out of hospital as soon as possible, and it is asking for a top-up payment as part of the process. The 87-year-old mother is being informed that she will be moved to the local home at the local authority rate, regardless of her wishes.
Clearly, the guidance on that point needs to be strengthened. Let me offer the Minister some suggestions on what might be done to strengthen the guidance on which the Department is consulting. I hope that my contribution to the debate will be treated as a formal contribution to that consultation. Local authorities must meet their legal obligations, so third-party top-ups are only ever a matter of choice, not a necessity. The best way to ensure that that happens is to make sure that all top-up agreements are agreed in the open between residents and their relatives, the local authority and the care home provider in a genuine three-way written agreement. It is good to see that that is set out in the draft regulations.
Will the Minister ensure that the guidance underpinning those regulations, to which people will refer to find out what scope, discretion and flexibility there is, states that residents should be offered more than one care home place within the amount of their personal budget? At the moment, the draft guidance simply states that at least one setting should be offered that could meet the person’s needs within their personal budget. If that were interpreted in a mean way—not all councils will do this, but I am certain that some will—the council would offer one home at the rate at which it will pay, and that would be that. In the worst case, an individual might be offered a place in a home rated by the Care Quality Commission as poor or inadequate. Provisions should be put in place to ensure that a person has a genuine choice, particularly if the home that they are offered has been rated as failing some of its fundamental standards.
Will the Minister ensure that the new framework actively enables residents to access independent information and advice, so that they can make a decision about whether to pay a top-up and what level of top-up they can afford? How will the new framework actively support residents to understand their entitlements? Does the Minister share my concern that simply calling on councils to consider
“when it is in residents’ best interests”
to signpost them to information and advice is not sufficient? Three quarters of councils do not signpost residents to independent information and advice now, so what will change unless the guidance signals that there should be a change? That is how the draft guidance is currently framed, but surely it would be better if councils routinely signposted people to information. That could be achieved by including a generic statement or section in a model agreement developed by the Department that checks with the local authority, the care home and the third party whether there has been a signpost to independent information and advice. That is a simple, honest check that could be built into the contractual arrangements. I emphasise that information and advice should be independent.
Should it not be incumbent on local authorities to review annually whether top-up arrangements remain affordable and whether people remain willing and able to pay them? Surely that should happen at the same time as the annual review of care needs and an adult’s finances. The draft guidance is too vague on that point; it states that local authorities should review top-ups “from time to time”. It should be made clear that at a minimum, the arrangements should be reviewed annually.
We have to consider the rates that local authorities pay care providers, and whether those rates really keep pace with the real market costs of care. The guidance should make it clear and unambiguous that, where a personal budget needs to be adjusted to meet an adult’s assessed eligible needs and top-up arrangements are not possible, a local authority must always adjust the amount of the personal budget and not seek a top-up to cover the shortfall in local authority funding. That point is absolutely fundamental, but the relevant section of the draft guidance merely states that the local authority should consider adjusting the amount of the personal budget. If a local authority chooses not to do so, it is breaking the law, but it is invited to consider doing something that would be unlawful. There should be no discretion.
Families are being separated. Vulnerable older and disabled people, together with their families, are not being informed of their rights. People who can ill afford hundreds of pounds in top-up fees are unwittingly paying out extra money for essential residential care that is really the council’s responsibility. That is why the guidance should be strengthened.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on securing the debate. It would be wrong for the debate to be an exclusively Liberal Democrat affair, so I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) in his place. This debate is, in some ways, a unique event.
My right hon. Friend raises an important issue. He provided two case studies, which almost smack of exploitation of vulnerable older people. The ratcheting up by a care home of the top-up fee for someone in the latter stages of their life who suffers from dementia is completely unacceptable exploitation of that individual, and it should be condemned.
Equally, the idea that it is suitable or appropriate to shove someone into a home far away from London but a long way from where she wants to be goes against the central principle of the Care Act 2014: the individual’s well-being. I know that my right hon. Friend is committed to upholding that principle. The issue that he raises is of real importance, and the findings of the local government ombudsman’s report from last year, to which he referred, are of real concern.
People should have a choice over the establishment in which they receive care and support. That establishment will, after all, become their home. Where the local authority is involved, it has a responsibility to ensure that the establishment meets the person’s needs without costing more than it needs to. However, another important principle, which we must respect, is that people or their loved ones should have the choice to use their own resources as they see fit. If by doing so they can improve their surroundings by having a bigger room or a better view, they should have that choice. I emphasise that that must be a positive choice on the individual’s part—something that they understand the costs and consequences of, never something that they feel pushed into.
Mr Sheerman
The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) put his finger on it when he talked about secrecy. There are many excellent people in this field doing a fantastic job—my mother-in-law is in a care situation—but a certain percentage of people do not know what is going on. They need to know, and it should be in the public domain.
Norman Lamb
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will find that the Care Act has a much greater focus on transparency, and it strengthens the legal obligation by providing that personal budgets must reflect the cost to the local authority of meeting the adult’s needs. That is a legal requirement in the Care Act, whereas previously it had been guidance.
Paul Burstow
I understand, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The guidance allows local authorities to consider whether to make an adjustment to a personal budget, but guidance should not give such discretion. If it is about care costs to meet eligible needs, an adjustment should be made.
Norman Lamb
I take that point. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but I am happy to ensure that the Hansard report of this debate is counted as part of the consultation exercise. The comments of all right hon. and hon. Members will be included in that report.
Although we all agree that, in an ideal world, local authorities would be able to fund a person’s chosen accommodation, that is simply not possible in every circumstance. We are in a tough financial situation, and local authorities need to take great care in how they spend their resources to ensure that they can meet the care and support needs of the whole population that they serve. There are clear rules in place on the operation of top-up fees, which we are strengthening to achieve greater clarity and force under the Care Act. It is important that everyone is aware of those rules, as my right hon. Friend said.
We are aware of concerns about top-ups, particularly the concerns raised in the research by the charity Independent Age. That is why in March 2014 the Department wrote to all local authorities in England to remind them of their responsibilities under existing regulations and guidance, let alone the rules coming in through the Care Act. We reminded them that the existing guidance is clear that a top-up fee should be sought from a local authority-supported person only where they have chosen to go into more expensive accommodations and a third party or, in limited circumstances, the person themselves, is willing and able to pay the additional cost.
The person should not be asked to pay a top-up fee where it is necessary to arrange care in a more expensive home to meet their assessed eligible needs, nor should a top-up fee be sought where accommodation is not available at the local authority’s expected rate due to a failure of commissioning. In such cases, the local authority must meet the full cost of care and should not seek to make a top-up arrangement.
Where a local authority arranges care it is responsible for the full cost of that care, including any top-up fee to the provider. That ensures that, if a top-up fee is not paid for any reason, the person can continue to receive care and support in their accommodation while a decision is made about their future care. A care home, therefore, should never ask a local authority-supported resident for a top-up fee without the involvement of the local authority, but it appears that that sometimes happens.
The local authority is responsible for the full cost of care, including the top-up, so it should not arrange more expensive care unless it is satisfied that the person paying the top-up has the resources to keep paying the fee. Local authorities should regularly review the position to ensure that a person will continue to be able to make those payments—that is another point raised by my right hon. Friend. It is in a local authority’s interest to do that, as it will be liable to pay the full costs if the person is unable to pay the top-up.
We are maintaining people’s right to choice in the accommodation where they receive care under the Care Act. As part of that we will give people more rights to top up their own fees from 2016. We would have liked to have been able do that from next year, but we need to ensure that extending the right to self top-up is sustainable and that those receiving care are not adversely affected. We are working with stakeholders to resolve those issues.
Currently, as I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, the circumstances in which people can top up their own fees are restricted. People can top up during the 12-week period only when their main or only home is disregarded, or when they have a deferred payment agreement—in effect, where they have a property to sell that can meet the cost of the top-up fee. People should be able to decide how to spend their own money, and they should be able to pay more for care if they wish. Under the Care Act we will enable people to self top-up using other assets, not just property, from April 2016 at the same time as we implement the cap on care costs that, for the first time ever, will protect people from the risk of catastrophic care costs—protection that my right hon. Friend fought for before I took over this role.
We are also strengthening the regulations and guidance on top-up fees, which will apply from April 2015. That will make the position on top-up fees even clearer and provide additional protection to cared-for people and their families. We will make further changes in April 2016 to give people greater scope to self top-up. The draft regulations and guidance currently out for consultation set out that the local authority must ensure that the person paying the top-up is willing and able to meet the cost for the likely duration of the arrangement. The local authority must also ensure that the person enters into a written agreement, thereby ensuring that all involved are fully aware of their responsibilities and any consequences should the arrangement break down. Again, my right hon. Friend referred to the written agreement in his speech. The local authority must review top-up arrangements from time to time.
Paul Burstow
“From time to time” are classic words that can be wriggled out of—they mean nothing. It is important that the guidance is clear that “from time to time” means at least annually.
Norman Lamb
I note my right hon. Friend’s point, but I will complete my comment.
The local authority must set out in writing details of how the arrangements will be reviewed, what may trigger a review and when any party can request a review. Although the regulations and guidance do not set a specific review period—my right hon. Friend’s point is now in the consultation responses, as I indicated—we expect top-up arrangements to be reviewed at the same time as the local authority reviews the financial assessment of what the person can afford to pay for their care. That normally happens at least annually, around the time when changes are made to the charging regulations.
Additionally, the local authority must make clear in writing the consequences should the top-up arrangement break down. That may result in the resident’s having to move to alternative, less expensive accommodation, where such accommodation is suitable to meet their needs. As with any change of circumstance, the local authority must undertake a new needs assessment before considering that course of action, including an assessment of health needs and having regard to the person’s well-being, which is the central principle of the Care Act. Local authorities should already be monitoring all top-up arrangements for the people they support because they are ultimately responsible for the full cost of accommodation. Local authorities should also discourage arrangements for top-up payments to be paid directly to a provider.
The new regulations and guidance under the Care Act are being consulted on at the moment, and I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to contribute to that consultation alongside their contributions today. The consultation closes on 15 August, and we will consider all the responses that we receive. We are aware that, although our approach has been welcomed as a big improvement, there is always a desire to do more. We are continuing to engage with stakeholders and will await the close of the consultation before making any decisions on further changes.
The intention of the Care Act is to enable self top-ups in other circumstances, which is entirely right, but also to ensure that top-ups are not inappropriately used and to strengthen the rules on top-ups.
Paul Burstow
In the past 12 months I have been leading work with Demos on the future of residential care, and we will publish our report in September. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues from that commission in the autumn to discuss our recommendations?
Norman Lamb
That sounds like an interesting session in principle. I would like to attend that meeting if possible, but I cannot guarantee it at the moment because of the nightmare that is my diary.
I hope my comments have been helpful. The points that have been raised today are an incredibly important part of the consultation process.
Healthier Together Programme (Greater Manchester)
(10 years, 3 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
Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)
Before the debate starts, I should say that I will allow gentlemen to remove their jackets.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Although it is the last day of term, it is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan.
I am going to be critical of the Healthier Together programme, but one facility that it does have, of which I was unaware until about half an hour ago, is the gift of prophecy. It has just put out a press release in response to what I am about to say, which is particularly clever because I have not yet fully decided what to say. Although the programme has failed in many ways, it clearly has attributes that most of us do not have.
As it stands, the Healthier Together programme is both a shambles and a charade. I shall start by talking about the shambles. So far, more than £4 million has been spent on the process leading up to the consultation. Some of that money has gone on producing 200,000 leaflets for the consultation, which started two weeks ago. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware not a single one of those leaflets is yet in a public library—there were certainly none in the library near my office in north Manchester when I checked an hour or so ago, and I cannot believe that that library has been discriminated against. That is a failing of organisation.
That is not the only such failing. The website is complex and not easy to navigate. If someone can find the consultation document, they can download it, and they will find that at the end it says, “Please fill in the questionnaire opposite”. But there is no questionnaire opposite; it is elsewhere. If someone can continue to struggle through the website they can find it, but it is not where it is supposed to be.
I am not the only person who is critical of the consultation. The University Hospital of South Manchester wrote to me to say that the proposed changes are incomprehensible and full of NHS jargon. That is an improvement on the previous document that was produced, which was totally and completely incomprehensible. The more recent document varies between NHS jargon and “Janet and John” talk, which is almost as meaningless. There are phrases in speech bubbles saying:
“Knowing the council and the NHS will work together to look after mum.”
There is no reasoning or line of thought, just nice ideas about things that we would all hope the NHS would do. The University Hospital of South Manchester also criticised the fact that the consultation meetings—the proposed engagements, some of which may have already happened—all take place during the day. That means that the vast majority of people of working age cannot attend.
It is not only me and other members of the public who are greatly concerned about the proposals; as far as I can see, there is little clinical support for them. The chief executive of Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Andrew Foster, said that there is
“a lack of widespread support for the consultation process”,
and he went on to say stronger things as well. I have been sent information from a GP survey showing that almost 50% of GPs are concerned about the process and certainly do not support it in its current form. The University Hospital of South Manchester says that the process is “flawed and misleading”, and
“not an integrated care consultation…but rather a consultation on changes to a small number of acute providers”.
Healthwatch England has been very critical of the process, because until March this year all meetings took place in secret. It has been allowed to attend meetings since March, but, as I will explain later, many decisions had already been taken by that point. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to a more worrying point: according to Healthwatch England, the Healthier Together body—the combined committee of the commissioning groups—has no power to spend until the draft Legislative Reform (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Order 2014 is passed, and that has not yet been passed by either House. I would be interested to hear whether there will be a power to spend or to go ahead with the proposals, although I would be surprised if the proposals were not challenged.
There is not only the problem that legally, perhaps, the £4 million should not have been spent; the consultation document also refers time and again to hospitals co-operating with each other. However, the competition authorities ruled that the attempt by the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospital and Poole hospital to work together was unlawful. If, after the consultation, it is decided that the proposals will go ahead—I hope that it is not—will they be lawful? Behind all that, £4 million may have been spent unlawfully, and could have been better spent on nurses, doctors and the health of people in Greater Manchester.
I turn to the charade aspect of the Healthier Together programme. It is a charade in many different ways. Who is conducting the consultation? The document contains statements from the chair of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, Lord Peter Smith, and from a number of doctors on the clinical commissioning groups, but if one looks deeper, one finds that a large multinational corporation called Mott MacDonald is involved but not declared. It has all sorts of consultancy interests in areas ranging from engineering to private and public health care. Why were we not told?
Part of the charade is that we are not told who is conducting the consultation, but the real charade is that a number of decisions have already been taken before the consultation has gone out to the public. The document itself does not show to the public the configuration of health services as they currently are in Greater Manchester; it presents a number of decisions that have already been taken without any form of consultation. I will return to that point later.
It is also unclear what the consultation is about. The University Hospital of South Manchester said that it thinks it is about the reorganisation of acute care in hospitals. I do not think that it is. It is not clear—it is muddled—but it could be about primary care, because there is talk of more GPs and more access to primary care services. There is no financial plan for that and it is not clear how it would happen, which is not a bad thing in itself, but it is mentioned in the consultation document without it being clear what anyone is expected to say about it, apart from their wanting better care for their relatives, mother, sons, daughters, wives or anyone else.
There is an absence of financial information in every part of the document, not just the primary care part. So is it about money? It is indicated and implied that there is not sufficient money. The background document makes it clear that, within two-and-a-half to three years, there will be a £1 billion, or 16%, black hole in Greater Manchester’s health budget of £6 billion. Is the consultation about that—it certainly is not clear—or is it a south Manchester thing? Is it about hospital reorganisation? If it is about hospital reorganisation, creating more specialist hospitals and downgrading some hospitals, why were we not consulted?
Fairfield hospital in Bury, Tameside hospital and North Manchester hospital have been downgraded to so-called community general hospitals, but that is not in the consultation. We are told that we are going to get almost immediate access to GPs, but there is no mention of what has been happening in the health service in Greater Manchester over the past few years. Fifty per cent. of the walk-in centres in Greater Manchester have been closed down, and they gave people immediate access to a GP. They have closed, but the Government are talking about improvements.
The Government are talking about improving care in the community, and specialist nurses would certainly help to keep people out of hospital and reduce costs in the long term, yet when I put in a freedom of information request to Tameside metropolitan borough council, half a Parkinson’s nurse was available for the whole of Tameside, which is shocking. One can go through the other specialist nursing services and find the same. Why have we not been told the proposals for those specialist nursing services, which are vital for keeping people out of A and E and out of long-term care within hospitals?
The proposals are a charade. In the original consultation, and when the Healthier Together people had a meeting with Greater Manchester MPs, we were told there was a guarantee that no hospitals or A and E departments would close. Why is that missing from the consultation document? Why is it not still a commitment? When the commitment was given, I did not believe it because I do not believe, when there is a looming financial crisis in the NHS in Greater Manchester and across the country, that any group of medics or health bureaucrats can guarantee that hospitals will stay open. A 16% gap is looming in the care and health service budget, and the gap might get bigger. That is equivalent to two or three hospitals in financial terms. We were given that guarantee yet, arrogantly, three hospitals have been downgraded without any consultation.
A similar guarantee was given when maternity provision was taken out of Hope hospital during a review five or six years ago. It was guaranteed that a midwife-led maternity service would continue in Hope hospital, but there is currently a consultation on removing that service. Those of us who have been discussing, debating and arguing with the health service for some time about the provision of services are sceptical about all guarantees.
There is also an ongoing trauma review in relation to Wythenshawe hospital, yet Wythenshawe hospital is being downgraded. It is an extraordinary decision to say, “We will have this discussion, but we have already taken some decisions. We want to know what should happen to these hospitals but, although two other major service reviews are ongoing, we will completely ignore them and not mention them at all in the consultation document.”
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) will want to mention Wythenshawe hospital, so I will not steal his speech. I am an ex-chair of Manchester airport, and downgrading Wythenshawe hospital from its grade 1 status is appalling because it has the nearest A and E unit to Manchester airport. If there was an unfortunate air crash, people would want to go to the nearest hospital. The downgrading of Wythenshawe hospital is another extraordinary decision.
We have been here before with such consultations. At the moment, the Healthier Together people are saying that there is 98% support on Twitter for the proposals. They are in a feedback loop in which they are twittering to themselves, and we know what the Prime Minister thinks two twitters make. We were in exactly that position on the congestion charge. When the people running the scheme ran opinion polls and consultations, they all showed huge support for the congestion charge—anyone who talked to anybody in Greater Manchester would have found that support unbelievable—and of course when it came to putting crosses in boxes in the referendum, 80% were against the congestion charge. That is exactly the position we are in at the moment. There is an unreality about the people who are doing this, and they are trying to fiddle things. This is a scandalous fiddle.
At the end of the debate, I do not want to be accused of pretending that there are no real problems—there are. I have mentioned the financial problems, and there are also the differences between Greater Manchester hospitals. Given the survival rates for similar operations, people are clearly better off in some hospitals at certain times of the week. People are clearly better off in other parts of the country than in some Greater Manchester hospitals. That needs to be put right, but the consultation will not do that. We need to consider why there are problems—it is not just about recruitment, although recruitment is part of the problem—and try to solve those problems, rather than wishing them away with yet another reorganisation of the health service.
I could give more examples, but time is limited. The current booking system in Greater Manchester must waste many millions of pounds a year. The NHS authorities regularly criticise patients who do not turn up for appointments, but they do not criticise themselves when they fail to organise appointments properly. From the past 12 months I can give five examples from my close family, and from my constituency casework, of where the booking system has been appalling. I know of people who have been sent to closed service centres in hospitals and people who have been told that the plaster on their arm would be examined to see whether it has set when, in fact, the plaster should have been taken off. I could go on about the booking system’s failings. Addressing those failings would save millions.
Cleanliness is not a cost issue directly, but it is a health issue, and there is a massive difference in cleanliness levels both within hospitals and between hospitals, which could be addressed. There could be improvements in other areas. There are big decisions to be made on hospital configuration, finances, how much money should be put into primary care and the structure of the health service. Those questions will not be addressed by the current process. There are genuine differences between the Labour and Conservative parties on how those issues will be resolved, and those differences will be resolved at the general election.
The process is trying to do two things. First, it is trying to usurp the political process at the general election, when those big decisions will be taken. Secondly, it is asking for a blank cheque. If the Government put out such a rubbish consultation document that people do not know whether it is about primary care, secondary care or hospital reorganisation, and if Healthier Together is already saying that it has 98% support, what do they want to do? They are asking for a blank cheque to do whatever they want, and it should not be given to them.
I will finish with another quote from University Hospital of South Manchester, which I completely agree with, although I would add other things to it:
“Wait until the trauma review is finished and do the consultation properly.”
In other words, withdraw this consultation, do it properly, wait until the review of maternity and trauma services is in, wait for the general election and then we can have a serious, proper and grown-up discussion about how we can make health services in Greater Manchester better.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for introducing it.
I am here to express the concerns of my constituents in relation to what my hon. Friend has rightly described as a consultation that people are either completely unaware of, or, if they are aware of it, unsure what they are being consulted about, what the next steps might be, where decisions will be taken and by whom. As he said, everyone understands the pressures that we face within the NHS in Greater Manchester and across the country.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I know that the consultation is about Greater Manchester, but may I just put it on the record that the impact of this consultation will go far beyond Greater Manchester? My constituency is split between relying on Stepping Hill hospital and Tameside hospital, so this consultation affects us as well. I just wanted to put that on the record, so that people are aware of it.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) is also present this afternoon. The ripple effect of the consultation, on hospitals in neighbouring areas and indeed—as I will go on to talk about—on the wider north-west and northern region of the country is quite significant in one reading of what is going on.
It is true that the pressures of rising demand on the NHS are well recognised, as are the cost constraints on social care provision. However, my constituents in Trafford were told all that three or four years ago, and we went through our change programme. We feel that we have been here before and, for us, this is groundhog day and a bit worse than that. We underwent the consultation “A New Health Deal for Trafford”, which took place in 2012 and culminated in the downgrading of Trafford general hospital. Looking at how the current consultation has been launched, I am concerned that a number of lessons that were learned from that Trafford process are being totally ignored.
I say clearly that I am not against sensible reconfiguration of acute services. I am very much in favour of concentrating expertise and specialisms in a small number of expert sites. I am entirely in favour of as much provision as possible being pushed into the community to front-line, preventive, community-based care, and of keeping people at home to receive that care for as long as possible.
However, if this is a consultation about the provision of integrated community-based care, it is not possible to go down the road of consulting about that provision and withdrawing services in acute settings before we are clear what the landscape and the reality of that community provision is. Nor is it possible to go down the route of suggesting that some acute services might be rationalised or closed when existing acute services are under so much pressure already. In particular—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) will talk about this issue too—one consequence of the downgrade of Trafford general hospital’s accident and emergency provision is that during the past nine months the waiting times and queues at Wythenshawe hospital have been significant, with little sign yet that they will be reduced.
In addition, I point out that we have some real uncertainty. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned the uncertainty that exists around trauma services, maternity services and so on, but we also have uncertainties in Trafford in relation to some of the primary provision that will be in place. We know that the NHS local team and the clinical commissioning group envisage a two-hub model of primary care and community-based care for our borough. The provision in the south is largely established, but in the north—including in my constituency, where we have some of the worst health outcomes in the borough—we are still completely unsure what sort of hub will be put in place, as the NHS local team and NHS England are quite unable to tell us what the funding for that kind of hub model will be.
I know that the Secretary of State for Health is aware of that particular situation and I am grateful to him and his office for what they are doing to try to unscramble it, but from the point of view of my constituents the idea that they will be consulted on a major reconfiguration, either of primary care or of acute services, does not inspire their confidence, because currently they simply see deficiencies in those services and particularly because they believe that their voice counts for little when it comes to the decision that will ultimately be taken.
Not only is there pressure in the system, but the NHS seems to make some really perverse decisions as it goes along, because of its rather hand-to-mouth approach to planning this kind of reconfiguration and strategic change. When the decision was taken to downgrade the A and E services at Trafford general hospital, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and the late Paul Goggins, my good friend and former colleague, managed between them to secure around £11 million of new investment in Wythenshawe hospital to provide for the extra capacity that it would need. We are now unclear, of course, about what will happen with that £11 million of investment; it would be good if the Minister could put it on the record today that it will continue. Given that the hospital cannot envisage even its short to medium-term future, that is a worrying situation.
We saw something similar in Trafford, when investment of around £300 million in the intensive care unit was pretty well written off two years later when the new health deal for Trafford was implemented and the ICU was closed down. That may have been the right decision, but it was certainly a waste of money if investment was being poured into a hospital just two or three years before the whole status of that hospital was changed.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for being late for the start of this debate, Mrs Riordan.
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the process is that it does not take into account the particular needs, circumstances and history of our individual communities? For example, in Wigan we have invested in a number of our specialist services. However, we are a big borough, we have our own particular health challenges and we have real transport issues as well, which are different from those affecting other areas of Greater Manchester. Quite simply, a centrally driven top-down process that lacks any kind of democracy whatever, as far as I can make out, is not capable of delivering the sort of services that we need in our areas.
Kate Green
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and the issue about democracy that she raises is one that we are all particularly concerned about.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I would just like to put it on record that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), who cannot be here because of a commitment, shares concerns about the process and the way in which things are moving forward, which I think he has also expressed to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). I just want to put it on the record that other Members are also expressing their concerns.
Kate Green
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East will talk particularly about the situation at Wythenshawe hospital, which is in his constituency, and our particular concern for the status of that hospital as a fixed-site specialist centre of excellence for a number of specialisms that matter not only to the population of south Manchester, or even to the population of Greater Manchester, but to the whole population of the north-west region. Some of those specialisms matter to the whole population of the north of England, and parts of Scotland too. It is deeply concerning to us that the Healthier Together consultation appears not only to be unaware of the difficulty of protecting those specialisms in the proposed process of remodelling hospital configurations, but to be completely unaware of the interdependency of specialisms and general acute and medical provision. If one element is removed from a cocktail of clinical support that is available to support high-level specialisms, those specialisms are completely undermined and eventually will probably be unable to survive.
I have a particular example of that process that I will draw to the Minister’s attention; it arises from my visit last week to Wythenshawe hospital and its highly regarded cystic fibrosis unit. The doctors and clinical staff there told me that the unit benefited from being part of a much broader, fixed-site specialist team, and indeed survived on that basis. It draws on a range of other specialisms around the hospital, including interventional radiology, transplantation, urology, nutritional support teams, gastroenterology, diabetes, endocrinology, ear, nose and throat services, obstetrics, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and so on. Picking out some specialisms and moving them cannot be done in isolation, but Healthier Together does not seem to be aware of that at all.
Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton said, there are concerns about process—about how the public are being engaged in this debate. He said that we have a consultation taking place over the summer holidays, exactly as happened with the new health deal for Trafford, although we told them not to do that again, and during the working day. I understand that few people attended the public meeting in Trafford; I am not surprised, because it was difficult to know that it was even taking place. I would not be able to tell when it happened, because I was not notified directly, let alone my constituents.
Andrew Bingham
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again; she is being generous. I tend to agree. There is a consultation meeting in the High Peak as we speak, although it is a Tuesday afternoon. I, for one, should have liked to be there. I just wonder: next week during the recess would have been a lot easier for me.
Kate Green
I agree.
Meanwhile, Healthwatch Trafford says that there is concern about whether the committee-in-common model in Manchester is sufficiently transparent, regarding its ability to engage with and represent the concerns of local people and to oversee, in the wider public interest, what is being proposed.
I am utterly unconvinced that local people are aware of or understand the steps that are being put forward now that could result in major changes to health care provision in our area.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Before my hon. Friend moves away from the consultation, does she agree that the questions asked in the consultation document are ridiculous? For example:
“Do you…disagree that children and young people should be cared for closer to home where appropriate?”
Nobody would ever disagree with such questions.
Kate Green
That is absolutely right. Again, that is exactly what we saw in the consultation on the new health deal for Trafford. We raised concerns about that at the time, but the NHS has learned nothing about how proper engagement and debate with the public can be managed and take place.
There is real concern that a lot of groundwork has gone into producing this consultation but that much of it has happened behind closed doors. If the significant changes that are being advocated, or significant changes in other forms, are needed— the document says that they are, which may well be the case—it is imperative that the public be brought on board through a process of careful, systematic, dedicated engagement. It is not good enough to land a document out there without that work being put in and without any clarity about how decision makers will be informed by the views and opinions of the public at large and of elected Members who represent them.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan.
Some may find it surprising, given our political differences, that I agree with much of what has been said by the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). Like them, I entirely accept that things cannot always remain as they always have been in our NHS. There have to be changes in any large organisation, from time to time.
Of course, I am speaking purely from the perspective of my constituents in Bury North, including the townships of Bury Ramsbottom and Tottington. They are only too aware of the repercussions of health service reorganisation, having recently lost the children’s services at Bury Fairfield hospital. Pledges were made before the last general election. The process of the “Making it Better” scheme was stopped. Local GPs had an opportunity to say, “We will keep the services”. I do not know about 98% of people on Twitter agreeing with this. I always used to say it was about 99% of people in Bury, when I asked them. I could hardly find anybody who thought it was a good idea to close maternity in Fairfield. Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the clear steer of the Secretary of State about wanting to keep those services open, local health officials, backed by local doctors—the GPs—said, “No, we’re too far down the line. We’ve got to stick with the ‘Making it Better’ scheme and with what has been agreed.” Those services at Fairfield have now been lost.
Residents in Bury could be forgiven for being somewhat sceptical about the nature of consultation. I share that. I took part in the after-the-event analysis that was done by some professional surveyors. I said to them, “Look, if you’re going to do a genuine consultation, you’ve got to be clear about what the options are. It’s got to be a genuine consultation and the public have not got to be left thinking that, actually, it is a foregone conclusion and the decisions have already been made.”
A proposal is before the people of Greater Manchester now. Out of all the hospitals in the area, only at Wigan, Bolton, South Manchester and Stockport is there some element of choice. With all the others, it is the same: it is a done deal. So I understand why many of my constituents will say, “Well, there’s not much point in us taking part in all this. Nobody listened to us last time; nobody will listen to us this time.”
Lisa Nandy
I agree with almost everything the hon. Gentleman has said. Is not the tragedy of this process that, as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, most of us could get behind some principles underlying the proposal, including greater care in the community locally when people need it, greater specialism and supporting people to get care outside hospital? There is consensus on all those things, but the way the process has been handled, as has been compellingly outlined, has left people feeling that there is simply no point getting involved.
Mr Nuttall
The hon. Lady makes a good point. The vast majority of the public would, in an ideal world, like every service to be provided at their local hospital, so that they could have everything just by travelling a couple of miles. In a perfect world, they would have every conceivable treatment available at their nearest hospital. However, they have long since accepted, and we all know, that that is not possible. The clearest example of that in Manchester is, of course, cancer care and Christie’s. People accept that if, sadly, they are diagnosed with cancer, they will have to travel to a specialist cancer care hospital, where they will get better treatment.
It gets a bit more difficult when moving further down the specialism chain. Certainly, we were at the front line in that regard, as were Rochdale and other areas in Greater Manchester, when maternity services were being considered, because people felt that such services ought to be available everywhere. Of course, there are drivers behind this, if truth be known—if truth could be expounded by the health chiefs—in that, whether we like it or not, it comes back to the working time directive, for example, which has had an effect on the configuration of doctors’ working hours.
Medical negligence claims against the health service have also had an impact in this regard. I can understand that, coming from a legal background. People are better protected if they are in an environment where greater numbers of people are working together to watch each other’s backs. That is another driver of these reconfigurations, as some people like to call them.
To get back to the points I was making before that intervention, one of the problems with this consultation, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned, is that the website and the documents are littered with unintelligible gobbledegook half the time. I am not being patronising, because I do not understand half of it myself, to be perfectly honest. Most people will look at that website and think, “Frankly, it goes over my head.” That will be their general view. I accept that the website and the documents sway wildly the other way as well and have apple pie and motherhood statements that absolutely everyone will agree with, such as “Do I want mum to get that good treatment if she goes into hospital?” No one will say no to that, will they? It is a complete waste of time and effort, and I cannot believe that highly qualified individuals have put together this mishmash of a website and consultation. It is not clearly thought through.
I have no idea of where this will end in terms of the hospitals where there is an option, but I know that my constituents in Bury want access to an accident and emergency department at their local hospital. Going back to what I said about the specialism ladder, by definition, one expects things such as accident and emergency to be available at the nearest general hospital. That is what my constituents will be looking for. If these services are salami-sliced away from Bury, my constituents will be concerned that they will be left with a hospital in name only—one that does not provide them with the services that they have come to expect.
I echo what has been said about Healthwatch England. Bury Healthwatch has e-mailed me and wants me to put on record its concerns about its involvement in this process. I appreciate that it is a new body, but clearly there are problems with the introduction of the legislative order for clinical commissioning groups, the Legislative Reform (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Order 2014. Healthwatch England has written to the Secretary of State about that. I understand that the order will come into force on 1 October. I can only assume that, to meet that deadline, those problems will be dealt with in our September sitting.
To be perfectly honest, demand for health care services will always outstrip supply, under any Government. It does not matter whether it is a Labour Government or a Conservative Government; people’s desire to be healthy and their need to feel that they and their loved ones are receiving the best possible treatment will always result in demand being greater than the ability of the public purse to meet that demand. That is of course largely driven by the fact that so many people think that our NHS is free. Of course it is not free. We all know that it is not free.
In the current year, the NHS is spending something like £119 billion. It is a huge consumer of public funds, and rightly so. It is right that the Government have protected the health care budget. Notwithstanding that, there are pressures, because the population is getting older and new treatments are being discovered and becoming available all the time. I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record my constituents’ concerns, and I am conscious of the fact that others want to put similar concerns on the record.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Riordan. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who speaks with passion about his constituents, and the authoritative contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), whom I congratulate on securing a timely debate.
We have world-class health services in Greater Manchester. My constituency is home to University Hospital of South Manchester, which delivers services amounting to £450 million, employs 6,500 people and has 530 volunteers, who give up their free time to help patients and visitors. The hospital has several fields of specialist expertise, including cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery, heart and lung transplantation, respiratory conditions, burns and plastics, cancer and breast care services. Indeed, the trust is home to Europe’s first purpose-built breast cancer prevention centre, which I visited just a few weeks ago to see the unveiling of the new plaque dedicated to my predecessor, Paul Goggins, who worked so hard for the services at Wythenshawe. The hospital not only serves the people of south Manchester, but helps patients from across the north-west and beyond.
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman speaks with passion and great knowledge about his local hospital. I was fortunate enough to be able to witness how good the services are at Wythenshawe, because I was whisked away when I spent a day with the North West ambulance service. I went in to see heart surgery taking place there, and it is first class. We must recognise that the care pathways that link Wythenshawe—or Stepping Hill, for that matter—to outlying hospitals outside the Greater Manchester area, such as Macclesfield, are vital. Does he agree with my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) that it is critical that the ripple-out effects of the consultation are taken into account?
Mike Kane
I cannot agree more. Wythenshawe hospital lies at the south of the conurbation and at the south of the area of the Healthier Together consultation. Being at the south of the conurbation and south of the River Mersey, it has traditionally looked to provide services to people in Cheshire as a whole, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
David Rutley
I am sorry to take the hon. Gentleman’s time again, but I thank him for giving way. It is odd that there are at least two options—options 4.1 and 4.2—where there would be no hospital in the south, with neither Wythenshawe nor Stepping Hill. Does he agree that that would be a strange outcome that could endanger patient health?
Mike Kane
I agree. It would be odd not only for my constituency, but for constituencies to the south in the Cheshire belt and the Cheshire plain that those hospitals serve.
Wythenshawe hospital is very much looking to the future and its long-term sustainability. It is developing the Manchester MediPark in partnership with Manchester city council and private sector developers. MediPark will exploit the huge strengths of Greater Manchester and the north-west in health and life science services. Research and development forms a key part of the new Manchester airport city enterprise zone, which I had the opportunity of updating Members on only last week during my Adjournment debate on regional airports.
UHSM is recognised as a centre of excellence for research and development, and is a founding member of Manchester Academic Health Science Centre. The partners of the science centre share the common goal of providing patients and clinicians with rapid access to the latest discoveries and improving the quality and effectiveness of patient care. It is clear that the hospital is going from strength to strength, but I fear that the planned Greater Manchester Healthier Together proposals, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton referred, could fundamentally destabilise the trust and lead to a loss of its major emergency service, many of its specialised services, its trauma service and even its teaching status.
The additional reorganisation is set against the backdrop of the Government’s £3 billion reorganisation of the NHS, which has siphoned off money from the front line to pay for back-office restructuring. In the first three years of this Government, attendances at A and E have increased by 633,000, yet Trafford general, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston referred and which serves many of my constituents, has seen a downgrading of its A and E department. It has got harder to get a GP appointment since the Government scrapped the previous Government’s guarantee of an appointment within 48 hours, and cut funding for extended opening hours. That is a key cause of Wythenshawe’s A and E problems.
Julie Hilling
Does my hon. Friend agree that the major vision that seems to be emerging is simply one of pitching hospital against hospital—fighting about whether to have a hospital in Wigan or Bolton, or four or five specialist hospitals, when, as has been said, we all want a good local service? Should not the concentration be first and foremost on getting primary care services correctly in place? That should be sorted out, and afterwards we can look at what hospital care we need.
Mike Kane
I agree; the most important thing is to get primary care in place first. Starting a consultation nine months from a general election that will pit MP against MP is not a good idea.
A quarter of walk-in centres, including Wythenshawe, have closed, and NHS Direct has been dismantled. On top of all that, the new Healthier Together proposals mean there is potential for a downgrade at Wythenshawe hospital. That would, as has been pointed out, be a broken promise for people in Wythenshawe and south-west Manchester, who following the downgrading of the A and E at Trafford general were assured that University Hospital of South Manchester would not be affected.
The aim of Healthier Together, to give patients across the region the same excellent standard of service wherever they live, is the right one. The challenge is huge. Manchester has the highest premature death rate of any local authority in the country. There can be no doubt that health care services in Greater Manchester need to change. Almost £2 billion has been taken out of the budget for adult social care. We need to do things differently to meet the challenges of the time and better integrating local authority services with the NHS will be a key part of that change. However, the current process is flawed and is moving too fast. The proposals fail to recognise that Wythenshawe is already a major specialist site that provides many vital services to the people of Greater Manchester.
The public are not being provided with enough detail to enable them fully to understand the implications of the proposed changes. The consultation meetings have been criticised—as they have today—for being jargon-ridden and held at inaccessible times. No financial models have been provided in the information for the public and UHSM believes that the current proposals could destabilise the finances of the trust.
Wythenshawe is a level 1 major trauma centre, and is currently the only site capable of developing a single level 1 trauma site for adults for the whole of Greater Manchester. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton pointed out, it covers Manchester airport, and if an accident were to happen such a nearby centre would be vital. The current proposals could leave the southern sector of Greater Manchester and north Cheshire with no specialist major emergency hospital. The proposal does not reflect the view of providers and local commissioners in the southern sector that Wythenshawe should remain and be developed further as the sole specialist site in the southern sector.
The failure of the proposals to acknowledge Wythenshawe as one of the fixed sites threatens the future clinical, operational and financial sustainability of the trust. For changes at such a level to have the desired impact on services across Greater Manchester, all the partners must be firmly on board. I urge Healthier Together to look again and ensure that the baby is not being thrown out with the bath water, because of a rushed consultation and flawed proposals.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for securing the debate. It is particularly useful that we can express our views before the summer recess. I do not want to speak for too long. I will echo my colleagues’ sentiments about the quality of the consultation process, but I want to give a view from the eastern part of the conurbation, Tameside, and make a couple of additional observations.
A lot is going on with the NHS and health care in Greater Manchester at the moment, so the timing is not very conducive to running such a consultation. The changes to Trafford A and E have already been mentioned. Passenger transport has been privatised from the NHS ambulance service to Arriva. Most of the walk-in centres that I am aware of have gone. I do not know about the situation in other constituencies, but in mine GP access is a huge issue—people regularly wait a fortnight for access to a GP in Stalybridge. Of course, in Tameside there are particular challenges because of the Keogh review in Tameside hospital. All the Tameside MPs warmly welcome that. It has been a positive process enabling a light to be shone on many of the things that we have been discussing for several years. However, when all the factors I have mentioned are added together, it is a difficult time to carry out a consultation on any part of the NHS and particularly on hospitals, because the public are most sensitive about them in many ways.
I understand the need for specialisation. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). Even if we had substantially greater resources, it would be difficult to recruit the people we would need to meet the standards now required for hospitals in the conurbation. With the financial modelling that has been done in Tameside, we are perhaps a little more advanced in our forward projection work than some other boroughs, and I think that we are in a perfect storm. We have had to spend a lot of money at the hospital to try to meet the higher standards that people should expect by correcting some of the processes that the Keogh review highlighted as wrong. On top of that, the council was always one of the leanest in the country, let alone in Greater Manchester, so it suffered the worst from the severe reductions made by the coalition in northern local authorities. Our clinical commissioning group is in a relatively good position, but clearly it is not to anyone’s benefit simply to use that financial picture to prop up other parts of the system that are not working so well.
History will be hard on the coalition for prioritising such a big ideological reorganisation at a time when the figures show that the situation I have described is the challenge that incoming Health Ministers should have concentrated on. The promise that no A and E departments in our hospitals will close is welcome news, but I wonder whether the scale of the rhetoric around Healthier Together justifies or validates that promise. Either we shall not produce the results that have been promised, or that promise on the long-term future of hospitals and A and Es may not be honoured in the way we expect.
Graham Stringer
My hon. Friend is right to say that that commitment was given when we met the Healthier Together people and in some background documents. Does he agree that it is worrying that it is not in the consultation document, whatever credibility we give to the commitment itself?
Jonathan Reynolds
I do agree. That is a matter of extreme concern to me. My understanding is that we have been given a cast-iron pledge that there will be no hospital or A and E closures as part of Healthier Together. The problem with all hospital reconfigurations anywhere—it happened with the maternity services consultation—is that they always appear to people to be about cuts. It is hard to get across the argument that they are about improving services. There is some mixed messaging about the primary outcome of such a process.
My principal problem with specialisation is the one that arises with specialisation in any field. Greater Manchester’s geography makes it hard to get from one borough to another. Public transport and the railway system are not configured to operate in that way. I should love the opposite to be true—if we had the resources and local autonomy to make public transport work differently. That will come one day, I think, but it is not true at the minute. I did not by any measure expect to become an MP in the 2010 general election, and my daughter was booked in to be born at St. Mary’s, because I worked in the centre of the city and it was easier to have appointments there than to get back to Tameside for them. Frankly, we were concerned about the possibility of labour starting in Tameside at the wrong time, because of the journey to get to St Mary’s and what that might mean. I think that that would be the same for many people, whatever the health issue: the journey is not easy in a car, but by public transport it is almost untenable. That would be people’s primary concern when they thought about the outcome of such a consultation
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, because I do not think that the Healthier Together team has given it enough thought. My constituency has not only chronic transport problems, including traffic and the fact that some areas of the borough are densely populated and quite far from the existing hospital, but also large, tightly knit families who often do not have a huge number of resources. When a loved one is suddenly taken ill, the whole family wants to visit, which is particularly problematic and something that the team has not thought about. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is absolutely true. If someone lives near the station in Stockport, it is sometimes quicker to get to London than to another part of Greater Manchester.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) was here, because something that is forgotten across the conurbation is that the health economy and structures are not coterminous with the political structures of Greater Manchester. Glossop is part of Tameside’s health economy and getting from Glossop to Ashton-under-Lyne is not an easy journey, but trying to get to a different part of Greater Manchester in an ambulance or with a need to access a particular service would be extremely worrying.
Julie Hilling
It must be recognised that people living within Greater Manchester will also travel to hospitals outside. Some of my constituents might travel to Chorley for treatment, for example, because it is much closer than Bolton or Wigan. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no wall around Greater Manchester in terms of people travelling in or out.
Jonathan Reynolds
That is absolutely true and has been mentioned by several colleagues today. My specific point about Glossop is that it shares an NHS trust hospital and clinical commissioning group with Tameside and that must be considered in a manner that people do not fully appreciate at the moment.
Looking at the financial picture for the NHS in Tameside and Glossop, we see many challenges to meet in future. I cannot see the utility in a big hospital reorganisation such as this unless there is much wider reform of out-of-hospital care, because we will still face the problem of too many medically healthy people being in hospital because they have nowhere else to go. Such reform would require much stronger integration of social services, public health, the CCG and the hospital, but the Government’s entire direction of travel is towards a more fractured and competitive system. I understand the motivation, but I cannot see how it tallies with something such as the Healthier Together programme.
The Minister has several points to address in his speech, but I hope that he can respond to that one in particular, because I am unsure about why we are going through this process if it will not deliver the improvements in health care that should be the ultimate goal of any kind of reorganisation.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to conduct a debate under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate hon. Members on both sides of the House on the spirit with which they have conducted themselves today and on their genuinely well informed and impassioned contributions. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing the debate.
Members of all parties will appreciate the concerns expressed in the House over many months on behalf of communities that are worried about changes to their local NHS services. Consultations and how they are conducted are vital to ensuring that people have the necessary information to participate effectively in the consultation process, but that does not always happen. The Healthier Together review of health and care services across Greater Manchester is intended to deliver improvements to primary and community-based care to reduce the need for people to go into hospital, and that principle has received broad endorsement from colleagues today. The intentions of the review for primary care are admirable, including that by
“the end of 2015, everyone living in Greater Manchester who needs medical help, will have same-day access to primary care services…seven days a week; by the end of 2015, people with long-term…conditions…will be cared for in the community…supported by a care plan which they own; community-based care will focus on joining up care with social care and hospitals, including sharing electronic records which residents will also have access to; and by the end of 2016, residents will be able to see how well GP practices perform against local and national measurements.”
The plan also aims to improve joined-up care and hospital care. Although the aims are good, it is essential that the review also provides reassurance and clarity. From what I have heard today, it is clear that that is missing by some measure and has not been achieved—at least not yet.
As is too often the case, the review started with what services will be taken away from hospitals. Instead, it should have begun with what services people will in future be able to receive in their own homes or in a local community setting. Rather than identify the services that will be taken from the general hospital and put into a specialist hospital, the review should have identified the services that will be repatriated from the specialist hospital to the general hospital.
We all recognise that how and where services are delivered does need to change, but it is a quid pro quo process and the specialist hospitals also need to put some services back into a general hospital setting. When the proposals from a review appear to be a power grab by the big players in the local health economy, it is no wonder that people fear for the future of their services. If services are taken away, “How viable will we be?” becomes a worrying question. We need specialist hospitals, as shown by the case of Fabrice Muamba, who was taken not to the nearest hospital but to the specialist hospital that would save his life, but we also need general hospitals serving their local communities.
The Healthier Together review has the chance to shape services across Greater Manchester, moving out into the home and community setting, at the same time as securing the future for the general hospital. However, several colleagues have raised genuine concerns about the process. If a review of health services is to command support and achieve success, it must be open and transparent and provide all the necessary information to the public. Members have expressed grave doubts about whether that truly is the case with the Healthier Together review. The future viability of all hospitals needs to be secured, the continuation of A and E services has to be ensured and the issue of travel times across a conurbation such as Greater Manchester has to be taken into account in precise detail.
Although the aims and objectives of the Healthier Together review are commendable and, if introduced properly, would deliver improved health and care services across Greater Manchester, as we have heard in detail today, many worries have not been addressed and significant concerns remain. It is now for the Healthier Together review team to provide the answers and reassurance that are needed for the review to be successful. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing the debate. The opportunity to debate important issues at the start of a process is welcome. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and the hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and the shadow Minister—[Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) for ensuring that I also thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for her important interventions.
The impression that I got from all hon. Members is that there is a recognition that things need to change and of the importance of developing an integrated system of out-of-hospital support and strong primary care. Some hon. Members also recognised the importance of specialisms in specific cases, but concerns centred on the nature of the consultation. The shadow Minister was extremely fair in describing the process’s objective as a good one and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said that the aim is right, so there is something of real value to achieve here if it is possible. I completely understand, however, why hon. Members feel the need to speak up for and express concerns on behalf of their communities.
Norman Lamb
I will give way in a moment, but I was about to comment on the intervention of the hon. Lady, whom I rudely left out of my list earlier, in which she mentioned the lack of democratic legitimacy. The reforms have strengthened legitimacy. Until the reforms, there was no local democratic accountability for the NHS, but every area now has a health and wellbeing board. Interestingly, Lord Peter Smith, who I think is from the hon. Lady’s own community, said:
“We accept the case for change made in this consultation document…Remember it is not buildings that deliver good health care, it is the dedicated NHS staff who make it possible.”
To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, Lord Smith, a local Labour leader, also talked about the move being towards greater integration:
“We are clear that this improvement in integration and in GP services needs to be up and running before the changes to the hospital services are introduced”—
clear support there for the objective.
Lisa Nandy
The Minister is right. Like the leader of my council, I accept the case for greater integration. I wanted to make one point, because the Minister seems to be suggesting that the concerns centre only on the consultation. I have a real concern, which I am not sure has been expressed clearly so far, about how the consultation sets up hospitals as either specialist or local.
My hospital specialises already, and it is rightly fighting to retain that because good outcomes are delivered. That does not mean that my hospital can, or should, do everything. Indeed, many of my constituents travel, for example, to the Christie for cancer care, as the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said. There is, however, a real issue about some hospitals being specialist and some being local, but with nothing in between.
Norman Lamb
I take that concern on board, and the hon. Lady should respond to the consultation. It is really important for hon. Members to do that.
Incidentally, I should say something on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), because he is a Whip and so is unable to speak in the debate, although he has attended it all. He has expressed particular concerns about the potential implications for the University Hospital of South Manchester and Stepping Hill, and about options 4.1 and 4.2. It is important that I place that on the record.
Norman Lamb
Will the hon. Lady let me make another point that is on the tip of my tongue? I will then be happy to give way.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde expressed the concern that, in his assertion, we are moving away from integrated care. Precisely the opposite is the case. Indeed, the hon. Member for Copeland (Jonathan Reynolds), the shadow Minister, expressed clearly some of the fantastic potential gains that could be achieved in the Greater Manchester area if the objectives were achieved. When I announced the pioneer programme to demonstrate the exemplars of integrated care, Greater Manchester was one of the applicants to get on to the shortlist and was close to securing pioneer status, so my every impression is that exciting work is going on in Manchester to change local health and care services in a way that all of us could probably sign up to.
Julie Hilling
I thank the Minister for giving way. The bit that I do not understand is that local authorities, leaders such as Lord Smith and others, have been saying, “Yes, we need to sort out the integrated care”, but the consultation has been putting front and centre the need to change the status of hospitals. What everyone in the conurbation is saying is, “Let’s look at the integrated care and then see what comes out of that”, rather than putting changing hospitals up front, which is what exercises the whole community.
Norman Lamb
I note the hon. Lady’s point, but I come back to Lord Smith’s statement:
“We accept the case for change made in this consultation document”.
It cannot be clearer than that.
Norman Lamb
Let me finish the point. I am acutely aware that it is critical to develop those out-of-hospital services to which the hon. Member for Wigan referred. That is the whole essence of integrated care, of which Manchester is seeking to be an exemplar. I applaud Manchester for doing that, because that is a big shift towards the greater focus on preventing ill health, rather than on repairing the damage once it is done.
Norman Lamb
I am conscious that I need to make progress in my response to the debate, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for addressing my point directly. It is pleasing to see that he is well briefed. He is right about some of the exciting conversations about integration going on in Greater Manchester. I anticipate that he knows something about the proposals. If they develop into specific plans, is it his desire and belief that the Government would not seek to apply the competition law to which the NHS is now subject and allow them to proceed?
Norman Lamb
I have made the case very clearly that the whole purpose of the pioneer programme is to use the pioneers—although we are not simply focused on them—to identify the barriers to integration and to remove them. That is the whole point. There are concerns about all sorts of things that could block integrated care, such as information sharing across different providers and competition.
I should stress, incidentally, that in the section 75 regulations is a specific recognition that integrated care is an ambition that should be achieved, so commissioning can be for the whole integrated care pathway. There should be no problem in securing our ambition. Where barriers are found, they need to be addressed and removed.
I am conscious that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked to intervene—
Norman Lamb
The hon. Lady has moved on, so let me make some progress.
It is important to recognise that we are discussing proposals that originated with local clinicians. Dr Chris Brookes, who is not a politician or a bureaucrat, who too often get condemned, but an accident and emergency consultant and a medical director of Healthier Together, says—
Norman Lamb
May I make this point? I am sure that the hon. Lady will be interested to hear it. Dr Brookes said:
“Currently, there are too many variations in the quality of treatment, whether its emergency surgery or getting to see a GP when you need to. Not one of our hospitals in Greater Manchester meet all the national quality and safety standards.”
I am sure that all hon. Members present are concerned about that. He goes on to say something which, if we think about it, is shocking:
“At present your chance of being operated on by a consultant surgeon in an emergency at the weekend is much less than midweek. Your chance of recovering well from surgery carried out by a consultant is greatly improved.
But it’s not just about hospitals. It’s about access to a GP, and better community-based services—more services provided locally or at home and joining up the care provided by local authorities.”
That is a clinician making the case for integration.
Before I turn to the Healthier Together changes, it is probably best to make a few points about service changes in the NHS generally and Government policy towards them. The Government are clear that the design of health services, including front-line services and A and E, is a matter for the local NHS and, critically, the health and wellbeing boards, which have democratic accountability. Our reforms put doctors in charge of the care that people receive and how it is delivered to best serve their populations.
The NHS has a responsibility to ensure that people have access to the best and safest health care possible, which means that it must plan ahead and look at how best to secure safe and sustainable NHS health care provision—not only to meet today’s needs, but to plan ahead for next 10 or 20 years.
Kate Green
In Trafford, my understanding is that neither the local authority nor the CCG supports the proposals before us. Will the Minister explain the role of the health and wellbeing boards in the final decision on the plans?
Norman Lamb
I understand that the health and wellbeing boards are keeping a watching brief throughout. They will have a decisive voice at the end of the consultation process in declaring whether they support the outcome. They bring together the local authority and the NHS, so they are pretty central to the whole process—and rightly so. The local NHS is constantly seeking to modernise delivery of care and facilities to improve patient outcomes, to develop services closer to home and, most importantly, to save lives.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde focused on specialisation, and expressed scepticism about the case for it. Let me give him a case. It is from during the Labour Government and should be applauded—the lessons from it should be learned here. Stroke care in London, centralised into eight hyper-acute stroke units, now provides 24/7 acute stroke care to patients, regardless of where they live across the city.
Transport links are not that great across much of London—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to Members from London complaining about transport links. Stroke mortality is now 20% lower in London than in the rest of the UK and survivors with lower levels of long-term disability are experiencing better quality of life. Hundreds of lives have been saved as a result of the specialisation undertaken predominantly under the previous Government.
Jonathan Reynolds
I was very fair in my speech and said that I absolutely accept the case for specialisation. I actually made the most positive case of any made by an Opposition Member today as to why that might be important for my borough, so the Minister has perhaps misunderstood that. But I have to say that comparing the transport situation in Greater London with that of Greater Manchester or any other northern city will, I am afraid, have our constituents in uproar: it is simply not the same picture by any means.
Norman Lamb
I acknowledge that, just as in London, there are real bottlenecks in Manchester. I have a son who was at university in Manchester—and found it to be a very fine city—so I understand the transport challenges there completely. The point remains that specialisations can save lives. We all have to recognise that.
All service changes should be led by clinicians and be based on a clear, robust clinical case for change that delivers better outcomes for patients.
Norman Lamb
I really cannot. I have been pretty generous in giving way many times, so I will make a bit more progress.
It is therefore for NHS commissioners and providers to work together with local authorities, patients and the public in bringing forward proposals that will improve the quality and sustainability of local health care services. Government policy has been to emphasise local autonomy and flexibility in how NHS organisations plan and deliver service changes, subject to meeting legal requirements, staying within the spirit of Department of Health guidance and ensuring schemes can demonstrate robust evidence against four tests. Those are that there is support from GP commissioners; there is a focus on improving patient outcomes; that schemes consider patient choice; and that they are based on sound clinical evidence.
I recognise that change is often difficult to achieve because the consequences of not getting it right could be so profound—hon. Members have been absolutely right to raise their concerns. It is therefore right that the NHS does not rush into change without fully understanding all the potential consequences, sometimes including unintended consequences. Change can be difficult to explain to patients who have had quite reasonable anxieties exacerbated by speculation—in many cases, in the media—about whether this or that service might close. Services are sometimes described as closing when in fact they are simply being provided in a neighbouring facility or changing for the better in response to advances in treatment.
For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) referred to the possibility of hospitals closing, but I am not aware of any proposal to close hospitals. When we communicate to patients and the public, it is important that we are clear on what this issue is and is not about, so as not to raise anxieties. From my perspective, we have to be careful to avoid ramping up anxieties inappropriately by playing on fears. We see that too often; unfortunately, it stifles genuine debate and discussion about what health services will need to change in order to do better in future. But I applaud all hon. Members for speaking in this debate very reasonably and about legitimate concerns.
The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has agreed that the NHS needs to have the freedom to change the way services are provided. He said:
“If local hospitals are to grow into integrated providers of whole-person care, then it will make sense to continue to separate general care from specialist care”—
the point made by the hon. Member for Wigan a moment ago—
“and continue to centralise the latter. So hospitals will need to change and we shouldn’t fear that.”
Perhaps the hon. Lady will take the point better from her party’s health spokesperson than from a Minister, but the right hon. Member for Leigh was making the case for the specialisation of services.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the Minister for being so generous in giving way. He seems to be setting up straw men that he then batters down. As far as I can work out, there is no disagreement from me or any Member on either the Government or Opposition Benches about the need for specialisation, integrated health care and locally delivered services. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a process that lacks democracy, that has been top down and centrally driven and that the public have lost confidence in.
Norman Lamb
To be fair, when I indicated earlier that the issue is about process, the hon. Lady came back at me—as is her right—to say that it is not just about process but about the model of separating specialisms from general hospitals. I therefore quoted what the shadow Secretary of State for Health had said in that regard.
I turn to the specific case raised by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton in this debate. Healthier Together was launched by the NHS in Manchester in February 2012 and is part of the Greater Manchester programme for health and social care reform, which seeks to improve outcomes for all Greater Manchester residents. The scheme is substantial, involving 12 CCGs and 12 hospital sites across Greater Manchester. As the consultation sets out, the case for change aims to improve access to integrated care and primary care, community-based care and in-hospital care services, including urgent and emergency care, acute medicine, general surgery and children’s and women’s services.
The House should appreciate that although those are the services being looked at, there are interdependencies with the core in-hospital services, including anaesthetics, critical care, neonatal services and clinical support such as diagnostic services. Changes in one area might have consequential effects elsewhere, as hon. Members have pointed out, and those effects have to be fully understood.
I should also repeat that the proposed changes are not a top-down restructuring. They are led by local clinicians who know the needs of their patients better than anyone. They believe that the clinical case for change—
Norman Lamb
I am conscious that I have only three minutes left. I have tried to be generous.
Local clinicians estimate that across Greater Manchester around 1,500 lives could be saved over five years as a result of implementing the proposed changes; that is not my assessment, but that of local clinicians. That would be an impressive improvement in health care, touching and affecting the lives of thousands of ordinary people—not only the individuals concerned, but their families and friends. It is because of the area’s current performance: if all trusts in Greater Manchester achieved the lowest mortality rates in the country, the CCGs believe that the number of deaths in Manchester could reduce by some 300 per year, equating to saving 1,500 lives over five years. That is an objective that we should all sign up to.
I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is not an unrealistic aim for hospitals in Greater Manchester to want to be the very best in the country. I am also sure all hon. Members want the very best for their constituents. Greater Manchester has some of the best hospitals in the country. However, not all patients experience the best care all of the time. In particular, the consultation sets out evidence that suggests that for the sickest patients who need emergency general surgery, the risk of dying at some Greater Manchester hospitals might be twice that at the best hospitals. That is simply not acceptable.
There is a shortage of the most experienced doctors in services such as A and E and general surgery, leaving some hospitals without enough staff. Only a third of Greater Manchester hospitals can ensure a consultant surgeon operates on the sickest patients every time; similarly, only a third can ensure a consultant is present in A and E 16 hours a day, seven days a week.
Healthier Together aims to ensure that all patients receive reliable and effective care every time. The programme is endorsed by the independent National Clinical Advisory Team, which offered strong support for the programme’s ambition, vision and scope, as well as its impressive public and clinician engagement. The NCAT felt that the programme’s approach was an exemplar of how the NHS should try to improve safety, value and sustainability.
I have not had time to say everything that I wanted to. I am conscious that hon. Members raised specific issues that I should respond to and am happy to write to all Members who have taken part in the debate. I hope my remarks have been of some help.
SMEs (Local Authority Procurement)
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
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour, Mrs Riordan, to speak in this debate. I welcome the Minister to his new role in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and I hope that he will be able to give me some positive responses on small and medium-sized enterprises as a result of this debate.
I was prompted to apply for this debate because of a recent meeting I had with the Federation of Small Businesses in my constituency, at which we discussed late payments as one of the most serious issues facing its members. I was shocked to hear some of the facts and figures associated with the problem.
Late payment volumes have risen from £18 billion in 2008 to £46.1 billion in 2014, and although that is partly due to the economic climate, it is also because of a wider cultural trend in large companies’ approach to their cash flow. The Federation of Small Businesses found that 60% of SMEs are now experiencing late payments, with the average SME waiting for more than £38,000 in overdue payments. Worryingly, one in four SMEs have said that if the amount they are owed reached £50,000 it would be enough to make them bankrupt.
A poll conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses in November last year found that larger businesses are the worst performers when it comes to paying on time and have the worst late payment record, with small businesses reporting that 51% of invoices to those firms are paid late. For small businesses that means reduced profitability with a knock-on effect of those businesses paying their suppliers late and ultimately restricting business growth.
I want to focus on the subject of this debate—late payment to small and medium-sized enterprises under local government procurement—and refer to the sixth report of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, of which I am a member. It noted that most councils have policies to ensure that their suppliers are paid promptly, but there is a problem with the terms being passed down to subcontractors. The report showed that 95% of councils had specific prompt payment policies, but that just over one third expected their contractors to apply the same standard.
The recommendation in the report was that councils should, as a matter of course, pay contractors promptly and include a requirement in their contracts to require main contractors to ensure that their subcontractors are paid promptly right down the supply chain. That policy should be monitored, and failure to comply with the conditions should be reported. Furthermore, local authorities should take into account any failure of contractors to comply with the conditions when assessing tenders for future work. I hope that the Minister, in his new role, will comment on that important recommendation in his response.
The Government’s prompt payment code had been recognised across the political spectrum as a move in the right direction, but it must be strengthened if it is to achieve its goal. Since the code was introduced last year, it seems that some large companies, to avoid being named and shamed, have extended their payment terms from 30 days to 60 days or even 90 days, which has caused more harm than good to many small and medium-sized businesses. For many smaller enterprises, 60 or 90 days is anything but prompt.
Does the Minister agree with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), who said at the Local Government Association conference that early rather than prompt payment is what matters? There are schemes to incentivise early payments, and some councils have adopted a scheme run by Oxygen Finance Ltd, which allows councils to pay suppliers immediately in exchange for a cash return or a rebate. Oldham borough council was the first to adopt the scheme, and it is being operated across 20 local authorities. It seems to be a success for councils and is a lifeline for small businesses in the supply chain. With the call to Government from businesses and politicians to strengthen the prompt payment code, such a system could be one answer.
We all recognise that small and medium–sized enterprises are an important part of our economy locally and nationally. The Government must listen to their concerns about late payments and about strengthening the prompt payment code. The Federation of Small Businesses wants more thorough reporting and a more transparent framework whereby all signatories clearly state what their maximum and average payment terms are, with a named contact for small businesses that face difficulties. The federation believes that prompt payment for small businesses must be within 60 days and no more. Will the Minister clarify whether the time limit for payment starts from the date when an invoice is received or when it is authorised? The Communities and Local Government Committee’s report says that the FSB believes that there should be a single contract term that applies to all in the supply chain. I hope that the Minister will comment on all those points in his response.
Councils should be commended for doing all they can to support businesses in their local communities. SMEs play a vital role in all our communities, and if they are to prosper, create jobs and help to build our economy they must be confident of their own financial security. Finding the most positive way to end the problem of late payment is one way in which the Government and local government can help. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
It is a pleasure, Mrs Riordan, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) on securing this important debate. I say that not just as a Minister, but as a Member of Parliament and a former council leader. I know how important the issue is for small businesses in my constituency, and I hope to answer all the questions that have been asked.
Prompt payment is important to all businesses and is often critical to the survival of small businesses and voluntary organisations. Suppliers must be confident that they will be paid on time. Many small businesses now cite late payment as more of a problem than access to external finance. As the hon. Lady said, 60% of small businesses suffer from late payment. Small businesses cannot afford to be kept waiting for payment and to have to spend time and resources on chasing late payments.
Councils have an important role, because they are substantial buyers of goods and services. Last year, local government spent £57 billion on procuring goods and services from a wide range of businesses and voluntary organisations, both large and small. Prompt payment is critical to the cash flow of many suppliers and failure to pay on time can lead to serious problems, especially for small businesses, ultimately putting at stake their ability to continue trading.
The problem of prompt payment is about not just how quickly a council pays a supplier but, as the Communities and Local Government Committee identified in its report on local government procurement, how quickly payments are made down the supply chain. That view is supported by a Federation of Small Businesses survey, which found, as the hon. Lady has pointed out, that although 95% of the responding authorities had policies in place for payment of suppliers, only 39% were identified as passing their payment terms on to their main contractors and therefore down the supply chain.
Central Government has an important role in ensuring that suppliers are paid on time and we are leading by example, seeking to pay 80% of central Government invoices within five working days and making other reforms to increase prompt payment further down the Government supply chain.
Significant legislation is in place already. The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 has been amended twice, most recently in March 2013, when the Government transposed the updated EU directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions into UK law. That late payment legislation allows companies to charge interest on late payments at 8% above base rate; to apply charges to cover administrative costs; to assume a 30-day term for the purpose of calculating late payment charges if a contract term is not explicitly agreed; to be subject to mandatory 30-day payment terms, maximum, for transactions with public authorities, which reflect the current policy in the UK; and to be subject to maximum 60-day payment terms between businesses, unless they expressly agree otherwise and it is not grossly unfair.
In addition, the Government will be introducing a number of other key reforms later this year as part of the transposition of the EU directive on public sector procurement into UK law. Those reforms will include—I think they will reflect some of the hon. Lady’s concerns—a legal requirement for all new public sector contracts to include 30-day payment terms for all the contracts in the supply chain, so that smaller businesses are paid on time; and a requirement from next year for all public bodies to publish details of instances of late payment and interest paid as a result of those late payments.
There is also a range of new procurement reforms in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which has had its Second Reading in the House, including a new enabling power allowing Government to place new duties on bodies relating to procurement. In future, and subject to consultation, the power may be used to require procurers to run timely and effective procurements and to manage contracts effectively.
The Government have also set up the mystery shopper scheme. Suppliers can refer instances of late payment on public procurement contracts or in public procurement supply chains to the scheme. That will then be investigated and reported on by the scheme.
Tackling late payments is also about creating a responsible payment culture. The prompt payment code, which was developed by the Institute of Credit Management, encourages and promotes best practice between organisations and their suppliers. Signatories to the code commit to paying their suppliers within clearly defined terms and ensuring that there is a proper process for dealing with any issues that may arise. Seventy-five per cent. of the FTSE 100 companies have now signed up to the prompt payment code, following a campaign by the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), in 2012. Independent analysis by Experian suggests that current signatories to the code represent over 60% of the total UK supply chain value. However, there is a clear desire for signatories to be more open about practices and to be visibly accountable if they fail to live within the spirit of the code. That is why the Institute of Credit Management will be speaking to signatories and consulting on what can be done to strengthen the code and increase its membership.
Mrs Glindon
I thank the Minister for answering my questions so thoroughly. Will he refer to my question relating to early payment, as opposed to prompt payment? If it were 60 days and the payment were made on the 59th day, that could still be a problem for some small businesses.
Kris Hopkins
I do not know the terms under which that phrase came about, but if I were living my previous life as the leader of a council, I would expect us not just to push to the maximum; I would expect us to seek to respond proactively to the other needs of small businesses. In some of the examples I will refer to, I think I can demonstrate how much the Government want to support that.
We recognise that there are numerous examples of local authorities supporting their suppliers and customers. The Government’s “Best councils to do business with” contest last year showed that many councils understood the importance of the prompt payment terms. Bury, the City of London, Halton and Harrow are all committed to paying small and medium-sized enterprises within 10 days of invoices. Other councils, such as North Tyneside, have introduced e-procurement and e-invoicing, all of which are intended to streamline the procurement and payment process, reducing the instances of late payment. In addition, a number of councils, such as Blackburn with Darwen, have signed up to a prompt payment code and actively encourage their suppliers to do the same to ensure prompt payment throughout the supply chain. Through the points made by the hon. Lady and the good examples we have here, I think I can send a note to other authorities, signposting them to really good practice and, if they are not proactively seeking to pay their bills in the terms that we are talking about, encouraging them to go further.
Before I conclude, I want to get a fact on the table—the hon. Lady asked about this point, but I have not included it in my speech so far—namely the 30 days start from the receipt of a valid invoice. I just want to get that on the table, so she is aware of it.
The Government recognise that being paid on time is vital to suppliers. There is already a legal requirement for public bodies to pay suppliers within 30 days or be liable to interest resulting from paying late, and we are legislating to ensure that small firms get treated fairly by mandating prompt payment terms all the way down a public procurement supply chain. However, the sector also has a role to play, and I am pleased to see that the Local Government Association recently published a national procurement strategy that sets out the need for prompt payments. It makes it clear that councils can no longer accept their small and medium-sized enterprises having to wait longer for invoices to be paid.
Mrs Glindon
The requirements that are being placed on councils seem fairly onerous. It is right that that should happen, but my question relates to the seeping down from the main contractor to the subcontractor. Perhaps the Minister has covered this, but I am not sure how we can ensure that that seeps right through to the smallest person in the supply chain.
Kris Hopkins
I am sure that, in the House in the coming months, there will be a great debate on the “how”. We have expectations of local government—the terms and conditions that we expect public bodies to meet. Providers of services and goods down the chain of supply will also be expected to agree to those terms and conditions.
In conclusion, I agree with the recent Select Committee report recommendation that councils should, as a matter of course, pay contractors promptly and include a clause in contracts requiring contractors to ensure that their subcontractors are paid promptly right down the supply chain, just to reiterate that point.
Disabled People (Developing Countries)
(10 years, 3 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
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here on this warm day and to see the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), in his place. I congratulate him enormously on his elevation to Minister of State in the Department for International Development, which is well deserved and comes on the back of many years’ work in the sector in Rwanda and beyond.
I thank Mr Speaker for allowing time for the debate. As chair of the all-party group on Africa and as an ex-member of the Select Committee on International Development, I have followed the issues that I will raise carefully. I also did so while working in developing countries across Africa during a business career outside the House. In all countries, the prevalence and awareness of disabilities is growing. As a result of an ageing population and a number of other factors, people with disabilities now make up 15% of the global population, or more than 1 billion people around the world. Of those 1 billion people, 80% live in developing countries, and at least 785 million are of working age.
Across the world, people with disabilities are statistically more likely to be unemployed, more likely to be illiterate, less likely to have access to a formal education and less likely to have access to the support networks that even people in the developing world currently enjoy. They are further isolated by discrimination, ignorance and prejudice. Disability is only one driver among many of social and economic exclusion. When disability combines with other factors—gender, ethnicity, caste, age, geography and location—it makes individuals more disadvantaged in society. People with disabilities are more likely to be excluded from the benefits that society has to offer if they hold a combination of those attributes.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. On the question of exclusion, does he agree that a particular priority should be to ensure that children with disabilities have access to education? If children are excluded from education at an early stage of their life, they are even more likely to suffer some of the challenges and exclusion that disabled people suffer later in life.
James Duddridge
Although we have made much progress on the millennium development goals, my understanding is that people with disabilities make up approximately a third of those who are still uneducated. In the post-2015 model that is the successor to the millennium development goals, it is essential that we pick up on those issues. I will touch on that later in my speech, but I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
Disabled women and girls, in particular, lack support. They face great difficulty accessing education, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and training and employment compared with non-disabled females and even disabled men in a similar environment. According to the UN, a survey conducted in Orissa, India, in 2004 found that virtually all women and girls with disabilities were beaten at home. I could not believe that fact when I read it; it is quite unbelievable. The survey found that 25% of women with intellectual disabilities had been raped and 6% of women with disabilities had been forcibly sterilised. Those are horrific statistics. The National Council of Disabled Women in Bangladesh, which helps to promote the rights and dignity of women with disabilities, has noted that the isolation and stigma faced by such women can lead to violence in the home and discrimination in the workplace, but that violence and discrimination often go unreported and criminals escape punishment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We are debating an important issue, and it is a good opportunity to come to the Chamber and present the case. In 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted the international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Under that convention, countries should ensure that people with disabilities are granted equal rights and freedom from discrimination. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that eight years after that convention was adopted, some countries have yet to implement it, so the very things that he describes are happening and most countries are ignoring them?
James Duddridge
Terrible things are happening, and they are happening on our collective watch. I urge the Minister, on his many visits to places where the Department for International Development is spending significant amounts of money, to try to leverage that influence and ensure that countries abide by the relevant UN conventions. I urge him to encourage people to move in the right direction, while allowing them sometimes to move at a different pace. Not everyone can move as fast as we can, but there is a lot more to be done—
James Duddridge
It needs to be done faster, and greater leadership would be fantastic, as the hon. Gentleman has said.
Closer to home, in my constituency, I recently attended a school assembly where the children spoke incredibly eloquently about the “Send all my friends to school” campaign. They informed me that 60 million children around the world are not in education, 19 million of whom have a disability. Investing in those people is absolutely essential.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Secondary 1 pupils from Kincorth academy have sent me drawings as part of “Send all my friends to school”—I think every second one is in a wheelchair—which I have now displayed in my office. Campaigns about sending friends to school, which have been run for a number of years, have really engaged young people and made them realise the importance of education not only for people abroad, but for them, because the campaigns force them to realise how important it is for them to go to school.
James Duddridge
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I was sent similar cut-outs, and I took some to Downing street when I visited the Prime Minister about another issue. Although the children at the school I visited in my constituency were eloquent and understood some of the problems, when I talked about living on a dollar a day, the lack of electricity and the lack of opportunity to go to school, one of the children piped up and asked, “But how do they charge their iPods?” The message gets through, but we have to keep repeating it. Campaigns such as “Send all my friends to school” are instrumental in raising awareness of what is happening in developing countries and in emphasising the value of education, whether in Cork, Southend or anywhere around the United Kingdom.
People with disabilities have a huge amount to contribute to society and benefit us all. A little support can go a long way in helping them to integrate in society and play a role.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has been gracious in giving way, and I congratulate him on an excellent debate. I am reminded of a visit that I paid to Angola, where I saw many people who had suffered as a result of landmines and who had got together as an advocacy group. Does he agree that advocacy in the situations he describes is extremely important?
James Duddridge
I could not agree more. Without advocacy, parts of the community have no voice at all. Anything that we can do to help give them a voice through advocacy sets people on the road of explaining what their problems are, accessing support, moving forward and being a part of society. The Special Olympics, which are for people who have intellectual rather than physical disabilities, fall squarely into that category. The term “intellectual disabilities” is used to distinguish those disabilities from mild learning difficulties such as dyslexia, and it refers to what we in the UK might call severe learning difficulties of an intellectual rather than a physical nature. Worldwide, 200 million adults and children have been identified as having intellectual disabilities, but research has shown that in at least three quarters of cases, intervention and assistance can make a transformational difference. That is not to say that we should leave behind the other quarter, but such investment is well leveraged and will transform people’s lives.
The Special Olympics is one of the world’s largest sporting organisations for children and adults. It provides year-round training and competitions for more than 4.2 million athletes in 170 countries. But the Special Olympics are about much more than just sport. They are about education, early intervention training, health screening, making communities more inclusive and bringing people with intellectual disabilities into the mainstream of the community. They are about identifying and being proud of individuals, rather than the cases I have heard of people being pushed to the back of the village and, in more extreme cases, chained to the tree as a way of monitoring them and keeping them subdued.
The international community is beginning to recognise that we cannot tackle poverty without addressing the issue of people with disabilities. The Select Committee on International Development recently published an incredibly good report, “Disability and Development”, which touched on all these issues. There is a huge opportunity for the UK to work on inclusion issues, on which we have been so good, in places around the world where we offer support. DFID already supports a diverse range of projects designed to benefit disabled people and disability rights programmes through supporting broader civil society organisations. I understand that in 2012-13, DFID spent just shy of £200 million on programmes designed to benefit disabled people. I welcome that, and I think that Members in all parts of the House would welcome that as a baseline from which to move up. I also welcome the pledge that all new DFID-funded school constructions will be accessible to disabled children, and I welcome the renewed support for the Disability Rights Fund, which helps small disabled people’s organisations in developing countries, and to which Ministers recently committed £2 million.
I welcome a number of new commitments that the Government spelled out in their response to the “Disability and Development” report, including one to publish a disability framework by November 2014—I think I know the Minister’s summer reading, at least in part. That framework will set out a
“clear commitment, approach and actions to strengthening disability in…policy, programmes and international work.”
DFID has set out commitments to scaling up inclusive programmes, to funding new research and to reviewing internal processes through the multilateral and bilateral aid reviews. Such commitments are extremely important.
Going forward, there are key questions about how DFID’s disability framework will be implemented. It is important that it addresses both the infrastructure required for disabled people to participate fully in society and the social barriers that they face, including stigma and underlying discrimination. It is essential that sufficient resources are ascribed to implementing the disability framework so that it enables the stated objectives to be achieved.
We must support the Government to develop their disability framework over the coming months and, crucially, to implement it over the coming years. The millennium development goals, to which I referred earlier and which were established in 2000, have fundamentally shaped international development over the past 14 years. The goals can be credited for the focus that they have brought to international development issues and for their contribution to the progress made over the years. Remarkable gains have been made on a number of different issues, but we are now looking at how to replace the millennium development goals. Unfortunately, they did not give enough prominence to disability issues. Before the UN meeting later this year, we have a window of opportunity to lobby the Government and for them to lobby other parliamentarians and representatives.
The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), has recognised that too few people with disabilities currently benefit from international aid, and has described the future poverty goals as
“a once-in-a-generation chance to finally put disability on the agenda.”
I could not agree more; this year, there really is an opportunity to get something set in stone. That opportunity is not going to come around again for another decade.
The Prime Minister’s appointment as co-chair of the UN high-level panel on the post-2015 development agenda was most welcome. He has shown great leadership over the broader golden thread, within which I would certainly include disability issues.
Dame Anne Begg
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that we have a once-in-a-decade opportunity to get this right. I see that the Minister is listening carefully in one of his first debates in his new job. Hopefully he will realise the importance of raising the issue of disability and mainstreaming it to ensure that disability is taken into account in everything that DFID does.
James Duddridge
I totally agree. I know that the Minister has already been involved in these issues in Rwanda, but I echo the hon. Lady’s call: he should continue his work in the coming years and use this window of opportunity as Minister of State during the period in which the vision for 2030 is set. That seems an unfeasibly long time away, but we are going to be fixing our goals, and it is essential that disability is at the heart of the report.
The UK is a member of the UN’s open working group, which is going to finalise some of the goals. There have been encouraging signs that the document will reflect the needs of disabled people. In particular, proposed goal 10, which is to reduce inequality between and within countries, is relevant to disabled people. Proposed goal 17, which focuses on the means of implementation and the global partnership for sustainable development, includes the need for disaggregated data by disability. Those are big words, but, basically, if we do not know how many people are disabled within the overall data set, we cannot monitor, country by country, progress on aid inputs and outputs.
Like others around the world, the UK Government are currently preparing for the intergovernmental negotiations in January 2015. There are a number of opportunities to support the needs of people with disabilities, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the UK’s approach to engaging people with disabilities in the ways that have been mentioned, as part of the post-2015 framework. All the issues must be incorporated into a broader framework across the full range of policy areas, including health, education and employment, to name a few. To ensure that that becomes a reality, it is important that the goals that make up the post-2015 framework clearly reflect all those needs. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the UK will be championing explicit references to disabled people across the range of goals in the framework.
I am conscious that time is getting on, so I want to start to come to a conclusion. To monitor progress, we need a data revolution. We need the data coming out of developing countries so that we can benchmark the number of people with disabilities and monitor progress. Within those data, disaggregated by disability, we would need to see a number of things. First, we would need to see that the data would lead to a more informed policy-making process, allowing policy makers to see which areas it was necessary to target. Secondly, the data would need to enable initiatives supporting disabled people to be monitored. Thirdly, the data would need to provide civil society with the ability to hold Governments to account, locally and internationally, on those goals. I would welcome the Government’s comments on the steps they propose to support the development of those disaggregated data and on how they will be used.
Although the data are necessary to enable civil society to scrutinise decision making, it is also important that civil society can access and make use of those data. In particular, people with disabilities must be involved in the decision-making process. As a trustee of SHIELDS—Supporting, Helping, Informing Everyone with Learning Disabilities in Southend—I have seen the value of those with a whole range of disabilities. This is not a top-down process; those with disabilities should be included in looking at the data set and prioritising. Can the Minister elaborate on how the Government are working to ensure that people with disabilities have a voice at the table?
The links between disability and poverty are strong, meaning that it is not possible to overcome extreme poverty without dealing with these important issues. People with disabilities have a huge contribution to make to the development of their societies. Our fantastic 2012 Paralympic games and the remarkable performances from Team GB athletes started to help to change attitudes, showing Britain and the world that people with disabilities can achieve amazing things when the opportunity is available. If we are to improve the lives of those with disabilities in developing countries, they need our support. We have a window of opportunity.
I sought this debate to secure the opportunity for colleagues to lobby the Government and to make it clear that all eyes are on them. They must secure the necessary changes, seize the opportunity and make life better all around the world for those with disabilities and those born today with disabilities, so that their future and their place in society will be brighter and better. That will build a much stronger society for us all; one of which we can be proud.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) on his success in securing this debate and on the passion and commitment that he has shown in the speech he has just delivered. I also pay tribute to his record of championing this issue over a long period. In his opening remarks, he set out the number of years he served on the International Development Committee, and he has continued to campaign and draw attention to this issue. He has done us a service, and I owe him my thanks for having selected for this debate a topic so central to the priorities of the Department to which I have just been appointed.
My hon. Friend is right about the opportunity to which he drew attention; that opportunity was also referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee. This is a period of opportunity and I feel deeply privileged to have been appointed to the Department at this particular time, when such an opportunity presents itself.
It is, of course, true, as my hon. Friend said, that the statistics show that one in seven people in the developing world is disabled, but I suspect that the proportion of disabled people among those who are chronically poor is much higher than that. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that, as we all know from our own experience as constituency MPs, where there is the opportunity, the support and the access that they need, disabled people are not only able to maintain themselves but can contribute effectively to the community, just like anyone else. Our objective in policy terms must be to enable disabled people to be contributors to their communities and not burdens on them, and I believe it to be absolutely achievable.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) drew attention to the fact that we have signed up to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and pointed out that significant progress has not been made in pursuit of the convention’s goals. We ratified the convention in 2008 and are encouraging other countries to do so. At the moment, 153 countries have signed the convention and 71 countries, including the UK—about 46% of those who have signed—have ratified it. However, we have to do better and pursue that agenda more vigorously.
Having said that, I should also say that we are paying considerable sums to support countries in the developing world as part of our pursuit of that agenda. I will give three examples of particularly good practice. In Mozambique, we are funding resource centres to support some 24,000 children with special needs in schools; in Ethiopia, we are supporting the production of materials in Braille, which are used to help some 10,000 children between the ages of five and 18; and in Zimbabwe, we are supporting some 27,000 disabled children through the child protection fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East drew attention to the lack of reliable data in this area, and of course that is a significant problem. It is very difficult to assess the needs of disabled people if we do not know how many disabled people there are. I suggest that there is a greater danger: “if we can’t count ’em, they don’t count”, an attitude that we must be very careful about.
It is vital that we should be able to come to a clear analysis of the size of the problem and of the needs of disabled people. Until recently, there was not even an agreed definition of what amounted to disability. That is an issue on which the Department has been driving forward the agenda on; we want to get an agreement on the definition of disability, so that we can get reliable statistics.
It is also important that we concentrate on the prevention of disability. For example, for every female who dies in childbirth, some 20 to 30 females will suffer complications in childbirth that will give rise to disability. Therefore, an important part of the agenda must be to support women in childbirth, and an equally important part must be tackling those preventable diseases that give rise to disability, such as polio and trachoma.
I have no doubt that we need to do more. My hon. Friend was right to say that we must attend to the post-2015 agenda. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development has been championing the agenda of the disabled during the past 18 months and last year announcements were made with respect to infrastructure in schools, to make access much easier for disabled pupils in the areas where we are providing financial support.
My hon. Friend referred to the International Development Committee’s first report of the last Session, published in June this year. He was right to draw attention to its challenging conclusions, and we agree with virtually all of them. We share the report’s objectives and the most important point is the one he made—namely, that in our response to the report we will publish a framework for disability in November.
My hon. Friend was right to say that the framework must involve the input of disabled groups and other interested parties. Currently the Department works with some 400 disabled groups; it is right that we do so and we should seek to expand our dialogue with disabled groups. As we go forward and develop that framework, which will determine how we work in the future, it is important that we also take into account the opinions and input of hon. Members. I hope that that dialogue will proceed.
The framework will set out our commitment and our approach to policy, and how that policy will actually work on the ground. We will also increase the size of our team who work on disability; we will appoint a disability champion who will be able to give guidance to all our employees; and we will increase the role of disabled groups and disabled people in policy making, to strengthen our response to events—particularly our response to some of the emergencies, such as natural disasters, that arise, so that we take greater cognisance of disabled people in those situations.
The international development community may have been late on to this field, and late in appreciating the size of the problem of disability. I hope that we can ginger that process up. It is very important, as my hon. Friend said, to ensure that the post-2015 development goals address the issue of disability. The Prime Minister, when he chaired the UN high-level panel on the post-2015 development agenda, came up with a principle that I thought was exactly on the money, the key message being that we can eradicate poverty in this generation if we “leave no one behind”, which includes leaving no one behind because of their race, gender, geographical location or disability. That is the principle that we must abide by, and that is the commitment that we give.
My hon. Friend asked a number of specific questions. I think that I have addressed the one about how many groups the Department works with. As for the issue of the disaggregation of data and targets for disabled people, the principle I would support is that we have a target for a development project in a nation that we are helping; let us say, for example, that there should be zero poverty by such and such a date. I would not like to see a separate target for disabled people. Within the overall target, I would want to include every gender, every racial minority and every disability. Of course, it is absolutely right that we should be able to disaggregate the total, so that we can identify disabled people and know that none of them are being left behind—that is an important principle—but I would not want to see separate targets being set.
Written Statements
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Minimum Wage Regulations
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
Today, I publish a consultation document and draft consolidated national minimum wage (NMW) regulations for public consultation.
The NMW regulations, which set out the detailed NMW rules, came into force on 1 April 1999. Since then, the NMW regulations have been amended over 20 times. As well as the annual changes to the NMW rates, there have been a number of substantial changes to the rules over the years.
As part of the red tape challenge, we concluded that the NMW regulations and subsequent amending regulations should be consolidated into a single set of regulations.
We have also taken the opportunity to update the drafting to reflect current drafting practice, such as making the provisions gender-neutral, and to try and ensure that the rules are set out as clearly and accessibly as possible.
This consultation seeks views on whether the draft consolidated regulations 2014 are clear and workable. It is not intended to reopen the policy decisions behind the detailed rules.
I am placing copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.
UK Atomic Energy Authority (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities and Science (Greg Clark)
The coalition Government made a commitment to review public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of the state. The triennial review of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) is one of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) scheduled to commence during the first year of the second programme (2014-15). This is not a review of the policy relating to fusion research to which the Government remain committed.
The review will be conducted as set out in Cabinet Office guidance, in two stages.
The first stage will:
Identify and examine the key functions of the UKAEA and assess the requirement for these to continue;
If continuing, then assess delivery options and where the conclusion is that a particular function is still needed examine how this function might best be delivered, including a cost and benefits analysis where appropriate;
If one of these options is continuing delivery through the UKAEA then make an assessment against the Government’s “three tests”: technical function; political impartiality; need for independence from Ministers.
If the outcome of stage 1 is that delivery should continue through the UKAEA as an NDPB, then the second stage of the project will be to ensure that they are operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance, using the Cabinet Office “comply or explain” standard approach.
When completed the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Prevention and Deterrence of Undeclared Work (EU Opt-in)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
The European Commission has proposed the establishment of a European platform to enhance co-operation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work. The Government consider that the activity against which the co-operation is directed—failure to declare work—is treated as a criminal matter in many member states, and that the proposal requires law enforcement authorities to collaborate with the platform. The Government have therefore asserted the United Kingdom’s opt-in in respect of this proposal, to the extent that the proposal requires law enforcement authorities to collaborate with the platform, and have decided to opt in.
Equitable Life Payment Scheme
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
As of 30 June 2014, the scheme has now issued payments totalling £972.9 million to 877,414 policyholders. The scheme has published a further progress report, which can be found at: www.gov.uk/equitable-life-payment-scheme.
The scheme has gone to significant lengths to trace eligible policyholders. It remains committed to tracing and paying as many eligible policyholders as possible, and will continue to consider all proportionate actions it can take to do this.
The scheme encourages any policyholders who believe themselves to be eligible to call the scheme on: 0300 0200 150. The scheme can verify the identity of most policyholders on the telephone, which means any payment due can usually be received within two weeks.
Stakeholder Child Trust Funds (Lifestyling)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government will formally consult in 2015 on the application of the “lifestyling” requirement to over 4 million stakeholder child trust funds (CTF). This requirement is designed to manage volatility in account investments as stakeholder CTFs approach maturity, when the account holder turns 18.
A number of respondents to the Government’s recent consultation on the transfer of funds from CTF to junior ISA questioned the value of lifestyling for many CTF holders. The Government wish to explore this issue further through consultation with CTF providers, account holders, parents and other interested groups. This consultation will take place alongside the Government’s changes to the CTF rules that will allow parents to transfer CTF funds to a junior ISA from 2015.
Pending the outcome of this consultation, the Government propose to amend the child trust fund regulations to defer the requirement upon CTF providers to commence lifestyling for two years. CTF providers will not therefore be required to begin lifestyling stakeholder CTFs before account holders reach 15.
Councillors' Travel (Tax Exemptions)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are announcing today that they intend to introduce legislation to exempt from income tax and national insurance contributions (NICs), travel expenses payments made to local councillors.
Local councillors perform a vital but frequently unsung constitutional role working on behalf of local people, often in addition to other professional and personal commitments. They are required to perform their duties in both the communities they serve and their council offices and most receive no payment other than allowances in recognition of the time and expenses they incur.
The Government want to ensure that nobody is discouraged from representing their local community as a local councillor and therefore intend to introduce this new exemption so that in the future, travel expenses paid to local councillors, including those to cover the costs of journeys to their council offices, are not subject to income tax or NICs.
The Government will provide further details of the exemption, and the time scale for introduction, in the autumn.
UK Remittance Market
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
My predecessor last addressed the House on the issue of continued remittance flows to Somalia on 22 January 2014. Since that time significant progress has been made, but there is more to do by the Government and industry stakeholders.
As we have previously made clear, the UK Government recognise that remittances play a vital role in supporting developing countries, enabling them to move from dependence on aid to self sufficiency and growth. The World Bank reports that global remittance flows to developing countries are more than $400 billion, and are expected to reach $540 billion by 2016.
However, we also recognise that there are considerable difficulties for payment institutions providing services into countries where regulatory and supervisory frameworks are in development, to ensure that the UK financial system is not a conduit for terrorist financing or money laundering. It is important that we ensure remittances flow through secure and transparent channels to effectively detect and deal with those who seek to use remittances to launder money or fund terrorism; as well as protect the majority of remitters who are sending funds for legitimate purposes.
The remittance industry is adapting, with individual money service businesses (MSBs) taking steps to enhance their anti-money laundering compliance; especially within the Somalia corridor. Wholesale MSBs are developing and deploying new systems to improve transparency, operational efficiency, and security of remittance transactions; while other market players are using technology options, such as mobile payments, to improve transparency.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has strengthened its supervision of MSBs, including increasing the number of inspections, to provide greater assurance that they are meeting their anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism obligations. It is developing an e-learning package for MSBs to improve levels of compliance. HMRC is holding regular discussions with banks and MSBs to give banks greater confidence that MSBs are subject to the same standards they are and that they are being effectively supervised by HMRC.
The action group on cross-border remittances, which brings together representatives of the banking and money remittance industries, consumer groups and Government agencies, has made the following progress:
HMRC and the joint money laundering steering group have developed guidance for financial institutions providing banking facilities for MSBs and for MSBs themselves on complying with their anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism obligations. As part of the development of guidance, MSBs have committed to adopting best market practice, over and above meeting the minimum legal requirements;
the National Crime Agency have held workshops with banks and MSBs to help develop a better understanding of risk, to help them identify good practice and improve systems as well as detect warning signs and poor practice in the sector; and,
the safer corridor pilot for UK-Somalia remittances, led by the Department for International Development (DFID), is developing a series of co-ordinated interventions to address perceived risk at each stage of the remittance transaction and ensure remittances continue to flow through secure, accessible channels. The detailed design process has been initiated, supported by the World Bank, incorporating consultations with all relevant stakeholders in the UK and in Somalia. The pilot is steered by an advisory group composed of representatives from UK-Somali MSBs, UK-Somali community representatives, banks, NGOs and Government officials. More details on the pilot can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-developing-countries-economies-to-grow/supporting-pages/enabling-the-continued-flow-of-remittances
It is vital for the continued flow of remittances that the banking sector engage with individual MSBs who are raising standards now, as well as the longer-term solutions provided by the safer corridor pilot. The UK Government will continue to urgently encourage and facilitate engagement between the banking sector and MSBs on this issue in the coming weeks.
We appreciate that communication of our actions is important, especially within the Somali community, where there are concerns about the short-term viability of the remittance corridor and implications for the humanitarian situation in Somalia.
We have worked closely with community representatives to develop channels that support communication between the community and key stakeholders on this issue. Over the next six weeks a number of workshops will be held with the Somali community in the UK to share information on market developments and help address any community concerns. Details of these meetings can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-developing-countries-economies-to-grow/supporting-pages/enabling-the-continued-flow-of-remittances
The community and the UK Government are determined to work urgently with industry representatives to ensure that up-to-date information is available about remittances and charitable transfers in this rapidly evolving market. At present, the Government understand that:
all members of the Somalia Money Services Association (SOMSA) are sending remittances to Somalia and have secure options for remitting cash deposits; and
a number of other MSBs are operating in the Somali corridor, some using technological solutions.
In order for community members to find a solution which works for their specific situation, the UK Government have ensured that more information about these options is available from Somali Matters and the International Association of Money Transmitter Networks (IAMTN). Both SOMSA and IAMTN have agreed to keep this information updated on the following websites: http://www.somalimatters.org/ and http://www.iamtn.org/
We also understand the community’s concerns about the current humanitarian situation in Somalia.
The UK is one of the largest and most active donors to the humanitarian response in Somalia. The UK has an agreed four-year £145 million humanitarian programme. UK funds are currently supporting emergency nutrition interventions, livelihoods and resilience building through a number of partners, including international and local NGOs, the International Committee of the Red Cross and UN agencies such as UNICEF, FAO and WFP.
As part of the existing humanitarian programme, an internal risk facility has been established to support partners in the unfortunate event of any crisis. We have approved £10 million per year contribution to the internal risk facility.
In conclusion, the money remittance sector provides important services to communities and businesses in the UK, and in some instances is the only means of sending money to vulnerable communities overseas. There are risks for the MSBs themselves and for banks operating in these remittance corridors. We are urgently working with service providers to provide an environment where these risks can be managed so that the flows of money continue.
Birmingham City Council
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
In her oral statement today on the report into allegations concerning Birmingham schools, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education told the House that to address the wider weaknesses that have been highlighted in Birmingham’s governance culture I have agreed with the leader of the city council, Sir Albert Bore, that there should be a review of governance in the city council. Sir Albert and I have asked Sir Bob Kerslake to lead the review, with such support as he considers appropriate, and which will be undertaken with the full co-operation of the city council. Sir Bob will report to me and Sir Albert by December 2014.
The review will consider the operation, culture, and structures of the corporate governance arrangements at the heart of the city council. It will assess their effectiveness and appropriateness for supporting the leadership and local service delivery needed to secure the future prosperity of England’s second city and the well-being of all who live, work, or visit there, and make recommendations.
We have asked Sir Bob in particular to make recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the city council’s corporate governance arrangements, both in the short and medium term.
If Birmingham is to achieve its potential as a diverse, vibrant city of opportunity for all its people, this will be possible only with strong and effective civic leadership which commands the confidence of all communities. The city’s democratically elected leadership has a central role to play which needs the support of effective, transparent, and accountable governance arrangements throughout the council.
Strong and effective civic leadership equally needs the involvement of community leaders across the city. Accordingly, the Government welcome the council’s own Trojan horse review group’s recommendation that a strong civic leadership group be established with a range of credible and independent voices to drive and maintain momentum on building integrated communities for all. This has the potential to transform today’s situation, creating a city where all communities can have confidence in the future and the opportunities it will bring for them.
Local Government Finance
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
I am today announcing the start of a technical consultation setting out proposals on the distribution of revenue support grant to local authorities in 2015-16 in order to deliver the local government finance settlement in the autumn. These proposals affect around half of total revenue spending power for councils in England but make only minor changes to the illustrative figures for 2015-16 that were set out in the course of last year’s local government finance settlement. All the proposals are in line with previous commitments, ensuring continued protection for authorities and consolidating previous reforms.
These minor changes to previous proposals set out in the attached consultation document ensure:
continued compensation for the reduced income from business rates as a result of the 2% cap on the small business multiplier announced at spending review 2013;
continued protection for authorities which froze council tax in 2014-15;
continued efficiency support grant funding for the small number of local authorities with the highest spending power reductions in 2014-15;
continued rural services delivery grant funding for the most rural authorities.
The proposed 2015-16 settlement continues to deliver protection for funding to local authorities for learning disability, early intervention, homelessness and flooding, included in the settlement from April 2013, as set out in the summer 2013 consultation.
The settlement covers only around half of the substantial funding available to councils and the Government are balancing the reductions with a progressive package of incentives that will help deliver better outcomes for less money. We have recently announced the first instalment of plans to invest at least £12 billion in local economies in a series of growth deals. This money will go towards providing support for local businesses to train young people, create thousands of new jobs, unlock thousands of new homes and start hundreds of infrastructure projects including transport improvements and superfast broadband networks. We are also making available £15 million funding for 2014-15 and £305 million for 2015-16 through the transformation challenge award which is intended to encourage councils to achieve savings through joint working and efficiencies.
I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Library of the House, and the consultation document and a draft equality statement for the 2015-16 settlement are also available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications? publication_filter_option=consultations.
I have also made available today “The Pooling Prospectus” which sets out the benefits and procedures of pooling for those local authorities who wish to do so in 2015-16.
We look forward to receiving views on our proposals. The consultation period will close on 24 September 2014. We will then put forward our proposals for local government funding for 2015-16 to the usual local government finance settlement timetable.
VisitBritain and VisitEngland (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of VisitBritain and VisitEngland (British Tourist Authority). Triennial reviews are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) continue to have regular independent challenge.
The review will examine whether there is a continuing need for VisitBritain and VisitEngland’s functions and their form and whether they should continue to exist at arm’s length from Government. Should the review conclude there is a continuing need for the bodies, it will go on to examine whether their control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. The findings at both stages of the review will be examined by a challenge group.
Further details of the review, including how to submit evidence to it, can be found on the DCMS website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-culture-media-sport
I will inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed and copies of the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Candidates' Election Expenses
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The Government have made the following instrument: The Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates’ Election Expenses) Order 2014.
The order amends the maximum amounts of candidates’ election expenses at a parliamentary general election in the United Kingdom and at local government elections in England and Wales, to take into account inflation since these amounts were last changed in 2005.
School Funding
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
I am today announcing the rates of the education services grant (ESG) in 2015-16.
The Chancellor announced in June 2013 that the Government would reduce the ESG by around £200 million in 2015-16. These savings help the Government to protect front-line budgets including the dedicated schools grant and the pupil premium.
We recognised in June 2013 that this reduction to ESG might require some local authorities and academies to deliver their services differently, and committed to consult on the detail of how the reduction could be implemented through realising efficiencies and enabling local authorities to focus on their core role on schools. This consultation has now been completed, and we have carefully considered the responses we received.
The ESG general funding rate will now be £87 per pupil. Local authorities also receive an additional £15 per pupil for the duties they retain for all pupils, including those in academies. The consultation evidence strongly suggested that we should not reduce this retained duty rate, and I am today announcing that the retained duty rate will remain at £15 in 2015-16. We know that these rates are sufficient to deliver the services covered by ESG, because in 2013-14 52 local authorities were planning to spend below this level to deliver those services. We have also today set out the clarification of duties that local authorities asked for to help them manage this reduction in spend.
In order to provide stability, academies receive transitional protection, and in the past they have also received a top-up on the ESG rate. We have said that over time the rates paid to academies and to local authorities should converge. I am therefore announcing today that in the academic year 2015-16 there will be no ESG top-up for academies, but that they will be protected from sharp falls in their budgets. The vast majority of academies will not lose more than 1.5% of their budget through this change, while higher funded ones will approach the new rate a little more quickly, with the very highest funded academies protected at just under 3% of their total budget. This strikes the right balance between making necessary savings to back-office services that will also make our funding system fairer, and ensuring that individual schools do not see unmanageable year-on-year changes in their budgets.
The Department received a large volume of responses to the consultation relating to the provision of music services. Many were concerned that any reduced local authority support for music services would impact on the overall quality of music provision and in particular on the opportunities for disadvantaged children.
We strongly believe that all children should benefit from a good music education and have given £171 million to music hubs since 2012. We have also announced today that central Government funding for music education programmes will increase by £18 million in 2015-16, and funding for music education hubs will rise to around £75 million in total. Local authorities will continue to have total discretion about whether to spend any of the ESG they receive on providing music services.
I will place a copy of the document I have published today in the Libraries of both Houses.
Future Fuel Poverty Framework
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
Since 2010 the number of households in fuel poverty in England has fallen every year, thanks to Government energy efficiency schemes and the warm home discount. However, the problem could rise again unless action is taken to tackle it.
In a package of announcements made today, the Government are setting out how they intend to act—taking the next major step forward in overhauling the framework to tackle fuel poverty in England.
We are laying draft regulations before Parliament to put in place a new long-term fuel poverty target. We have also launched “Cutting the cost of keeping warm”—a consultation helping us to prepare a new fuel poverty strategy to set out how we intend to achieve the target. In addition, DECC is publishing a report with the results of the first triennial review of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group for England (FPAG), a copy of which I will be depositing in the Libraries of both Houses.
This package builds on a three-year period of detailed work on fuel poverty, which has changed our understanding of the problem and how we need to tackle it. This has included the independent Hills poverty review published in March 2012, a framework for future action on fuel poverty published in July 2013 and amendments made to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 (WHECA) last year.
Fuel poverty target
The Fuel Poverty (England) Regulations 2014 set out the objective for addressing the situation of persons in England who live in fuel poverty, as required by section 1A of WHECA. The regulations will create in law a new fuel poverty target to ensure that as many fuel-poor homes as is reasonably practicable achieve a minimum energy efficiency standard of band C, by 2030.
I am also proposing to set out the following interim milestones in the new fuel poverty strategy:
as many fuel-poor homes in England as is reasonably practicable to band E by 2020
as many fuel-poor homes in England as is reasonably practicable to band D by 2025.
This target and the proposed interim milestones imply improving the energy efficiency standards of a significant number of households. In turn, this will mean a real change to these households’ living standards by reducing their fuel poverty gaps or removing them from fuel poverty altogether. Meeting the target will be a major challenge—not just for Government but for all those working to tackling this issue.
Consultation
The consultation “Cutting the cost of keeping warm” seeks to explain how we will implement policy in a way that reflects our framework principles. This means trying to help those with the highest energy costs first and foremost, driving cost-effective interventions and supporting those most vulnerable to the effects of living in a cold home. We seek views on how we can improve the design and delivery of policy in order to try and meet the target. This focuses on four themes:
Warmer homes: cutting bills and increasing comfort in the coldest low-income homes to make a real and lasting difference with energy efficiency.
Supporting people: helping people directly with their energy bills and improving incomes.
Fairer energy markets: ensuring everyone can take action and benefit from a more open energy market.
Improving delivery: making the most of the support available, getting it to the right people, and working together to support the fuel-poor.
The combination of a long-term target and a strategy setting out our plans for achieving it will help ensure that the fuel-poor are not left behind as we meet our wider climate change obligations. At the same time, taking action to tackle fuel poverty will bring wider benefits, supporting jobs, saving carbon and improving health.
Governance and accountability
Meeting long-term targets requires effective governance and accountability. We are proposing regular reviews of progress and we intend to hold regular debates in Parliament on this issue.
For some time, the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group for England (FPAG), a DECC-sponsored advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB), has been a key part of the accountability framework. Today, we are publishing the results of our first triennial review report of FPAG1. This confirms FPAG’s critical role in scrutinising our strategy to keep us on track towards our target. But it also highlights there are opportunities to bring FPAG more in line with the best practice corporate governance standards for NDPBs.
We will be working with the current chairman, Derek Lickerish MBE, to implement these governance reforms over the coming months. This includes transitioning FPAG’s composition from organisational representatives to independent expert members.
1www.gov.uk/government/publications/first-triennial-review-report-fuel-poverty-advisory-group-for-england
Fourth Carbon Budget (Review)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
Today I can announce that, having concluded a detailed review, the Government will not be amending the fourth carbon budget. The budget, which covers the period 2023 to 2027, will therefore stay at its existing level of 1,950 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The decision I have taken is consistent with the advice of the Committee on Climate Change. It also reflects the views of the vast majority of businesses, investors and environmental groups.
The review was conducted in line with the commitment made by the Government when the fourth carbon budget was set in 2011, specifically that we would review progress in 2014 in order to determine whether the UK’s domestic commitments placed us on a different trajectory from the one agreed by our partners in the EU under the EU emissions trading system. In considering the evidence, I have paid particular attention to the requirements of the Climate Change Act and the process that this sets out.
Having conducted a detailed review, it is clear that the evidence does not support amending the budget. Any revision now would be premature, especially in light of the ongoing negotiations in the EU to agree a domestic 40% GHG reduction target for 2030 by October this year based on the Commission proposals published in January 2014.
As business groups have made clear, retaining the budget at its existing level provides certainty for businesses and investors by demonstrating Government’s commitment to our long-term decarbonisation goals. Our support for the UK’s energy intensive industries in the 2014 Budget underlined the Government’s continued commitment to protect the competitiveness of UK business. And, although I am clearly mindful of the risk that a misalignment between the EU and the UK’s trajectories in the traded sector might result in a disproportionate strain being placed on sectors not covered by the EU emissions trading system, the evidence does not indicate that action is required at the present time. Our current estimate is that UK and EU levels of ambition for the sector are likely to be extremely close over the period.
Above all, maintaining the fourth carbon budget at its current level demonstrates the UK’s commitment to its climate change target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. The UK has the world’s most transparent system of binding emission reduction targets, which are used as a model throughout the world. Today’s decision cements the UK’s place as a global leader in combating climate change, which will allow us to play a central role in delivering a global deal to combat climate change at the end of 2015.
EU: Balance of Competences Review
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
I wish to update the House on the progress of the balance of competences review that my predecessor launched on behalf of the Government in July 2012. I am pleased to inform the House that the third set of reports has been published today on the gov.uk website. As per the written ministerial statement of 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 46WS, the reports were written by lead Departments for each policy area. This set of reports covers agriculture, cohesion policy, competition and consumer policy, energy, EU budget, fisheries, fundamental rights, the single market: financial services and the free movement of capital, the single market: free movement of services, social and employment policy, and the single market: free movement of persons.
Calls for evidence for these reports were published in May and October 2013. We saw a high level of interest and received over 800 pieces of written evidence from a broad spectrum of experts and interested parties including parliamentary committees, Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, the devolved Administrations and Crown dependencies, business groups, think-tanks, academics, civil society groups and professional membership associations. The evidence we received was again of high quality and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed.
As with semesters one and two, the reports have undergone rigorous internal challenge to ensure they are balanced, robust and evidence-based. Evidence submitted (subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act) has been published alongside the reports on the gov.uk website to ensure transparency. With publication of the third semester, 25 of the 32 reports are now complete. By bringing all the evidence together in one place, the review enables people to judge for themselves how the current arrangements are working, as well as providing a valuable contribution to the wider debate on EU reform.
Calls for evidence for fourth semester reports were launched in March 2014 and closed in July. Reports in this final semester cover: economic and monetary policy; education, vocational training and youth; enlargement; information rights; police and criminal justice; subsidiarity and proportionality; and voting, consular and statistics. These reports are expected to be published by the end of 2014.
The third semester reports, along with the first and second semester reports and calls for evidence for semester four, are available at: https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences. Copies of the reports will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and hard copies are available in the Vote and Printed Papers Offices.
Government Diamond Office
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
Further to my statement to Parliament on 12 March 2014, Official Report, column 27WS, I wish to inform the House that today the Government Diamond Office has amended its charging structure, bringing it into line with the Government’s best practice on charging for services.
A public consultation on the review of the Government Diamond Office’s charging structure ran from 13 March to 27 March. The Government have given careful consideration to the responses received. We also considered the need to set our fees at a level which ensures that we have sufficient income to continue to provide this service, and the need to bring our charging structure in line with the Government’s best practice for charging for services.
The new single fee for the service of issuing a Kimberley process certificate will be £37 for the financial year 2014-15. This represents the full cost of providing this service. The previous charging structure was divided into bands based on the value of the rough diamond shipment.
The new fee comes into force today and will be reviewed annually. A copy of the results of the consultation and the updated statutory instrument will be placed in the House Library and on the gov.uk website.
Arab Partnership (Ministerial Correction)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
During the debate in Westminster Hall on 17 July 2014, Official Report, column 317WH, I incorrectly stated that there had been £65 million put into the Arab Partnership this year. This figure should be £50 million for the financial year 2014-15. The Arab Partnership Participation Fund (APPF) has £10 million to support the development of stronger civil society, Parliaments, media and judiciaries. The remaining £40 million is provided through the Arab Partnership Economic Facility (APEF), to support reforms that deliver jobs, boost economic growth and create effective and accountable institutions. We are investing an additional £65 million through the conflict pool in programmes to tackle conflict in the middle east and north Africa (MENA) region in 2014-15.
British Council (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will today publish the triennial review of the British Council. The start of the triennial review was announced by WMS in July 2013. The review concluded that the British Council was a valuable asset to the UK in its promotion of the English language, UK education, arts and culture, making a significant contribution to the UK’s international standing. The review recommended that the British Council should be retained as a non-departmental public body.
To improve transparency and accountability, the review recommended that the British Council should strengthen its connections with UK Government Departments and other bodies representing British interests overseas. To address concerns around competition issues, the review recommended exploring alternative delivery models for commercial activity. To this end, a cross-Government steering group will start work, in July 2014, to assess options and make recommendations to Ministers about a future operating model.
Copies of the report of the review will be published online and placed today in the Libraries of both Houses.
NHS England and the NHS Outcomes Framework
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Today, I laid before Parliament my first “Annual Assessment of the NHS Commissioning Board (known as NHS England) 2013-14”. The “National Health Service Commissioning Board Annual Report & Accounts 2013-14” was also laid (HC408). Together they describe an organisation that has established itself and made progress in delivering the Government’s mandate, but has more to do to deliver all of its objectives. Copies of both documents are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
The mandate to NHS England sets the Government’s ambitions for the NHS as well as the funding available to achieve and deliver the care people need and expect. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 requires the mandate to be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that it remains up to date.
It has never been more important to provide the NHS with stability and continuity of purpose than now. And that is why the Government proposes to uphold all of the existing objectives in the current mandate, and maintain a stable mandate for 2015-16, to enable the NHS to build on its achievements and make further progress on the ambitious agenda already set.
Meanwhile, the challenges facing the NHS and wider health and care system for 2015-16 remain, with an ageing population and an increase in the numbers of people with long-term conditions. We want to see the NHS make further progress in transforming primary care to improve services for older people and those with the most complex needs, and on delivering a system-wide response to the Francis inquiry recommendations, while from 2015-16 joining up health and social care through the better care fund will be key to transforming care.
Within the stable mandate, as part of its existing objective to make progress towards parity of esteem for mental health, NHS England is working with the Department to fulfil its commitment to develop a range of costed options for new access and/or waiting time standards for mental health services, in order to implement these standards starting from April 2015, with a phased approach depending on affordability.
The NHS has generally been performing well and meeting demand despite increasing pressure on services. A stable mandate will allow the NHS to focus on maintaining its performance in providing high-quality, compassionate, and joined-up care now and in the future.
In addition, this summer we will be reviewing the NHS outcomes framework. The review has two aims: to update the framework for 2015-16 by improving, adding and removing existing indicators, and to indicate a direction of travel for future indicator development. Reviewing the NHS outcomes framework this year is also an opportunity to increase alignment between the framework and the objectives in the mandate given the commitment to stability for the mandate for 2015-16.
We have been working closely with NHS England on the approach to the mandate and the review of the outcomes framework, and will be engaging with stakeholders over the summer, ahead of publication in the autumn.
NHS Modernisation (Costs and Benefits)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I announced in July 2013 that the costs of implementing policies in the Health and Social Care Act were likely to be closer to the estimate in the business case for the programme—£1.5 billion in today’s prices—rather than the £1.6 billion to £1.7 billion estimate reported in October 2012.
I can today confirm today that I am expecting the costs of NHS modernisation to be no higher than £1.5 billion.
Up to 31 March 2013, costs of £1,096 million had been incurred across the health and care system on developing and establishing the new arrangements. During 2013-14 organisations in the new system reported that they had incurred a further £220 million to continue this work. Some of these costs will relate to the continuous improvements that all organisations are expected to make. So, at most, the costs to 31 March 2014 were £1,316 million, comprising:
£456 million on staff redundancies;
£75 million on IT for the new organisations;
£88 million on estates costs of closing bodies and setting up new organisations;
£26 million on internal departmental costs—for example, programme management;
£323 million on setting up clinical commissioning groups—excluding items above; and
£348 million on other costs of closing bodies—for example, PCTs—and setting up new organisations.
In the impact assessment, long-term annual savings arising from the changes were estimated at £1.5 billion per year from 2014-15 onwards. Gross savings over the transition period—2010-11 to 2014-15—were estimated at £4.5 billion.
As I announced last year, annual savings are still expected to be £1.5 billion from 2014-15.
The reductions in administration costs up to 31 March 2014 are set out below. These are calculated on a basis consistent with the impact assessment for the Health and Social Care Bill—with the figures set aside any administrative spending on implementing the reforms.
2010-11 £m | 2011-12 £m | 2012-13 £m | 2013-14 £m | Total £m |
|---|---|---|---|---|
240 | 1,341 | 1,587 | 1,794 | 4,962 |
The cumulative savings in administration costs arising from the reforms over the period 2010-11 to 2014-15 are therefore expected to be at least £6.4 billion.
Mitochondrial Donation
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
We are today publishing the Government response to the consultation about draft regulations to allow mitochondrial donation to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease from mother to child.
Mitochondrial disease is passed from mother to child through faults in the mitochondrial DNA. It is estimated that one in 6,500 children are born every year in the UK with a serious mitochondrial DNA disorder. Serious mitochondrial disease can have a devastating effect on families, including the premature death of children, painful debilitating and disabling suffering, long-term ill-health and low quality of life.
The consultation ran between 27 February and 21 May 2014. The consultation reached a wide audience and received 1,857 responses from research bodies, patient bodies, professional organisations, faith organisations, parliamentarians and a large number of individuals. We have carefully considered all responses in deciding how to move forward with the regulations, recognising that there is a broad spectrum of widely different views.
Although the purpose of the consultation was to invite views on the detail of the draft regulations, four out of five respondents simply expressed a view for or against the principle of mitochondrial donation. Where comments were made about the detail of the regulations, respondents were generally positive about the proposed individual provisions. The Government have taken the view that our policy position on the key issues remains the correct one. As such, we will:
retain the principle behind the definition of the mitochondrial donation techniques as currently set out in the draft regulations;
retain the provision that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) would have to be satisfied that there is both a particular risk of mitochondrial abnormality and a significant risk that a person with that abnormality would have or develop a serious physical or mental disability, a serious illness or other serious medical condition;
retain the provision that the HFEA will consider each application on a case-by-case basis; and
retain the provision that the HFEA will release only non-identifying information about the mitochondrial donor to people born following mitochondrial donation when they reach age 16.
We will also include additional provisions in the regulations to clarify the consent requirements around the use and storage of eggs and embryos used in the mitochondrial donation techniques.
Alongside the consultation exercise, the Department also asked the HFEA to reconvene the expert panel to undertake a further, third, review of the efficacy and safety of the mitochondrial donation techniques. A report of that review was published in June 2014. The report found that the techniques of maternal spindle transfer and pro-nuclear transfer are potentially useful for a specific and defined group of patients and that the evidence does not suggest that these techniques are unsafe. The panel was of the view that research has progressed well since its previous two reviews, although it recommended that further experiments should be completed before clinical treatment is offered.
The Government have decided to proceed with putting regulations before Parliament, subject to giving further consideration to the expert panel’s recommendations, refining the draft regulations to take account of changes identified during the consultation, and discussion with the HFEA about an appropriate approval process. The Government will consider the timing of the regulations in the light of these actions.
The regulations will be subject to full scrutiny by the public and Parliament through the affirmative procedure.
Litvinenko Inquiry
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am announcing today the Government’s decision to establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate the death of Mr Alexander Litvinenko in November 2006. The inquiry will be established by the Home Office.
The inquiry will be chaired by Sir Robert Owen, a senior judge who is the current coroner in the inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death. Following consultation with Sir Robert, the terms of reference of the inquiry are:
1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 below, the chairman is to conduct an investigation into the death of Alexander Litvinenko in order to:
(i) ascertain, in accordance with s.5(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, who the deceased was; how, when and where he came by his death; and the particulars (if any) required by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to be registered concerning the death;
(ii) identify, so far as is consistent with s.2 of the Inquiries Act 2005, where responsibility for the death lies; and
(iii) make such recommendations as may seem appropriate.
2. That investigation is to take into account the investigations which have already been conducted by the assistant coroner for inner north London.
3. In the light of the assistant coroner’s views, expressed in his ruling of 17 May 2013, that there is no material within the relevant documents to suggest that, at any material time, Alexander Litvinenko was or ought to have been assessed as being at a real and immediate threat to his life, the inquiry will not address the question of whether the UK authorities could or should have taken steps which would have prevented the death.
My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has written to the Lord Chief Justice asking that he suspend the current inquest in accordance with schedule 1 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The coroner and the widow of Mr Litvinenko have been given advance notice of this decision.
The arrangements for the inquiry will now be a matter for Sir Robert Owen. I am very grateful to Sir Robert for continuing to lead the independent judicial investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s death. It is more than seven years since Mr Litvinenko’s death, and I very much hope that this inquiry will be of some comfort to his widow Mrs Litvinenko.
Her Majesty's Passport Office
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Her Majesty’s Passport Office annual report and accounts 2013-14 has been laid before the House today and copies will be available in the Vote Office. Publication will take place shortly.
Terrorism Legislation (Annual Report)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Mr David Anderson QC has completed his fourth annual report as the statutory independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 in 2013. This report will be laid before the House today.
I am grateful to David Anderson for his thorough report and will, following consultation with other relevant departments and agencies, publish the Government’s response as a Command Paper in due course. At that time the response will be made available in the Vote Office.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
(10 years, 3 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)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has today laid before Parliament the 2013-14 annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The appointed person is an independent person who scrutinises the use of the search power to support the measures in the Act to seize and forfeit cash used for criminal purposes.
The report gives the appointed person’s opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the search powers conferred by the Act are being exercised. I am pleased that the appointed person, Mr Douglas Bain, has expressed satisfaction with the operation of the search power and has found that there is nothing to suggest that the procedures are not being followed in accordance with the Act. Mr Bain has made two recommendations which the Government will consider.
From 1 April 2013 to the end of March 2014 over £61 million in cash was seized by law enforcement agencies in England and Wales under powers in the Act. The seizures are subject to further investigation, and the cash is subject to further judicially approved detention, before forfeiture in the magistrates’ court. These powers are a valuable tool in the fight against crime and the report shows that the way they are used has been, and will continue to be, monitored closely.
Judicial Fees
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
The Government would like to announce that as a consequence of the decisions by the:
(i) UK Supreme Court in O 'Brien v Ministry of Justice [2013] UKSC 6;
(ii) Employment Tribunal 2 Jan 2014 in Miller & Others v Ministry of Justice; and
(Hi) Employment Appeal Tribunal on 28 January 2014 in Ministry of Justice v O'Brien.
The fees payable to certain specified judicial officeholders have been increased. This change will take effect from 1 August 2014. A table of the affected judicial officeholders and their new daily fee rates has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Closed Material Procedure
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
Section 12(1) of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (“the Act”) requires the Secretary of State to prepare (and lay before Parliament) a report on the use of the closed material procedure (CMP) under section 6 of that Act. Under section 12(4) of the Act, the report must be prepared and laid before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the 12-month period to which the report relates.
I am pleased to submit the report in the form of the table below. An Unnumbered Act Paper, containing the same information, will also be laid today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office. The report covers the period from 25 June 2013 (when section 6 of the Act came into force) to 24 June 2014.
Applications for a declaration that a CMP application may be made in proceedings during the reporting period | ||
Made by the Secretary of State | 5(*) | |
Made by persons other than the Secretary of State | 0 | |
Applications for a revocation of a declaration made by a court that a CMP application may be made in proceedings during the reporting period | ||
Made by the Secretary of State | 0 | |
Made by persons other than the Secretary of State | 0 | |
Declarations that a CMP application may be made in proceedings during the reporting period | ||
in response to applications made by the Secretary of State during the reporting period | 2(**) | |
in response to applications made by the Secretary of State during previous reporting periods | 0 | |
in response to applications made by persons other than the Secretary of State during the reporting period | 0 | |
in response to applications made by persons other than the Secretary of State during previous reporting periods | 0 | |
of the court’s own motion | 0 | |
Revocations of declarations for CMP during the reporting period | ||
in response to applications made by the Secretary of State during the reporting period | 0 | |
in response to applications made by the Secretary of State during previous reporting periods | 0 | |
in response to applications made by persons other than the Secretary of State during the reporting period | 0 | |
in response to applications made by persons other than the Secretary of State during previous reporting periods | 0 | |
of the court’s own motion | 0 | |
Final judgments which are closed judgments, given under section 6 Justice and Security Act 2013 proceedings (CMP) during the reporting period | ||
Judgments made on the substantive trial. | 0 | |
Judgments made regarding the outcome of the application for a CMP declaration. | 1 | |
Final judgments which are NOT closed judgments, given under section 6 Justice and Security Act 2013 proceedings (CMP) during the reporting period | ||
Judgments made on the substantive trial. | 0 | |
Judgments made regarding the outcome of the application for a CMP declaration. | 1 |
(*) Two applications each covered two claimants; one application covered five claimants; and the remaining two applications each covered one claimant.
(**) One declaration covered two claimants; one declaration covered one claimant; and the remaining three declarations are outstanding (within the timeframe of this report).
Transport Resilience Review
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
At the beginning of March, following the extreme weather of winter 2013-14, I asked Richard Brown CBE, former chairman of Eurostar and now a non-executive director in my Department, to lead a review of the resilience of the transport network to extreme weather events. I am today publishing Mr Brown’s report.
I welcome this report and am grateful to Richard Brown and his fellow experts, Brian Smith and John Curley, for completing such a thorough analysis in time for the transport industry to consider the findings before the onset of next winter. The report considers the effects of extreme weather on roads, railways, ports and airports and makes some 60 recommendations for action by transport operators and central and local government. These range from short-term actions, such as those designed to improve basic maintenance of ditches, drains and vegetation, to longer-term recommendations, such as those on the economic signals and legislative provisions which have a bearing upon the resilience of our transport system.
As today’s report notes, transport operators on the whole responded well to last winter’s series of extreme weather events, but there were clear areas of weakness. I therefore welcome the practical measures identified to improve the transport network’s performance further at times of disruption.
Given the comprehensive nature of Richard Brown’s report, I propose to consider his recommendations in more detail and to publish a full response in due course. In the meantime, copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
New State Pension
(10 years, 3 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 committed to publishing the proposed rate for increments derived from the deferral of a new state pension when I had advice on what would be an actuarially fair rate.
Earlier this year the Department commissioned the Government Actuary to provide a report on the actuarially fair rate of increments for those reaching state pension age on or after 6 April 2016 and choosing to defer their state pension beyond state pension age.
I am pleased to confirm the report has now been received from the Government Actuary. Following careful consideration of the information provided, the proposed new rate will be one-ninth of 1% for each week the state pension is not claimed. This means a 1% increase for every nine weeks of deferral or around a 5.8% increase for each full year.
It is my intention to bring forward draft regulations later this year, under the powers in the Pension Act 2014, which will set out the proposed rate. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
In line with my commitment to the House, I will place a copy of the report in the House Library.
Remploy Employment Services
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)
The Department will be launching a commercial process for Remploy Employment Services, a leading national provider of disability employment services. This will give the company the opportunity for a partner or investor to help develop it to its full potential and help more disabled people get into work.
Over the last few years Remploy Employment Services has gone from strength to strength in the support it provides disabled people to find and remain in work. It is one of the Department’s key providers of specialist support for disabled and disadvantaged people. By March 2015, it is estimated that Remploy Employment Services will have supported over 100,000 disabled and disadvantaged people into work since 2010.
The Remploy board has expressed its desire for Remploy Employment Services to be given the opportunity to take on significant investment and the Department has been working with it to identify if there is opportunity to do this in line with the Sayce review recommendations. We both agree that there is now an excellent opportunity for an investor or partner to acquire a significant stake in Remploy Employment Services and invest in its continued growth and development. This opportunity will provide the freedom and flexibility for the business to continue to grow and expand its mission by helping even more disabled people find sustainable employment.
The commercial process for Remploy Employment Services will be launched in the next week through the normal commercial channels and further details will be available then.
This process is seeking a partner or investor for Remploy Employment Services who will hold a significant stake in the business. We envisage that a joint venture will be created and employees will hold an interest in the operation of the company.
This could be through some shareholding held on the employees’ behalf in an employee benefit trust. However the specific structure and governance arrangement linked to the creation of a company will be subject to the negotiation undertaken as part of this process and the Department is interested in any proposals which will deliver the key objectives of this transaction.
The Department will have a contractual arrangement with the new company to continue Remploy Employment Services’ national delivery of Work Choice and other Departmental contracts and agreements which are expected to be transferred as part of this process. The partner/investor will need to demonstrate the commitment, capacity and capability to continue the delivery of Work Choice and continue to grow the business in line with Remploy’s mission.
We will ensure that the Remploy pension scheme continues to be funded and that the accrued benefits of members are protected.
Our key priority during this process will be to ensure that Remploy Employment Services becomes an independent sustainable business which continues to support disabled people in finding and remaining in employment.
Review of JSA Sanctions
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)
In September 2013 Matthew Oakley was commissioned to undertake the independent review of the operation of jobseeker’s allowance sanctions validated by the Jobseekers Act 2013, as required by that Act. His report is published later today and I will publish alongside it the Government’s response.
The Oakley report says that
“Benefit sanctions provide a vital backstop in the social security system for jobseekers”
and there is clear evidence that sanctions are effective.
The Government are, however, far from complacent and I believe it is important to improve the system so it continues to work effectively. I have already started to make improvements and will build on this work through the recommendations that Matthew Oakley has made within his review.
The Government welcome and accept all his recommendations.
Grand Committee
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Lord Whitty
“National Infrastructure Plan: energy efficiency
The National Infrastructure Plan shall be altered to include investment in measures in the domestic and commercial sectors delivering reductions in energy use through increased energy efficiency and investment in such areas shall be subject to the same criteria as other items for inclusion in the Plan.”
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 94 I will speak also to Amendment 94A. The first amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Judd while the second is solely in my name. Both deal, essentially, with the same issue. The first is a general statement of principle—that energy efficiency should be considered alongside other options for the delivery of infrastructure improvements and dealt with on the same basis. The second goes into rather more detail and sets various conditions, in that any proposals would have to meet carbon targets, contribute to the reduction of fuel poverty and be compatible with and considered alongside other investments in energy infrastructure. I do not mind which of these two amendments the noble Baroness accepts. I would be quite happy with either or both, or perhaps even a better one from her, but the essential point here is that energy efficiency is underregarded when we look at the programme for national infrastructure.
The Government have produced a lot of papers on infrastructure. The one in June 2013, which was not the first, has effectively nothing about energy efficiency. There is a brief obtuse reference at one point to the Green Investment Bank but nothing else. The National Infrastructure Plan itself, which came in December 2013, had a whole chunk on energy going through all the different aspects of energy, from the heat programme through to all the different bits of generation. It mentioned the strategy for fuel poverty; the noble Baroness answered a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, a few days ago, saying it was going to be published in spring 2014, so we are slipping on that. It waits until right to the very end of the provisions on energy before it mentions smart meter rollout, the only aspect of energy efficiency which is mentioned therein. There was then another document, a finance update for the infrastructure plan, which was delivered in March this year. Again, that did not mention energy efficiency.
It is important that investment in energy efficiency is seen alongside “big bucks” investment in generation and improvements in the energy system itself. Delivering energy efficiency improvements has the best return, pound for pound, of any investment in energy in terms of carbon saving, of cost saving to the consumer and of energy saved. A relatively recent Cambridge Econometrics study showed that very clearly. It also is more labour-intensive and therefore creates more skilled and semi-skilled jobs. It benefits the whole of the country rather than part of the country, as some of the infrastructure projects do on the transport side and some of the energy ones on the employment side. Hinkley Point will be great for west Somerset, and I very much approve of it being there, but it does not benefit employment much anywhere else in the country.
I mean a range of things by energy efficiency investment. My principal concern, as noble Lords will recall, has largely been on investment in the housing stock, both in terms of retrofit and of future build. However, that is only one part of it. There are other parts of investment in infrastructure and retrofitting investment that the Government have not touched at all, which relate to commercial buildings and to the use of energy more generally in our economy and on the industrial side.
The very latest document, which the Minister was kind enough to send us last Friday, Delivering UK Energy Investment, is a superb publication. It is possibly a bit glossy, given the history of DECC in this regard, but it has obviously decided that it has to present itself effectively. The last section of the document contains a lot of information on energy efficiency, although some of it is subject to some rather specious claims. In fact, it starts out by saying that, in terms of energy intensiveness, the UK is the “least energy intensive” of all G7 economies. That, however, reflects the structure of the economy and is not a like-for-like comparison, certainly as regards our housing stock, which is universally recognised as being one of the least efficient in Europe.
The energy system itself is subject to some outmoded forms of transmission and distribution which will require attention. That is, indeed, mentioned in the document, but only in the context of the electricity demand reduction dimension of the capacity mechanism, on which we had a lot of discussion during the passage of the Energy Bill. I think Members on this side of the Committee, and many other noble Lords, find this somewhat lacking in precision as yet, but we should be grateful that it is there. However, the broader concept of energy efficiency is referred to in relation to smart meters, investment under the Green Deal and money spent under the ECO. In my opinion it gives a slightly exaggerated view of how effective that is going to be. I am in favour of the ECO. However, the provisions introduced by the Government in the last few months in response to the Prime Minister’s attack on “green crap”, which was presumably an organic predecessor of the “green blob”, means that we now have the ECO spread out over a much longer time period. It is therefore less rapid and less of an investment than was the case as it was originally conceived. Meanwhile, of course, a lot of the predecessor schemes have disappeared. Although the Government are putting some money into that provision, it is relatively low level.
Although these things are going on, they are not considered in the same light as the investment in large-scale generation, the whole of ERM or, indeed, the capacity mechanism, and they are not assessed on the same basis. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the return on energy efficiency measures, as analysed by countless economists, is much greater than the return on generation investment, whatever the form of generation we are talking about—offshore wind, nuclear, or, indeed, gas or coal—and in carbon- saving terms it is also greater. It seems to me therefore that there is a gap in our approach to national infrastructure on the energy side, although some of this applies also to the transport side because improvements in transport energy efficiency ought to be considered in the same light. If we are looking at how public and private money is spent and directed on infrastructure, investment in energy efficiency should be considered on the same basis, at the same time, with the same degree of urgency and with the same degree of government backing. That is not the case at the moment. These amendments are directed at ensuring that the widest aspects of energy efficiency are reflected in that strategy—a strategy to which the Government rightly give priority in terms of public spending on a public policy, but also one which will directly benefit the consumer and businesses operating within the UK. It will also benefit them early whereas many other investments will take five or 10 years to pay off in terms of energy supply. Therefore it will improve the economics of British industry and business in general.
So the arguments for energy efficiency in all its forms being up there as part of the infrastructure programme are pretty irrefutable. I am not saying that the Government have done nothing on this front but the failure to consider energy efficiency in the same light has meant that such programmes are regarded as lower priority and less exciting, and they are not given the same degree of importance. My amendments attempt to begin to change that. The next version of the National Infrastructure Plan, due at the end of this year or the beginning or next, should reflect this very explicitly with a whole section on energy efficiency rather that it being regulated and only partially covered in the documents. I believe that DECC recognises this but it needs wider recognition across government as a whole so that we are not dependent solely on a glossy DECC publication—welcome though that is. Right in the heart of Treasury thinking on industrial policy, energy efficiency should be up there and treated in the same way as the other infrastructure priorities. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, this is an important amendment. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave the Government credit for what has been done. A good deal has been done. I am sure that the noble Lord will have studied, as I have, the paper produced last month on the Energy Savings Opportunities Scheme. It now has its own acronym—ESOS. One can read quite a lot about ESOS.
I was very encouraged the other day by reading of a meeting attended by my noble friend Lord Deighton, the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury. To quote from a press release, my noble friend,
“today said he is ‘extremely attracted’ to the idea of reframing home energy efficiency as one of the UK’s top 40 infrastructure priorities”.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, may well be pushing at an open door. My noble friend has very considerable influence on these matters and comes to this House and his job with a very great reputation for what he succeeded in doing in the case of the Olympic Games. As most noble Lords will recognise, he is a figure to be regarded with considerable respect not only in this House but outside it, too.
My noble friend was asked by the Green Building Council chief executive, Paul King,
“whether the Government needed to change the mindset on home retrofit from thinking about 26 million small problems to one major infrastructure opportunity. Lord Deighton said he was ‘seduced’ by the idea of reframing the debate on energy efficiency and that ‘Government should lead’ on the agenda”.
Coming from that source, I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will sing from the same hymn sheet. It is perfectly clear—as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, eloquently put it—that this policy has no down side and very considerable upside attractions if one can reach the point where one needs to invest less in production because one is saving more and using energy a great deal more efficiently. That seems to be highly desirable.
It is very interesting that an organisation called the Energy Bill Revolution, which sent me a brief on this recently, quotes research from Cambridge Econometrics showing that energy efficiency schemes,
“outstripped all other investments and tax breaks by creating over 70,000 jobs by 2015, and the boosting of GDP by 0.2%”.
It goes on to say that the key reason for those figures is that the high level of job creation is because it is much more labour-intensive than many other forms of energy investment and much less material-intensive than most construction projects.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I often find myself in agreement with my noble friend. Not infrequently, I find myself in strong agreement. On this occasion, I find myself in particularly strong agreement with his amendment and was very glad to see it.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for whom I have tremendous respect, although I do not spend a lot of my time agreeing with him on political matters, spoke on this amendment. It is one of the nice things about this House. I like him and have come to respect him tremendously over the years. It is good to have a word of good wishes from him on the subject matter of the amendment.
This is an incredibly important amendment. We want to have the energy necessary to enable Britain to be an effective economic power. We also, I hope by now, have central to our strategy a concern for the well-being of our children and grandchildren and of future generations in terms of climate change. There is therefore a tension between the demand for more energy and the demand to make sure that the well-being of future generations is protected.
When we are discussing climate change, all the right things are often said, but when we come to legislation that is highly relevant to delivering the goods in terms of what is necessary in policy, it gets to the bottom of the pile or gets forgotten altogether. I am very glad that my noble friend drew attention to some of the publications in which this was true.
I shall give one personal experience which rather disturbed me. A couple of years ago, I was at a gathering of businessmen not far from where I live. They were discussing energy and the contribution our part of the world could make to the energy production that is necessary. In a good way, the discussion began to be quite personal, and people started talking about their ambitions for their children. One person after another was saying how they would love to see their son or daughter going into engineering as a career and how in Britain we need to take this more seriously. They talked about engineering this and engineering that, but not one said, “I would love to see my son or daughter working as an engineer in the sphere of energy conservation and energy efficiency”. It is something to do with our culture.
I know that I go home with a sense of anxiety that we are saying the right things about climate change and the rest of it, but so much energy is still wasted at night here in our building. It is better than it used to be, but it is still going on—and that profoundly disturbs me, in the context of leadership. We want to get into the strategic planning and the context in which everything is taking place—firmly there, at the head of the stated principles—the fact that energy conservation is a priority that must be given pride of place.
I am very glad that my noble friend has introduced this amendment. I am looking at the clock. If we have not completed our consideration of this amendment by 4.30 pm I hope that I will be forgiven by the Committee for leaving. The Ecclesiastical Committee is meeting at that time for a particularly important matter—to approve the Synod’s recommendation on the ordination of women bishops—and I really feel that on such an historic occasion those on all sides of the Committee will forgive me if I have to leave before the end of the debate on the amendment.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, I add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in trying to get energy efficiency as part of our infrastructure plans. I am also very pleased to support my noble friend Lord Jenkin. Interestingly, I also knew of the quote from the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, and, if he had not used it, I would have done.
I realise that it is always difficult for a Minister to accept anything and I am not really expecting the noble Baroness to do that today, but in the light of what has been said it is important that she can confirm that she will talk very seriously about this to her colleagues. It is clear that she has other ministerial support—it is not just coming from the people talking here in Committee. So I hope that she can do that.
I am particularly concerned, coming from the north-east, for the job creation opportunities of energy efficiency. We have already seen it happening there. One problem is that the economy may be booming in the south-east but it has not been booming quite so much in the north-east. This is one area in which we do quite well and, if the Government take this seriously, we can do even better.
I have one little point to make on a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the energy efficiency of this building. In the Royal Gallery there is a display about the works that they are doing in the Houses of Parliament. I noticed just this morning that in renewing the iron roofs they are putting in insulation.
I support what has been said in general and urge the Minister to take this seriously and perhaps come back on Report with something that we can all support.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for missing the first minute of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I support the amendment. It has always seemed to me that there is a need to find a way in which to make energy efficiency more attractive to politicians, and I think that the noble Lord may have discovered that mechanism. The trouble with politicians is that they like boys’ toys, and it is always better to build something big that you can point to, so that in your dotage—which of course none of us is anywhere near—you can say to your great-grandchildren, “I built that great monstrosity there; it was one of the reasons why I felt that I had done something”. I fear that that is quite deep in the psyche of politicians. It is always easier to build or make something and then to have something to point to. Very often, those are important activities, but it always means that energy efficiency is at the bottom of the pile.
When I was the Minister responsible in the Department of the Environment, there was a tendency to ensure that those who dealt with energy efficiency were perhaps not the most exciting of people—not perhaps as thrusting or pressing as those who dealt with the big projects. I am sure that that is no longer true and that now we have people of immense thrust, but it is important to give them some help and support. This amendment does that.
We have had today the welcome decision by the Government that the Committee on Climate Change was indeed right to say that there is no basis for changing the fourth carbon budget. So we know what we have to meet. In that circumstance, energy efficiency is a crucial part. Members of the Committee should refer to the document that the climate change committee presented to Parliament only last week—I declare an interest as its chairman. It is interesting that when we produced our review of climate change action over the past five years—it also looks forward—no one from the global warming body that opposes these things was present. Nobody was there to find out the facts. Nobody bothered to turn up. It is worth saying as often as possible that those who deny climate change or dismiss its importance rarely appear to listen to the facts. In that document we make it clear that in fact the Government have so far, with their partners, met their targets. That of course has been helped, if that is the right word, by the recession. Again, we should congratulate the Government on saying that they are not going to take advantage of that additional success by reducing the requirement in successive carbon budgets.
It is a good idea to say when Governments get things right, particularly if one is going to say something about getting it wrong. The bit they have got wrong is that we have not got the energy efficiency operation anywhere near where it has to be if we are to meet our budget. As my noble friend Lady Maddock rightly said, the Minister will find it difficult to accept this amendment here and now. However, perhaps I may end by saying why I hope she will make sure that it is accepted before the Bill is passed. By making the amendment part of our infrastructure programme, we give to it precisely that attraction—the big picture—which it lacks if we are talking about a whole series of small things, which is the point that my noble friend Lord Jenkin made and which the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, himself made in his recent intervention.
I very much hope, therefore, that my noble friend will accept that this issue is crucial to meeting our carbon budgets. Those budgets have been reaffirmed today. Would it not be a good thing to celebrate that reaffirmation by accepting in principle, if not in practice at this moment, that the amendment should be part of the Bill?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Deben will be delighted to know that last week I quoted his report several times in this Grand Committee in relation to zero-carbon homes. There were some useful data there. Also in this Grand Committee last week I welcomed the report by DECC on energy investment. The DCLG Minister at that time, though helpful, was not so interested in it. However, I congratulate DECC on its work on this issue, together with the £45 billion in investment. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, there is a whole section about energy efficiency in the report. It is the final section, and it would be nice if it moved up to the top, but it is indicative that recognition of the importance of this area is increasing.
The report, whose language I really like, states:
“There are £45-£60 billion worth of … investment opportunities”
still to be had. That looks good and we think, “Great, we can do more”, but what it means is that there is still some £65 billion-worth of work yet to be done on energy efficiency in the UK.
I can see that the Government are going in the right direction on this, but it is important to hardwire these issues into the decision-making process. This amendment provides one of the ways of starting to do that.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, in rising to support this amendment, I should first declare my interests as a farmer and landowner with renewable schemes on my property which I am involved with financially. I try to encourage others to get involved in such schemes as well. I want to talk in particular about the future of our housing infrastructure. I hope that a lot of new houses are going to be built over the next few years and it is therefore important to think about these issues at this stage. I want to take a particularly narrow line, which I hope the Committee will excuse.
It may be that my remarks would be better targeted at Amendment 95ZBB tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, but I have only just come across it so I am not quite sure what it is all about. The difference between some of the continental housing developments I have seen in recent years and ours is the much greater frequency of community heating schemes in both rural areas and new build housing estates in towns. For some reason our developers seem to shy away from community schemes, preferring individual gas-fired boilers or, in rural areas, oil-fired boilers fitted in each and every house. That must be very inefficient. I know that we have the renewable heat incentive, but clearly it is not quite enough and it tends to be used in community buildings such as churches and village halls, as well as on farms and in factories so that the heating system can be linked to one or two houses. These are quite small schemes. Plugging a new estate of 400 or 500 houses into a community heat source is really quite rare.
Lord Teverson
It may be useful if I tell the noble Lord that the RHI is not applicable to new builds, and there is a distortion because of that. We do not see community heating systems in new builds because the RHI does not apply to them.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, which certainly underlines the point I am trying to make. As I have said, I hope that lots of new housing estates are built over the next few years, so DECC and DCLG ought to look very carefully at this issue and consider how community heating schemes might be improved. The advantages are huge. For a start, they are much more efficient and thus would justify proper investment either in the new type of boiler that is required or in the overall management of the heat. In rural areas, for instance, it is often hard to justify piping gas into villages, which is obviously the cheapest form of heat, but it could be much more worth while in cases where there is a major community heating unit so that gas can be brought in to provide fuel for that one particular source of heat. That is certainly better for climate change than putting oil boilers into each and every house because that involves a huge waste of oil and energy.
Lord Deben
Does the noble Lord also agree that the ideal use of pumps, both air and earth pumps, is in new build? And yet, as my noble friend has pointed out, that is precisely the area which is not covered by the present arrangements. It would make a huge difference if that were to happen and it would certainly help towards achieving really eco-friendly new homes.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and I am glad that my remarks are invoking a certain amount of support. I totally agree with him: ground source or air source heat pumps, particularly on a large scale, are very efficient in climate change terms due to the reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases. Obviously one of the disadvantages is that you have to cost in the piping of hot water. Even with photovoltaics, the cost of those come down by something like 24% every time the number is doubled. There is a huge advantage in encouraging this because I am sure that the cost of pipes would come down, too.
Another advantage is that, as technology changes and sources of heat and efficiency go up and down, it takes only one change to get the whole community on to the most efficient fuel, burner or heat source. That is much more likely to happen than changing all the heat sources in all the houses. As I say, as our housing infrastructure catches up with the nation’s needs over the next few years—as I really hope it will, particularly in terms of affordable housing—DECC and DCLG ought to get together and ensure that these sorts of scheme are encouraged in new-build houses.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in looking at community heating. I recommend that he looks at the district heating scheme in Southampton set up many years ago. I was a councillor at the time. Alan Whitehead, the MP there, and I set that up together. Barratt Homes put a new block of flats on to that scheme. We are going back nearly 20 years, but those schemes work.
There is a housing estate in Pimlico that still has a district heating scheme. I live in a flat in Dolphin Square when I am here and am really sorry that the owners of the square came off that scheme. Ever since, we have had gas boilers. Sometimes we do not have hot water. That never happened under the district heating scheme. Those are two schemes that have been successful. I wish the Government would use some of these examples to encourage other people to take this scheme up, as it works. People used to say that it was very difficult for the reason the noble Lord gave—they want their own boiler. However, it has been done successfully and where people have it, they are very satisfied.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, when you have had such a rich and excellent debate, you find yourself in the position where everything you were going to say has been said before you by very eminent and noble people. I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate.
We are very supportive of this amendment in principle. I look forward to hearing from the Minister some, I hope, positive words about how the Government will take this proposal forward in principle and introduce it into the Bill during its passage. It is clear that, when we look at the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, this area represents something of a missed opportunity under this Government. Of the pipeline of infrastructure projects in the UK that the Treasury has collated into its Excel spreadsheet, more than half are energy projects. It is the single biggest sector in terms of the value of projects in that list. Energy is central and fundamental to any infrastructure policy. Yet here we are with not very much in the energy part of this Bill to start with. A few amendments have been added but this is really a missed opportunity to set out a very strong and strategic direction.
I am sure that the Minister will point to the fact that we spent much of last year talking about energy in the energy market reform package but that is still being implemented. On Thursday, we meet to discuss some of the detail of the statutory instruments and there are still significant issues that were debated during the process that are unresolved. I would argue that energy efficiency is one of them.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, raised the fact that today we saw the Government finally remove the question mark hanging over the fourth carbon budget. It was a recommendation from the Committee on Climate Change that was accepted but a rather insidious caveat was inserted that it would be subject to review. This has been hanging over the carbon budgeting process for some time. Today we saw final clarification that the fourth carbon budget will remain as drafted, as it is in law, and will not be subject to review. That is a very good thing. I particularly extend congratulations to the noble Lord for the work that I am sure he and his committee did in trying to ensure that the Government saw logic on this issue. I also commend the Government for listening to logic and ruling out any changes to that fourth carbon budget.
However, as the noble Lord pointed out, this now has quite serious implications for policy. The first implication is that we must—must—secure a 40% greenhouse gas reduction target in Europe if we are to have a chance of meeting our targets in the traded sector. In the non-traded sector, which means the heat market and the transport market, we will have to up our game significantly and improve the energy efficiency of our transport and heat networks. That is really the nub of this amendment. For too long, we have ignored those essential components of energy policy. How we heat our buildings, homes, offices and industries and our transportation have been sidelined in favour of big glamorous projects in the power sector. There has been—although I hope it is shifting—a perception in the department responsible for energy that real men build power stations. I have heard anecdotally that there have been posters to that effect in certain parts of the department. I hope that they have now been expunged. We have women in that department now, which is great, and a new member in the shape of Amber Rudd who I am sure will contribute greatly.
Energy is not just about cutting ribbons on large projects. It is much more complex than that. It involves massive amounts of infrastructure, which extends all the way to the buildings, housing, homes and roads that we use to transport ourselves and to live and work in. Those aspects of infrastructure should be front and centre in any infrastructure project. It will have escaped no one’s attention that energy security and reducing our reliance on imported energy are of huge importance, particularly in current times. The most sensible way to do that is to reduce the amount of energy you need to use in the first place. That is why energy efficiency is now receiving far greater attention at European level and why we in the UK should similarly up our game on this aspect in meeting our carbon budget and in helping people to occupy, live in and work in buildings that are fit for the 21st century. I see this as fundamental to the question of infrastructure. How we transport ourselves and what we live in is part of our infrastructure. It ought to be in the Bill.
There is another important point. My noble friend’s amendment covers existing infrastructure and new infrastructure. It is important that if we are embarking on this large programme of infrastructure spend, we do so wisely with energy efficiency front and centre in everything we do. This amendment is not simply about retrofitting existing infrastructure. It also requires us when we are embarking on infrastructure projects to think carefully about the energy efficiency of those projects.
People might be considering how we make this real and what energy efficiency looks like. I have three examples. I mentioned our housing stock: we have among the worst housing stock in Europe. It is appalling that a country of our wealth and history should have people living in fuel poverty in damp and unheatable homes. This has to be stopped. We have to make sure that our housing stock is upgraded to give us warm and healthy homes to live in. It is not just that. There are also large swathes of commercial and retail buildings that could be re-engineered to become smart buildings and upgraded so that they use energy wisely and minimise the amount they use.
There is also lighting. There is huge potential for reduction in emissions and energy demand from lighting from the new LED lighting that is coming on board. When we are building roads and extending infrastructure, we should be planning to have the most efficient and up-to-date technologies that will save us money in the long run.
I do not want to detain the Committee any longer. This has been an amazing debate—I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I am very much looking forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that before the legislation reaches the statute book, we will see a positive response to these amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that this has been an excellent debate. Everybody has spoken with great passion. Each and every one of us shares a common approach to making sure that we deal with energy efficiency in the round, not just for people in fuel poverty but as a commitment from our country to our carbon targets. Before I respond to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I shall put on record for my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Baroness that some of us are not playing with boys’ toys and are not interested in them but have spent a lifetime making sure that the subject that we are so passionate about is properly addressed. For those who like wearing helmets, good luck to them. I am just not one of them.
Lord Deben
I am impressed by the Minister’s statements and very much support them, but I do not quite understand why it would not be satisfactory to include this in the Infrastructure Bill. If we are doing all these things, perhaps the Government will not find it too onerous to do so. Surely she would agree that it would mean that we would put it in the right context, with the other things being done on infrastructure. I hope that, despite her feelings before the debate, she will accept that the debate suggests that it would be worth while thinking about this again and putting something in the Bill. I cannot see that there is any down side to that; I see a lot of upside, but as yet I cannot detect a down side.
Baroness Verma
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. However, I would err on the side of caution: if we do not look at this in greater detail, we might inadvertently restrict ourselves from looking at other technologies that may come on stream by putting into legislation things that are going to be restricted because we have mandated it in the legislation, when we are already doing many things that meet what noble Lords are asking for. It would probably be much more constructive to be able to say that this would not be necessary, given that we are already doing it. However, as with all things, I am very happy to talk to noble Lords outside the Room to see where they feel that I am not fulfilling this condition.
I would like to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about new build and RHI. I do not have the details for that here, but perhaps he would allow me to write to him and send copies to other Members of the Committee.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am very appreciative for all the support from noble Lords around the Committee on the principle of these amendments and, perhaps, even more delighted that in his absence the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, appears to have pre-empted me and got into the heart of the Treasury the precise intention of the amendment—that whatever else we do with energy efficiency, it needs to be considered on the same level, at the same time and on the same criteria as other infrastructure projects.
There is a lot of experience around this Room, but there is an essential truth in what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said and what my noble friend Lady Worthington said in a rather sharper tone—that infrastructure projects narrowly conceived have an attraction to Ministers that pushes out priorities that might be given to projects that are slightly more mundane but equally effective and important for the future of our economy and society.
It goes a long way back. As a very junior civil servant in the late 1960s, I was in the Ministry of Technology. It and the NRDC, as it then was, had energy efficiency as one of their objectives, but it was pretty low down the list. We had all sorts of sexy and exciting things such as Concorde and nuclear power stations to deal with, and it rarely rose above the surface. Subsequent departments, although they quite often had quite a lot of people working on energy efficiency, did not really improve that status. I become Minister for Energy Efficiency in 2001, and it was a very frustrating job, partly because it was isolated in a different department from other energy issues, but whatever the structure of Whitehall, all Ministers who have had that responsibility have found it frustrating.
In my opening remarks, I spoke about importance and priority, but status is also important. I hope that now we have energy located in one department—it has taken a few years to put it together—that the civil servants dealing with this issue are accorded status equal to that of those who are dealing with big power stations and other infrastructure projects and that that is reflected in the way in which the department operates with other departments around Whitehall, and in particular with the Treasury, which, until I heard the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I had thought was still going to be an inhibition. It appears that it is now going to be a fairly substantial supporter of the intention of these amendments. I would have thought that that might carry some weight with Ministers at DECC.
We can argue about how much is being done, and a lot is being done. We can argue about its efficacy and balance, but that is a separate argument. We are saying that we have a national infrastructure plan that is revised every year or two—I hope that will continue—and that the projects within it gain status by their inclusion in terms of capital expenditure and political attention which other projects do not have. If we are to bring together all the different aspects of energy efficiency and put it on the same basis as other infrastructure projects, it should be explicit. Indeed, in the energy section, it is arguable that it should be at the top because the degree to which you are successful at energy conservation and energy efficiency defines the degree to which you have to have new generation projects and speed up distribution and transmission.
I do not accept the Minister’s view that because a lot of things are being done and are reflected in important reports from the Government, the department, the Committee on Climate Change and other bodies we should ignore what lies behind this. Infrastructure is the word of the moment as all political parties approach the general election. I hope that whoever are the Government after the general election, infrastructure improvement remains up there in lights and if other things are up there in lights—“lights” is probably the wrong word to use in an energy debate—energy efficiency needs to be there as well. Whoever produces the next national infrastructure plan should include energy efficiency in an important place within that programme. At the moment, it is not there.
All this is not technologically specific. It is simply saying that whatever programmes there are for energy efficiency, they need to be up there in parallel and justified on the same cost-benefit or whatever analysis applies to other infrastructure projects. I do not think that on reflection the Minister would have any real difficulty with that. It appears she has the support of the Treasury. She has two or three months to think about it before we come back after the Summer Recess. I would have thought that that was ample time. If she does not like my phraseology or we need to make it more clear, defined and acceptable to her colleagues, I am quite happy with that, but the burden of argument in the Committee is that she must come back with something and that the next infrastructure plan must reflect that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Worthington
Baroness Worthington
The amendments in this group are essentially probing in nature to allow us to debate in more detail the one part of the Infrastructure Bill that touches on energy. It is worth reiterating that I find it curious that there is not more interest in the energy aspect of infrastructure and energy efficiency when more than half of the projects in HM Treasury’s pipeline are energy related; the biggest sector by value is energy. Even so, when this Bill was published it had only a few clauses related to what is in reality only a small aspect of policy, which is the community right to buy. The next business tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will allow us to have a slightly more principled debate about whether this is the right approach, while these amendments seek to elicit from the Government a little more clarity on what the thinking is.
It is clear that other countries have pursued the community ownership of energy far more effectively than we have. We need only look to Germany where there has been a huge uptake of renewable energy projects across all parts of the economy; a large proportion of them are community owned and backed. The Germans have had a far more successful experience of deployment of renewables as a result, and it is clear that this is something which needs to be explored. I am sure that other noble Lords have received various briefings on this aspect which make it clear that there are lots of different ways of securing community involvement ranging all the way from sole community ownership, whereby a community forms a co-operative or group of which it is the operator and investor, to the other end of the spectrum, which might be some kind of mandated share or stake being sold to the community. It seems that with these enabling regulations, the Government have decided in their wisdom to select just one of those options, and that is the right to a stake in renewable projects.
The first amendment, Amendment 94AA, is clearly probing in nature. We understand that if it were to be accepted, a great many consequential amendments would be necessary. The reason we tabled it was to explore with the Government why it is that community renewable projects are being singled out for this measure. In the future, renewable energy will cease to be a term because it will be integrated into energy as we know it today. A whole host of technologies are hidden behind the term “renewables”, but renewables themselves are no different from other forms of energy: they produce heat that keeps our businesses and homes running by providing power for our communities. Over time, renewables will need to stand on their own two feet and be integrated as a normal part of how we produce electricity and heat. Yet here we have a set of provisions that single renewables out as some kind of special element which needs to be governed in a certain way under a series of quite complex procedures. I find it deeply regrettable that this is not about making community energy work. It is more about providing Tory MPs and candidates with a nice soundbite to use on the doorstep: “Don’t worry. If there is a renewables project you don’t like, we will force them to sell some of it to you”. This feels like a rather cynical and quite narrow way of tackling a hugely important issue.
I do not want my speech to be interpreted in any way as being against community ownership or community involvement in renewables, and certainly I do not want it to be seen as being against renewables, but I am slightly disappointed and curious as to why the Government have selected such a narrow piece of legislation to push forward in this Bill. Amendment 94AA asks why renewables are being singled out. There will be other forms of community energy that are not from renewable sources, and this provision could apply to those as well. Why does it apply only to renewables?
The second amendment, Amendment 94AB—this touches on the debate that has just gone—opens up to community ownership projects that will reduce our demand for energy and our carbon emissions through energy efficiency, demand reduction and demand management. We have just had a lengthy debate about how the demand side of this always gets overlooked. However, here we are again, with precisely the same thing happening and renewables being singled out, but with a complete blind spot when it comes to community involvement in the infrastructure of our community and how our houses, buildings and communities are made more energy efficient. This is a huge oversight because, in reality, those energy efficiency projects will be far more successful, stand on their own and give payback periods that are probably shorter. That would excite a community and get it involved. They are also likely to need the involvement of the community because they might involve multiple sites. I can see no reason why Amendment 94AB should not be part of government thinking on this. I will be very interested to hear what the Minister will say in response.
Amendment 94AC has a similar theme. Here, we are just probing to find out why the Government’s guidelines initially indicate that the technologies classed as renewable in this case are solar and onshore wind. We do not see why offshore projects and offshore renewable projects could not be included if they are near to coastal communities. If coastal communities look out on to a wind farm, why should they not also be part of it? They could also be involved in wave and tidal projects. Is offshore not considered to be part of that and, if not, why not? We strongly suggest that it should be as inclusive as possible on all projects.
Amendment 94AD is another probing amendment to find out the Government’s view on whether facilities can be exempted and on what would be accepted as an exempted facility. I would just like clarification about what circumstances would mean that a facility would be exempted. Amendment 94AE is about the age qualification for this right—again, simply to probe and receive more information. It is quite an enabling set of regulations and we would like a bit more detail.
Similarly, the final amendment, Amendment 94AF, is to just test whether charities—I think it is fair to say that, under this Government, charities have felt slightly hard done by in recent times—are eligible to be part of this and whether they are classed as a community group and to ask for clarification on that. There are a whole range of amendments here, and I would like responses from the Minister on all of them. If she is unable to give them now, perhaps she will be kind enough to write.
The most important point I want to get across is that we have a massive opportunity here to move towards a much greater degree of community involvement in renewable energy and, indeed, in energy in general. That way, people will appreciate more what goes into creating energy, where it comes from and how they can make money from their involvement, thereby generating excitement. There is a whole raft of things that the Government could have done to make that happen. We want to see it happen because we want to see how we can match what Germany has done in terms of community engagement and up the rate of acceptance and deployment. This part of the Bill does not do the job, and we have serious concerns about it. I think we will be able to go on to debate that in a little more detail in the next group, but I look forward to the response to this group of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
This is a major step forward. It is a very positive step. I have sympathy with the amendment, but at least this enables us to get on and start down this road. If we find out how to make it work, we have opportunities to broaden it out. However, there is a question about why we are restricting it to the energy field. What about putting up a housing estate or a multiple retail store next door? The same argument applies.
Baroness Worthington
The difference is that we are going through something of a transformation from a situation where we have a limited number of generators dotted around the country, often in the most far-flung places, so that people do not have to engage with energy, and are shifting to a much more diverse, devolved and distributed system. Therefore, we have, as is widely acknowledged, political issues about managing that transition. That is the difference.
Lord Teverson
As I said, I am sympathetic and understand that. However, that is also true of other parts of the economy. and I am just making the point about how far one could extend the argument. I hope that we can prove that this works, although there is still quite a challenge, and I have an amendment on some bits of it later on. At this point, I just want to say that it is an excellent initiative and that at least we are on the first few steps of this process, even if we do not get perfection straightaway. I fully understand the points made by the noble Baroness, but this is a great start and we should get on with this, prove that it works and move on after that point.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I, too, support the idea of community involvement in projects. As I said in my Second Reading speech, I support Amendment 94AA in view of the possibility of local opposition causing projects to fail. Fracking is very controversial. It seems to me that if you could involve the local community in a fracking project in the same way as the Government are trying to do with renewables, it would be very beneficial.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I take this opportunity again to thank all noble Lords for their excellent contributions. In addressing this rather large group of amendments, I hope that I can respond to many of the points the noble Baroness raised. If I do not do so, I undertake to write to her.
Amendment 94AA seeks to extend the scope of the community electricity right to include all electricity generation facilities. While the Government strongly support community engagement in relation to the development of all energy projects, we are clear that these provisions should apply only to renewable electricity generation facilities. I would like to set out the reasons for this.
First, this measure is part of our broader approach for increasing community investment in renewables, as set out in the Community Energy Strategy. The policy was developed specifically to tackle the imbalance between national and local benefits that characterises renewable schemes. In general, there tends to be widespread support for renewable electricity developments at a national level, but this is not always reflected at a local level where the impacts are felt directly by communities. Enabling communities to invest in their local renewable electricity schemes will mean that they can gain a greater share of the financial benefits and, more importantly, feel a greater sense of ownership of schemes being developed on their doorstep. This will help to increase public engagement, acceptance and support for renewable projects at a local level. What is more, developers will also stand to gain. Experience in this country and abroad has shown that where communities have a financial stake in a local renewable development—the noble Baroness cited Germany in this regard—this often translates into less opposition and a quicker, cheaper development process.
There is already a voluntary approach that is currently developing a framework for increasing shared ownership. Only if this is not successful would we consider exercising the backstop powers. It would therefore make no sense to expand the scope to include all electricity generation projects when both the policy objective and the voluntary approach are focused solely on renewables.
On Amendment 94AB, I remind noble Lords of the importance of reporting on actions to reduce energy demand and carbon emissions. I recognise that there are many forms of community action that can make a difference to reducing our country’s carbon emissions and managing the demand of energy. The Community Energy Strategy that we published recognises the benefits of putting communities in control of the energy they use. Furthermore, it sets out how communities can get involved in reducing, generating, managing and purchasing energy.
In addition, through the Community Energy Call for Evidence, the department committed to commissioning an external research project specifically focused on energy demand and distributed energy. This research project has now concluded, and we will publish the findings shortly. While these are very important elements of growing the community energy sector and tackling climate change, they are not directly connected with the implementation of the community electricity right regulations.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who spoke on this amendment and the others in the group. I thank the Minister for her response. I cannot say it has done much to assuage my cynicism. I feel that this is more to be used in leaflets on doorsteps in Tory constituencies than anything else. That said, I understand and am grateful for the detailed responses.
This feels a slightly too restrictive interpretation of what we want to achieve with community engagement. I fear that it is slightly motivated by a desire to make renewables seem like a very special case and that there is something about them that is inherently difficult which you have to live with on your doorstep and therefore you will be given a special right which does not apply to any other type of energy project. I do not know that that is necessarily going to be a good thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a valid point about how far you go with this right to buy. I do not quite share his logic in saying that this might not be perfect but we should get on with it. This is so far from perfect that I am not sure that that logic applies.
I am very grateful for the responses. I will follow with interest whether charities end up being included on the list. I am sure that if they are not other people will be reading Hansard with great care and will follow up on that issue in particular. I do not follow the logic of the Government’s approach: “We have said it this way; therefore it has got to be this way”. There was a circular logic in some of the answers: “We have not included energy efficiency; therefore we cannot include energy efficiency” and “We do not think it should apply to offshore; therefore it does not apply to offshore”. Those are not principled responses because they just say, “This is what we are currently doing and therefore we are legislating to do what we are currently doing”. That is not necessarily the right approach.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I have said that there will be times when formal consultations are held, so it will be useful to wait and see what the results of those formal consultations are.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the noble Baroness for that, and indeed it will be interesting to see what comes back from stakeholders and whether offshore generators will accept that this is a necessary provision. It feels like this is less about securing community engagement and more about trying to send a message along the lines of, “We know that renewables are really difficult and we are sorry. We will try to do something about them”. Anyway, I look forward to the debate on the next group of amendments.
Lord Teverson
I am absolutely fascinated by the political analysis because I see this as something completely different. I do not know whether what the noble Baroness is saying suggests that this is good or it is bad. I do not think that it is some sort of Conservative move to persuade electors. Let us be quite clear: certain parts of the coalition want to stop onshore wind in its tracks. That is not the case for the whole of the coalition, but for some, and this is not an answer to that. This is a way of making it a positive thing and moving forward the programme of changing some of the ways that it works. This does not seek to give up, it tries to make it something far more workable. There is no greater advocate of wind power in the countryside than I. I revel in the fact that I can see at least 50 turbines from my house, which luckily for me is on the top of a hill where it is windy—but without a turbine.
We know that certain people and communities are quite legitimately concerned about these issues, so this is a way of involving them and giving them part of the benefit of the schemes. I do not think that it is at all cynical. If we could push things further, I would do that as well, but even so the political analysis is wrong. It is a positive development and if it is successful, it will inevitably be rolled out more widely. I agree that there probably are issues around shale, possibly more around exploration than production, but again there is something cynical in this political analysis. We all understand where cynicism comes from, but in this instance it is absolutely wrong. I am not talking about the dynamics of the two political parties which make up the coalition, but the dynamics of the coalitions between different government departments, along with other things. As is the case in all of politics, it is a broad church. This is a solution that will start things off. I want to reject all this cynicism.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the noble Lord for attempting to reject my cynicism. We know that there is an issue with the coalition Government. We know that one department is pushing renewables while another department is calling all the renewables projects in and objecting to them. I do not think that I am being paranoid in saying that there is a problem in the signals being sent to investors in renewable energy projects. It is quite apparent in the statements being made by different Ministers.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I apologise. We should move on to the next group. However, I want to clarify that it is healthy to have these debates. The noble Baroness’s own party is also having them. To make this into a political debate is, I think, wrong, because the underlying premise of the noble Baroness’s amendment is what we are all trying to achieve—greater community engagement.
Baroness Worthington
I do not dispute that. I say again that I have nothing against community engagement—in fact, I positively encourage it for all the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has outlined. As I said, it clearly helps people to move forward with renewable energy. I am simply saying that this approach is very narrow and that it inevitably puts an administrative burden on to a certain class of developers which does not apply to other developers. That is my concern. I am sure that we will talk about these issues in the next group of amendments. I do not think that I am wrong to express a healthy degree of cynicism and I am glad that I tabled these probing amendments so that we could have this debate. It is now on the record, so let us see how we get on. I am sure that it is something which will evolve over time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and to officials for having put down notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 26 stand part so late, but after I studied the amendments that had been tabled it seemed that this gave an opportunity for a wider debate on the whole question of community involvement. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for recognising that when she moved the previous amendment.
At Second Reading on 18 June, I expressed my worries about the rush to a statutory scheme when the voluntary approach seems already to produce a very good result. Since then, I have read the draft report of the Shared Ownership Taskforce, which was published a week later. One thing is abundantly clear, no doubt because of the terms of reference the task force was given by Ministers: it is wholly based on the voluntary approach to community involvement. There is no mention in the report of legislation or even the threat of it.
Yes, there was at one time pressure from some voluntary organisations to say that this would work only if the Government forced firms to give community involvement, but those organisations are not saying that now. I have had representations from some of them to say no, they are wholly in favour of the voluntary approach which seems to be working. Therefore, why do we need this so-called backstop? The Government’s argument—no doubt, we will hear this again this evening from my noble friend—is that we want the voluntary approach to work. However, to quote the words of the noble Baroness from a few moments ago, only if that approach is not successful would the Government introduce the backstop. I have a number of questions on that.
Before I come to them, I draw the attention of the Committee to the letter written by the Secretary of State last April to the chairman of the task force, Maria McCaffery, and to the task force vice-chairman, Rebecca Willis from Co-operatives UK. The Secretary of State set this out with complete clarity. He wrote:
“It is my view that shared ownership is better achieved through the flexibility and adaptability of a voluntary process and I welcome your efforts to make this a reality”.
Lower down he wrote:
“It is therefore my intention that the backstop powers will not be overly prescriptive. Regarding the timescales … I would like to reassure you that there is no intention that these powers would be exercised before 2016, if they are exercised at all”.
That is the Secretary of State’s letter, and I attach some importance to it because it is clearly what he meant. However, I fear that the reference to “before 2016” rather gives the game away. The Bill will, I hope, be law before the end of this Parliament—probably early in 2015. So what is that reassurance actually worth? It means that the Government really want to introduce this as soon as possible. That is really very bad psychology.
My first question to the Minister is: where is the evidence that the voluntary approach is not working? All the evidence that I have received suggests that it is actually working rather well. The task force itself gives examples of various models of share ownership in Annexe A of the draft report. They include: split ownership schemes, such as the Baywind Energy Co-operative in Cumbria and the Fens Co-op/EDF scheme near Spalding in Lincolnshire; shared revenue schemes, such as the Falck-Energy4All schemes, with many sites across the country, and Drumlin, with several sites in Northern Ireland; and joint ventures, such as the Neilstan Development Trust-Carbon Free Developments wind farm in East Renfrewshire. This may not be a comprehensive list but it shows that there is a good deal going on.
The question I therefore ask my noble friend is: do the Government keep a register of shared ownership schemes that are being planned, introduced and operated? Can she give me the names of any schemes where shared ownership has been refused? Is there any evidence of that? It may well be that there is, but no one has put that to me. I will be interested in her reply.
The task force’s draft report lays huge importance on the value of flexibility: different solutions for differing circumstances. I have quoted what the Secretary of State said—he did not want to be “overly prescriptive”—but is it not absolutely inevitable that statutory regulations are bound by their very nature to be prescriptive? Examples of this are already in the Bill, such as limits on the size of a scheme, limits on the size of the voluntary share, limits on the kinds of organisation that can represent the community and limits on the nature of the stake that may be held. One only has to read subsequent amendments to realise that these proposals are already causing considerable concern. So the Bill is bound to be prescriptive. The simple fact is that a voluntary system can embrace a wide range of possibilities. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and my noble friend a moment ago indicated that there would be a wide range of possibilities for voluntary community involvement.
A statutory system is bound to force future developments into a legislative straitjacket. I cannot believe that that is the right approach. Furthermore, it sends a very clear message—this point has been made to me forcefully by the industry—that, despite all their reassuring words, Ministers simply do not trust the industry to deliver. My noble friend was quite right when she talked about the main motivation for a voluntary approach being to smooth the path to local support and reduce opposition, and there is plenty of evidence for that. That is the main attraction of a voluntary approach for firms and the local community. Yet only a few hours ago I received a note from Ofgem. It made the following point:
“However, we believe there is a question about whether community energy will necessarily provide a positive outcome for consumers”.
For that we wait to see. The note continues:
“We are watching with interest around what happens with the taskforce on community energy (which we do not sit on). We may have concerns about using our enforcement powers around this if the voluntary approach does not work”.
Coming from the main regulator, those are powerful words. I hope that my noble friend will respond to that.
Ministers then say, “Don’t worry. We are going to make this very flexible in all the regulations”, but when are we going to have sight of those regulations? At Second Reading, I asked that we should see the regulations before Report. Since then, we have had the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which examined the Bill, but not the regulations, of course, because we do not have them yet. It is encouraging to note that paragraph 7 of that report states:
“We accordingly do not find … the arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of the powers, to be inappropriate. But we are conscious that, even with the amplified outline of the regulatory framework that Schedule 5 affords, the House will not begin to get a clear idea of the real shape and content of what would be a novel statutory regime until the Government provide details of the provision that would appear in instruments made under clause 26. We therefore express the hope that the Government will make available to the House, preferably before Report Stage, as much as possible of the provision that would be included in the regulations”.
That is a pretty strong recommendation from the committee.
What have we had since then? We were all working very hard on Sunday. I was talking to some of the Minister’s officials about this, and about what I was going to say, and the Minister sent me a letter, also dated Sunday last, in which she answered some of the points that we have made. Under the heading, Future details on the regulations, she writes:
“In terms of providing further details on the regulations, as my officials explained, we are strongly supportive of the voluntary approach to shared ownership and would not want to prejudice the models and approaches coming forward by drafting any secondary legislation now. The provisions as they stand retain the future flexibility in order to allow us to respond to changing circumstances, and in particular to take on board any lessons from the voluntary approach”.
I think that means we are not going to see any regulations before Report. If I may say so with great kindness to my noble friend, I do not think that she is going to get away with that. The House will want to know the details of the regulations that the Government are taking powers in the Bill to introduce. I find this a very difficult situation. So, my next question to my noble friend is: does that response mean that we are not going to see the regulations before Report? I would be grateful if she would give a very clear answer to that.
My Amendment 98AB is grouped with the provision we are discussing. There is to be a framework document but, again, we have not seen it. The draft task force report sets out the timetable for monitoring and review. I will not weary the Committee with that because I am sure that many noble Lords will have seen it already, but it is clear that there is to be a significant process of review before there is any question of introducing the backstop provision. The task force draft report states:
“Six and twelve months after the publication of the Shared Ownership Taskforce’s recommendations”—
that will be this September—
“the Taskforce will conduct reviews of commercial renewable energy developers covered by the voluntary Framework”.
Then, as the noble Baroness has told us, there will be a period of consultation, which will take time, and then there will be a period after the consultation is complete before the Government can possibly produce a response, so there will have to be a period of at least a year, but I would suggest probably two years, before there is any question of introducing a statutory scheme. However, the Bill states that the Government want to have the power within two months of it becoming law. Why on earth do they feel that that is necessary? Two years is plenty of time, and psychologically it would be right for the industry. It would feel that this really is a backstop provision and not something that the department is bent on introducing as quickly as possible.
Indeed, I would go further than that. To threaten the industry that there will be statutory powers—a narrow statutory straitjacket—when it will be pursuing a wide variety of voluntary participation schemes by local communities seems to be a very dangerous psychological error. I do not think that the Government understand how businesses react to that sort of thing, but they want to do it, and therefore they have taken the powers to do so within two months of the Bill becoming law. I cannot believe that that is the right approach.
Let me make it clear that I totally support the concept of community involvement in schemes of this sort, and indeed I have some sympathy with those who were asking in the last amendment why it was being limited to onshore renewables. We have heard that it may be extended to offshore later. In France, local communities are incentivised for major nuclear developments by being given cheap electricity. It is provided for the whole of the surrounding area. That is an extremely effective form of community involvement. It does not mean ownership, but it is something that provides a considerable community benefit. I am not suggesting that we should necessarily imitate that here, but again I totally support the notion of getting communities involved, as it were, emotionally rather than politically or financially, in the success of local energy schemes. Indeed, as noble Lords have suggested, this might even go wider than energy. However, to hang over the head of industry the threat that if it does not, it will be subject to a legislative straitjacket, is a deplorable misjudgment of the way industry behaves. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Jenkin has said, but I wonder if I might be allowed to introduce a small element. This is the first clause we have considered on the question of energy generation, and it also happens to be the main clause in the legislation that will apply to Scotland. Moreover, I always keep an eye open for this particular subject. Can the government ministerial team tell us at what stage it expects the legislative consent Motion to be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament to make sure that what we are passing here will apply to all parts of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Worthington
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for a characteristically thorough, thoughtful and detailed speech on this very important issue. I hope that if I attain his high level of expertise, I will be able to make similar speeches during my time in the House of Lords. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Some very important points of principle have been raised. Indeed, we aired some of the same concerns when considering the previous group of amendments. I support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. He sought to point out that essentially this feels like a solution in search of a problem. There is a predetermined view which says, “This is what we want to do, so now let us do it”, on not a great deal of evidence and the potential to send a rather unfortunate message to an industry that should be encouraged to expand. Given the Government’s usual approach to regulation as reflected in their Red Tape Challenge, which insists that if a new regulatory burden is put on an industry another one should be taken away, can the Minister tell us which of the renewables industry’s current regulatory impediments is going to be removed in order for this to be introduced? This is an impediment on industry. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for quoting Ofgem. That confirmed the fears I had. How is this to be administered? Will it be able to be enforced? What are the costs involved in doing this? Is it justified by any evidence that there is a problem that is not being addressed through the much more flexible, creative and, I hope, successful voluntary approach?
I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and his opposition to the clause, which I am sure is designed to elicit reassuring comments from the noble Baroness that this is not a straightjacket that the Government are rushing to introduce and that we can take some time to get this right.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friends Lord Jenkin and the Duke of Montrose, and to the noble Baroness for her contribution. This debate on Clause 26 allows me to lay out why we consider that what the Government are doing is absolutely the right approach. At the same time, I will address the matter of my noble friend’s Amendment 98AB, which seeks to delay commencement of the provisions by two years.
As we all agree, shared ownership is a key way to galvanise support and acceptance from local communities. That is critical for the future of the renewables industry. I have said previously that this Government have set out a logical and sensible approach to achieving that, first, through a voluntary means. Then, only if that is not successful, would we consider bringing forward legislation—and that only following a formal consultation.
With that in mind, I will respond to the points that my noble Friend Lord Jenkin raised today. First, I do not agree that the Government do not trust industry to deliver the voluntary approach. As I said before, the Government have set up an industry-led task force to drive an increase in shared ownership. We hope and believe that shared ownership will be achieved in that way. If we do not trust industry, as my noble friend suggested, why would we have set up a task force in the first place? I welcome the fact that the Shared Ownership Taskforce is—
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I should have explained that the question of the Government giving the impression that they do not trust industry is something of which I was informed by RenewableUK. One of its senior officials is a chairman of the task force. I have to assume that she understands that lack of trust as well. Perhaps she did not put it in her report but nevertheless her organisation made it perfectly clear to me that that is how it interprets this threat of legislation.
Baroness Verma
I am grateful for my noble friend’s intervention but reiterate that we are working closely with industry. That work, through the Shared Ownership Taskforce, is going well. We commend the publication of its draft report. However, it would be naive to expect all those in industry to welcome this with open arms. Taking legislative powers has helped bring this matter to the forefront. The possibility of legislation has encouraged industry to take this matter seriously and provide the commitment necessary for the voluntary approach to succeed. The Government’s firm view is that the backstop powers are needed precisely in order for the voluntary approach to work. It is basically a call to action.
My noble friend made the point that there is nothing stopping Government legislating, even if the voluntary approach works. I would like to be absolutely clear that that is not our intention. The backstop powers would be exercised only if the voluntary approach does not succeed. In determining success, we will be guided by the task force and the outcome of its review in 2015. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change addressed the task force to reassure it on that point. In addition, he provided further reassurance that, in order to give sufficient time for the voluntary process to take effect, there was no intention of exercising any power before 2016, if at all. In the Queen’s Speech debate in the other place, he reiterated this point:
“Since we are pursuing a voluntary approach, the power in the Bill is a back-stop. The community energy sector was clear that the voluntary approach should be given a chance to succeed, and I agree”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/14; col. 139.]
Baroness Worthington
This reminds me of a debate that we had on the Energy Bill, where there was a similar backstop measure. On the decarbonisation target, for example, we were asked to accept a form of wording that said it could not be set until 2016. Perhaps something like that could be formulated for this Bill to give people reassurance that the intention is that it will not be done until 2016.
Baroness Verma
As with all things, I listen with great care and will, of course, having done that, discuss this with my officials. If we can improve the writing of legislation, I am always happy to look at that. However, I reiterate that this is basically a backstop power. We expect industry to deliver, but let us not be naive: there will be parts of industry that do not and will not, and we therefore need to have that measure in place. Finally, exercising this power would, of course, be subject to affirmative resolution procedures and would therefore require the consent of both Houses.
The Delegated Powers Committee’s view is that these provisions are not inappropriate, in particular since they provide for the affirmative parliamentary procedure to be used. The committee hoped that we would provide as much information as possible on the shape and content of secondary regulation, and we are currently considering what we can do to satisfy this. As I am sure my noble friend is aware, when I am asked by the Delegated Powers Committee, I try my level best to ensure that as much information is available to it as possible.
I have spoken previously about the importance of not prejudicing the models coming forward through the voluntary approach and the outcome of any formal consultation. It is for these key reasons that we have not set out the finer details of implementation within primary legislation. However, I take on board my noble friend’s concerns and hope that I can offer him some comfort. We are currently considering the recommendations of the committee and, in particular, whether we can provide further briefing on what any secondary legislation might look like. The Shared Ownership Taskforce is due to publish its final report in October. Following that, we could consider how its final approach influences the details of implementation, but going any further than this now could prejudice the outcome of the task force’s consultation, which we would be loath to do. I hope to provide an update to the Committee on this matter before Report.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend would introduce a two-year delay to the commencement of these provisions, which I do not believe is the right approach. I will set out a few reasons for that. First and foremost, the current timescales associated with the voluntary and mandatory approaches are aligned. The policy as a whole creates the right impetus and drive to achieve our objective of substantially increasing shared ownership from next year. The potential to introduce backstop powers is intended to nudge industry to ensure that the voluntary process is sufficiently robust, but it also sends a very clear signal that we want to see offers to communities being made on the ground from 2015.
By contrast, the approach proposed by my noble friend would mean that when the voluntary approach is reviewed in 2015, if it were found to be unsuccessful, it could be at least until the end of 2017 or early 2018 before the powers could come into force. This would follow a formal consultation and the development of secondary legislation which is inconsistent with the approach set out in the community energy strategy.
The Duke of Montrose
The reason I raised it is because renewable energy is a devolved matter and there is always this conflict in the energy area about whether it is a renewable energy question or a fossil fuel matter.
Baroness Worthington
Will there be any regulatory deregulation on the renewables industry to compensate for these new regulatory powers? What are the administrative and cost implications of this for how we are going to police and monitor it?
Baroness Verma
I apologise for not being able to respond to the noble Baroness. I had a note to say that I would be writing to her because it was a detailed question. I will ensure that Members of the Committee get a copy.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lord Jenkin as to why Clause 26 should stand part of the Bill and convince him that delaying commencement of these provisions is not the right approach.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I take some comfort from what my noble friend said in response to this short debate. She said she will do her best to see that we get some indication of what is going to be in the regulations, and I very much welcome that. I understand her argument about not wanting to tie herself down. The Government would tie themselves down by taking a legislative power or even indicating legislative powers some years before they have to become operative because there may be many lessons to be learnt before that time. It is quite clear that we are going to have return to this on Report.
I was slightly surprised and disappointed that my noble friend told the Committee that we are not going to get the final report from the task force until October. It is having a consultation phase—and I refer to the first page of the task force draft report—before publishing the final report in September, because the task force would like to seek wider views. The difference between September and October is quite crucial, because we will resume the sittings of this Committee in October, perhaps within a day of reassembling. That will be followed in due course by Report, at which stage we will presumably wish to come back to this, having moved beyond this part of the Bill. So this is really rather important. I hope that my noble friend might be able to convey this to the chairman of the task force. She said September, and there are people in the House who would like it to be September. It should not be like so much that the department has done and slip from month to month. That is not the right way in which to do things. If you say that you are going to publish on a certain day, that is the date on which you should publish. I find the readiness to accept slippage of that sort, sometimes running into many months, rather distressing—but there we are.
I had one representation this morning from a group or a firm that is anxious that the task force is laying down prescriptive models for community participation. It sees a whole range of other things that it could do, which would achieve exactly the same objective—namely, aligning the interests of the community with those of the investor—which do not appear to be considered at all. It would want to have at least what it calls “shared generation”, in which the commercial operator ensures a proportion of the energy generated from a project is discounted off the energy bills of the houses and businesses in a specified local area. As I said a few moments ago, they have been doing that in France for years with the big nuclear power stations, and it seems to work; it provides precisely the readiness of the local community to host what otherwise might be an unwelcome, large and intrusive investment. It would be entirely appropriate for something like that to be available in these circumstances, so this is a moving scene. The minute that we encompass it in statute, it needs primary legislation or at least amendments to subordinate legislation to widen the scope.
This is unfortunate, but I accept one point that the Minister made. She set out her stall and said that there is a backstop provision in the Bill, so I can now understand why, as she put it, it would send the wrong message if we were now to take it out. I can see that, but perhaps it would have been clever not to have gone down this path at all. We might have relied on the voluntary system to take the whole thing forward and then, if it was not successful, started talking about legislation. However, that is not what has happened. We cannot take this any further this afternoon, but I hope that I have made my views clear.
Baroness Worthington
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, this has been grouped with a similar amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It concerns the one and only bit of finer detail that we see in these clauses. The Minister has just said that the Government did not want to do anything that prejudiced the findings of the task force and that they were having a consultation. A lot of helpful information has been provided, but if we are intent on not prejudicing the voluntary approach, the outcomes of the task force or the consultation and do not wish to bind ourselves with finer details, why do we see in this Bill a figure of 5% for the stake being taken in these projects? This amendment asks that question. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I am rather encouraged that there has been some detail from the Government on this point, and I welcome it. However, I want to understand a little better why this particular percentage has been chosen. My noble friend the Minister held an excellent meeting with us to go through the principles of this part of the Bill. I thought that the figure of 5% must be a minimum amount, but it actually means that it cannot be exceeded. Once you work your way around the language in which the Bill is written, you see that it means the exact opposite of what you might have thought; that is, when the regulations are produced, the minimum percentage that a company must offer should be no more than 5%.
Amendment 94AH is a probing amendment and I am not saying that my suggestion is right, but what concerns me is that if we adopt the attitude—which I do—that it is essentially to put a backstop around the hope that the voluntary schemes work, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin has so strongly advocated, in the end we must make sure that if they do not work, there is a way of ensuring that this style of ownership of these projects can move forward. Yet what we have here, or at least as far I can see in theory, is a provision which will allow the regulations to provide that the minimum should be 0% or 1%. It seems to have the potential to undermine a scheme in that companies could offer very small amounts. I have tried to change the provision by suggesting some more sensible language for it. There should be a straightforward minimum of something like 5% and possibly a maximum of 25% in terms of what the Government’s recommendation should be. Again, I say this within the context that if the public do not want to take up the offer, they will not do so and the whole amount will not be taken up, so the percentage would not be so high.
On the other hand, I can see that allowing too high a percentage as a maximum, if it were taken up for certain kinds of renewable scheme, could involve a very large sum of money—well beyond the ability of a community to meet it. I think that this should be written down in a much more positive way so that we do not have something that must not exceed a minimum. We should have a minimum and a maximum. I have explained this incredibly badly and I should have worked it out before I started to speak, but I think that that is illustrative of how this part of the Bill is written. I apologise to the Committee.
It may not be possible for the Minister to respond to my next point in detail, but I shall ask her about it anyway. There are very strict rules indeed covering the ability of companies to sell shares in their organisation to unsophisticated investors. The Financial Conduct Authority has all sorts of rules around it. I would like to understand how the Government see that important financial legislation working in this instance so that it does not become too burdensome for the energy companies to offer such financial investment opportunities and high barriers are not put in place that would prevent members of the community from actually signing up. I am myself a member of a community energy scheme and it is terribly straightforward. I presume that there may be limits on this and I am interested in understanding how we are going to make sure that it will be something of which individual members of a community can take advantage. The regulatory burden should not be too burdensome on renewable energy companies; it should help them not to transgress against the various rules of financial conduct.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
I oppose these amendments. There are dangers involved. I believe in community involvement in local energy schemes whether voluntary or, if need be, statutory, and on the whole this clause is a good proposal. As I said at Second Reading, financial involvement means that the local community does not get in knee-jerk opposition to a scheme, which is good. However, I have chaired or been on the board of several unquoted companies, and I am very much aware of the power that shareholders owning as little as 10% of the equity can have. They would probably rightly be able to claim a place on the board and by judicious use of their block of shares they can have, if so minded, a fairly negative effect on the progress of the company in question. I have experienced an instance of this where a minority shareholder on the board had an agenda different from that of the rest of the board. It is very difficult to drive forward a company under those circumstances. The shareholder can look for opportunities to block and do deals with other shareholders in a negative way.
We are trying to encourage these energy projects to get off the ground and overcome all the obstacles. Those obstacles are not only planners but energy companies, connection problems, landowner problems and certainly community problems. They all have to be focused upon. If the business involved does not remain totally focused on driving the project and overcoming all these obstacles, it can easily falter and the project will get delayed or, worse still, fold altogether. If a group could compulsorily buy in to 10% or, worse still, 20% of a local energy project, that would easily open the door to spoiling tactics by antis, whether they are anti-fracking, anti-wind, anti-PV or just BANANAs —BANANA, as your Lordships will know, stands for “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything”. In my view, 5% would be a safe upper limit for community involvement, particularly if it is compulsory, 10% would be risky and 20% would be extremely dangerous for our renewable energy industry.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I promise I am not going to try the patience of the Committee anything like as long as I did a few minutes ago. If one reads the passages in the draft report of the task force, it recommends a number of different methods by which financing could be organised. One is crowdfunding. That might be quite a good way to raise sufficient money to get the community involved. Perhaps it would not be the whole community or the BANANAs that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to, and we are all very familiar with them, but enough people for them to turn around and say “For heaven’s sake, shut up because we want this to go ahead”.
That report is quite interesting because financial circles see some difficulty of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has been describing, but this is particularly a case where the widest possible flexibility is needed. We want to see community involvement in infrastructure schemes of this sort, but we should not attempt to prescribe how that should happen. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, clearly indicated that raising the percentage might offer considerable difficulties. It should be entirely free for a local community or investor to decide how it should be done. That can really only be done under a voluntary system.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who raised some valid points, but they were over individual shareholdings, which is a separate issue, as opposed to a total collective shareholding. Further regulations could be made around maximum individual shareholdings or defining the control of those shareholdings. That is a fairly regular way in which to do this—aggregating some of these things if they are, for example, vexatious. I accept fully that there is a risk of individual shareholder activism but that is a separate issue to the community being able to have a significant or noticeable stake, as opposed to one that is, in smaller schemes, almost token.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I again thank all noble Lords for their interventions. I should like to respond to the amendments that relate to Schedule 5, in particular the concern over the maximum size of stake that can be mandated through regulations, which is currently set at 5% of the total capital costs of the renewable electricity facility. I tried carefully to follow my noble friend Lord Teverson’s first intervention. I got slightly lost, so I will go back and read it in Hansard tomorrow.
Baroness Verma
If I do not respond to him today, perhaps I may respond after reading Hansard.
I should like to take this opportunity to explain—and I hope address the noble Lord’s concerns—why we have set the 5% cap and why I am resisting the approaches proposed by both amendments. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his intervention, which—although the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested an alternative—shows the serious possibility for communities, if so minded, to be able to stop a renewable project by trying to obtain a stake bigger than 5%. Let me develop my argument a little further.
The key reason why a 5% cap has been set in the Bill is to provide certainty to developers now on the maximum size of offer that can be legislated for in the future. While the Government wholeheartedly support community investment in renewable electricity and want to see a substantial increase in shared ownership, it cannot be at the expense of investment in renewables. The 5% cap provides absolute clarity to industry on the upper limit on the size of stake it may be required to offer to communities. Although of course we would welcome developers voluntarily offering more, by contrast the approach taken by my noble friend Lord Teverson who proposed a wide range of between 5% and 25% of the total capital costs of development does not provide any meaningful degree of certainty for industry. As such it could risk deterring future investors in the renewables industry. The alternative approach proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, similarly does not provide certainty to industry on the maximum size of stake that could be legislated for in the future, since it leaves this to be defined in secondary legislation.
This takes me on to my second point which is about retaining flexibility. I recognise that the key benefit of providing a range, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Teverson, is to retain future flexibility on the maximum size of offer that can be legislated for in the future. However, the approach that we have taken also provides a sufficient degree of flexibility. The 5% cap represents the maximum that could be required, and the actual amount set in secondary legislation could vary by technology. This is important. We need to bear in mind that the scope of the powers covers a greater than 10-fold range in project size. So a 5% mandatory offer to communities might be appropriate for smaller schemes that have a lower capital cost. However, for schemes with a higher capital cost it might be more realistic to set a lower limit, for example at 1% of total project capital costs.
That takes me on to the size of the stake. It is important, when setting the cap on what may be legislated for, that the amount of investment which may be raised by the community is taken into consideration. Based on this, we consider it likely that if a multi-million pound community stake were mandated, there could be insufficient demand for this within the community even if the geographical area were quite large. That is why we have enabled a cap that would allow the offer of a mandatory stake to be set anywhere up to 5%. This approach ensures that the maximum size of stake required can be broadly aligned with the amount of investment that may be raised by the community. By contrast, the approach proposed by my noble friend Lord Teverson implies that a mandatory stake could not be set any lower than 5%. This would mean that developers could be required to offer a larger amount to the community than could plausibly be financed, particularly for larger schemes with a very high capital cost. In addition, raising the threshold to 25% may have a similar effect. Furthermore, under the Companies Act 2006 a level of 25% of shareholder equity ownership has the potential to block a special resolution. The purpose of these provisions is not to mandate that the community has a controlling stake.
That is not to say that we should not encourage developers to offer a stake greater than 5%. I would like to emphasise that this Government would fully support developers choosing to offer more in circumstances where that is appropriate. However, we do not feel that it is right to mandate this size of offer to communities since it could have such fundamental implications for project financing. The position on a 5% cap is supported by RenewableUK, the trade association for wind, which described it as an “ambitious objective”. In respect of setting a higher limit it states that this, “would simply delay a developer’s ability to secure investment from institutional and other investors”.
My noble friend Lord Teverson asked about the rules set by the Financial Conduct Authority. While developers will be required to comply with all Financial Conduct Authority rules as they are set, it would be inappropriate to change or relax those rules as they provide important safeguards for individual investors. Having introduced some clarity in this area, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Teverson
I thank the Minister for that reply. Again, I apologise for having explained my amendment quite so badly. I accept the point about a special resolution within company law but that would require a block vote and I just do not see that happening. I think that it can be responded to by perhaps having in regulations a maximum individual shareholding. Also, it is not as if this is an IPO. If a certain number of shares are offered, it is not death for the company if they are not all taken up. They can be taken up by other investors, such as perhaps institutional investors. I do not see that as being a problem in this particular case. However, I understand that the numbers I have suggested are not exactly right, and indeed I welcome the fact that we are bringing this forward in any case. I will not press my amendment.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the noble Baroness for her response and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Obviously the schedule to which these amendments apply provides quite a wide range of what a stake equals. It does not always mean that someone is taking shares in a company. It is not always going to be the case of a company owning the individual project. In fact, I am sure that what will be more common is very large companies having to create new instruments for individual projects, which will then enable the community to take part in them. I hope that the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would not be an issue of great concern in practice.
I still think that it is quite odd that in such an enabling piece of legislation which is meant to be a backstop for a voluntary approach, we have quite a prescriptive definition of the level of the stake. It is clear from the schedule that many other aspects of what that stake is are completely open and flexible on what might be included, and yet here we have the figure of 5%.
I am always nervous when I see numbers like that in primary legislation and I just hope that there will be sufficient flexibility so that it can be reviewed if necessary.
I do not want to reopen the debate, but the very fact that you need to create comfort and certainty for this class of investors in infrastructure indicates that this is not something that they are embracing with open arms—not because they do not want community involvement but because they fear that the Government’s approach is too limited and inflexible to give them the range of possibilities that they want. However, I am very happy, on the basis of the Minister’s response, to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Verma
ScheduleThe licensing levyThe amount of the levy 1 Regulations may provide for the licensing levy payable in respect of a charging period to increase or decrease over that period.
Basis of amount2 Regulations may provide for an amount of licensing levy payable by a licence holder to be calculated by reference to the size of an area to which an energy industry licence held by that person relates.
Amounts payable by different categories of licence holders3 Regulations may provide for different categories of licence holders to pay—
(a) different amounts of licensing levy, or(b) amounts of licensing levy calculated, set or determined in different ways.Exemptions4 Regulations may provide for a category of licence holder to be exempt from payment of the licensing levy.
Unpaid levy5 (1) Regulations may provide for interest (at a rate specified in, or determined under, the regulations) to be charged in respect of unpaid amounts of licensing levy.
(2) Regulations may provide for unpaid amounts of licensing levy (together with any interest charged) to be recoverable as a civil debt.
Conferral of functions6 Regulations may confer a function (including a function involving the exercise of a discretion) on—
(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) any other person, apart from the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.Categories of licence holders7 (1) Regulations (including regulations of the kinds mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4) may provide for a category of licence holder to consist of persons who hold a kind of energy industry licence specified in the regulations.
(2) The regulations may (in particular) specify any of the following kinds of energy industry licence—
(a) licences granted under a particular enactment;(b) licences of a particular description granted under a particular enactment;(c) licences, or licences of a particular description (including a description falling within paragraph (a) or (b)), granted—(i) before a particular time,(ii) after a particular time, or(iii) during a particular period.Interpretation8 In this Schedule—
“energy industry licence” means a licence falling within section (Levy on holders of certain energy licences)(1);“licence holder” means a person who holds an energy industry licence (whether the person was granted it or has, after its grant, acquired it by assignment or other means);“regulations” means regulations under section (Levy on holders of certain energy licences)(1).”
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the UK oil and gas industry is of national importance: it makes a substantial contribution to the economy and supports around 450,000 jobs. Oil and gas will continue to play a vital part in the energy mix as we transition to a low-carbon economy and will still meet around 70% of our energy demand in 2030. Therefore, it is vital that we maximise our indigenous supply, to put downward pressure on prices, support jobs and maintain secure supplies.
The Government commissioned Sir Ian Wood in June 2013 to review the regulatory regime for the UKCS because, although investment levels are rising and near-term prospects are strong, there are new challenges for exploration and production, and the environment is very different from when production peaked approximately 15 years ago. Production and exploration levels have fallen, and production efficiency has declined.
Sir Ian’s final report was published in February 2014 and included four recommendations for the Government. His independent report estimates that full and rapid implementation of his recommendations will deliver the equivalent of at least 3 billion to 4 billion barrels of oil more than would otherwise be recovered over the next 20 years, bringing over £200 billion additional value to the UK economy.
The Government have accepted Sir Ian Wood’s recommendations and last week published a formal response setting out their plans for implementation. The government amendments before the Committee are the first vital step in implementing those recommendations and will send a clear signal of the changes required to industry practice and the role of the regulator to deliver the benefits he sets out in his review.
Amendment 95ZA seeks to put the overriding principle contained in Sir Ian Wood’s report into statute, which is maximising the economic recovery of offshore UK petroleum. This is to be achieved, in particular, through the development, construction and deployment of equipment used in the petroleum industry and through collaboration among holders of petroleum licences, operators under petroleum licences, owners of upstream petroleum infrastructure and those planning and carrying out the commissioning of upstream petroleum infrastructure.
The Government and industry should work together to maximise the economic recovery of offshore petroleum from the UK. Because of the continually changing nature of regulation, the developing needs of exploration and production in the North Sea, and changes in technology and approaches, we think that the concept of MER UK is something that itself is likely to change over time. We therefore do not think that setting out the meaning of “maximising economic recovery” in primary legislation is desirable, as greater flexibility is required.
We take the view that this is better achieved through a strategy which can adapt to new challenges and the evolving needs of oil and gas regulation in the North Sea. The clause therefore requires the Secretary of State to produce a strategy for enabling the principal objective to be met and places a duty on the Secretary of State to collaborate with industry and carry out his activities in accordance with the strategy. The clause also places duties on petroleum licence holders, operators, infrastructure owners and associates of those persons to comply with that strategy. There is also a duty on those planning and carrying out the commissioning of that infrastructure. The Secretary of State is under a duty to lay before Parliament a report at the end of each reporting period on the extent to which relevant persons have acted in accordance with the strategy.
The second main provision, set out in Amendments 94B and 95ZB, provides the Secretary of State with the power to raise a levy from industry to help fund the costs of regulating this sector. This is consistent with the user pays principle and the Government’s belief that those who benefit from a service should ultimately pay for it. The power is circumscribed in a number of respects. The total amount of the licensing levy payable cannot exceed the costs of the Secretary of State carrying out his relevant functions. The levy cannot be used to recover costs in respect of areas in which a charge is payable under the Gas and Petroleum (Consents) Charges Regulations 2013 as those regulations stand when this provision comes into force. To ensure the costs are proportionate, the clauses also allow for different amounts to be charged in respect of different licences.
Finally, the levy is subject to a three-year sunset clause, which will mean that the levy arrangements are reviewed over that timeframe to ensure the system put in place is fair, effective and efficient in terms of its administrative burden. As set out in the government response to the Wood review, published last week, the Government have committed to contribute £3 million per year to the running costs of the OGA from 2016-17 for five years. This is to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to the tripartite approach to delivering MER UK and a recognition of the importance to government that the OGA is well funded from the outset. The levy will, of course, be net of this funding received from government.
For the avoidance of doubt, noble Lords should note that in due course the Government intend to set up the regulator as an arm’s-length body in the form of a government company. However, in the interim, the body will be established as an executive agency. Therefore, for the present, the legislation refers to the Secretary of State.
The other government amendments in this grouping, Amendments 95ZC, 96ZB, 97A and 98AA, are technical in nature and I do not propose to spend too long on them. Suffice to say that these clauses deal with consequential provision, the parliamentary procedure in relation to regulations, territorial extent and commencement. Amendment 95ZC amends the scope of the power in Clause 28 so that it applies also to the clauses dealing with maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, the levy on holders of certain energy licences and the relevant schedule. Amendment 96ZB amends Clause 29 so that if we amend the reference to the Gas and Petroleum (Consents) Charges Regulations 2013 as set out in the primary legislation, we would have to use the affirmative procedure. Amendment 97A is required because the Wood review amendments are to have GB extent. It also contains an amendment in relation to the extent of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Amendment 98AA relates to commencement in respect of the Wood review provisions and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.
The Government have worked at a furious pace to bring forward the measures for this Bill. However, in doing so, we have not yet been able to publish the regulatory impact assessment which normally, although unfortunately not always, would accompany the introduction of the relevant provisions. It is our firm intention to publish our assessment of the indicative range of potential costs and benefits of these powers prior to Report.
I hope it will comfort noble Lords that the industry is supportive of Sir Ian’s recommendations and has called on the Government to implement them timeously. The policy intent is to reduce regulatory burden, empower a stronger, more capable regulator that can mobilise and catalyse, and enhance the efficiency and co-ordination of activity in the UK continental shelf. The clauses we have put forward in the Bill are a key part of what is required to implement the recommendations. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I give an unreserved welcome to these new provisions. When Sir Ian Wood’s report was published last February, and the industry had had time to absorb its messages, there was almost universal support for his recommendations. I think my noble friend said that the Government have worked at a furious pace, and I recognise that. However, I wish to make two points. First, I am surprised to be told by the industry’s representative body that it was not consulted on the terms of these government amendments. It states that the industry,
“has not been consulted about the nature and format of these MER UK amendments”.
I stress as strongly as I can that in the next stages of carrying this forward—working out the strategy, dealing with the details and all the other matters which will flow from this—the Government simply must regularly consult the industry; otherwise, the good will that has been attracted by the evident swiftness in accepting a very complex and detailed report will evaporate if there is a feeling that somehow the Government are charging ahead and not taking account of what the industry wishes to say. I am sure that my noble friend will give me a very firm commitment that the Government will consult the industry on any further steps.
My other point is based to some extent on my experience as a long-standing member of various voluntary bodies and other organisations. Some years ago, I chaired an Anglo-Norwegian seminar for the Foundation for Science and Technology. The seminar was held at what was then the Institution of Electrical Engineers and was attended by the King of Norway, the Duke of Edinburgh, the managing director of BP—my noble friend Lord Browne of Madingley—and the chief executive of Statoil. A very high-level discussion took place between the British and the Norwegians on not just the North Sea but, of course, the Barents Sea. It was a fascinating morning and I certainly learnt a great deal. I chaired much of the meeting and the noble Lord, Lord Broers, chaired another part. At one point, one of my honourable friends from the other House asked the two chief executives—my noble friend Lord Browne and the Statoil CEO—what their highest priority was. The answer was, “fiscal and regulatory stability”. They make long-term investments and changes in the tax system or the regulatory system do enormous damage in undermining willingness to invest.
That event was followed, a week later, by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right honourable Gordon Brown, imposing a substantial additional tax on the industry in the North Sea, which caused huge dismay. Other Governments have done the same in the past, so it was not unique, but it was a remarkable example. Having been told that the highest priority was stability, the Government made a significant change on that sort of thing, with no notice. It really was a very astonishing response.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction to the government amendments before us. I shall speak to Amendment 95ZAA tabled in my name and the other amendments grouped with it. The Wood review was a very interesting document. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has alluded to the fact that we are now in the endgame of a 40-year period during which we have been very blessed with an industry that has been able to deliver in a safe and secure way the volumes of oil and gas that have powered our industries and made our way of living possible. It has underpinned everything we do. However, let us be in no doubt that we are coming to the end of that golden era and obviously a lot needs to be decided about what to do next.
We have the Wood review, which is a great report and to be massively commended for having only four recommendations; that is always easy to get your head around. However, the executive summary tells us the story. We have had the equivalent of 42 billion barrels of oil from the North Sea. There are now possibly only another 12 to 24 billion barrels of oil equivalent left. It is clearly a depleting resource. It is common knowledge that it peaked 15 years ago. As a result, we now see our economy being affected. Our ability to raise tax has been severely impacted by this and it has changed the revenues that we see. In fact, the Wood review makes clear that in 2013 the steep decline in productivity of this resource led to £6 billion less in tax receipts. That is not a small amount of money to try to make up. I can see perfectly why there would be a desire to extract the last barrel in order to get every drop out. This is a problem which faces us all as a community. As UK plc, it has been such a big part of our tax receipts over the past 30 to 40 years.
In the context of the Infrastructure Bill, does the implementation of the Wood review’s recommendations give us a strategic direction? Does it show that the Government understand the nature of the problem and are preparing us for the future? I would argue: not yet. There is clearly a need to implement these findings. I should state that being able to provide our own oil and gas as opposed to importing it from far-flung places is obviously of benefit in terms of security of supply, broader geopolitical stability and carbon emissions. Carbon emissions have been well regulated. Indigenous production of the fossil fuels that we still need to use will emit lower levels of carbon than importing over long distances from different parts of the world where the regulations are not governed by us and we cannot be certain of the carbon footprint.
None of that is to say that we should not do this, but because of where we are today, we need to think of the future of the continental shelf and what it will deliver for us in the next 40 years. It is quite clear that if we are to benefit from a new industry, it will be carbon capture and storage. In fact, it is mentioned in the Wood review. The purpose of tabling Amendment 95ZAA is simply to put in the Bill the recognition that we are in transition and moving to a new era where no matter how much we skirt around it, the oil and gas are running out. That problem is not explicitly stated or put front and centre of the Wood review, for probably good reasons. However, the issue is not that it is a fractured and small industry with 300 wells and a number of different companies. It is just that the resource is dwindling. We can make ourselves more efficient and increase the rate of extraction, but it will not be around for ever.
It is important that the Government of the day should realise that we need to start investing now in what will be the future industry. Carbon capture and storage provides us with a potential source of revenue and a very important tool in the armoury of the low-carbon economy. We know the Government are committed to that, but we would like to see more emphasis being placed on it. In government, we certainly would put that emphasis on it because it is fundamental to our industrial strategy for the UK. There are many ways to produce low-carbon electricity, such as nuclear or renewables. There are not that many way to produce steel, chemicals or cement if you exclude carbon capture and storage. It offers the potential to enable us to fully decarbonise our economy without at the same time de-industrialising and losing those heavy industries to other parts of the world. The key to that is ensuring that we have the infrastructure in place that enables us to build carbon capture and storage technology. I have tabled Amendment 95ZAA merely to raise the issue and ensure that government thinking is in line with this analysis and that there is a recognition that carbon capture, transportation and storage will be a big part of our infrastructure going forward.
The other two amendments are very much probing in nature and relate to the broader question of whether maximising economic recovery is compatible with our climate change commitments. As I said at the start, I am absolutely clear that there are carbon benefits to indigenous supply, and this is not intended to go against that. However, it is also of concern to people that we often hear rhetoric such as, “Well, if we don’t develop it, we’ll be buying it from somewhere else and that will be a negative thing”. That is only true in so far as the carbon footprint of extracting the asset is lower than if it comes from overseas or other sources. There is nothing inherently lower carbon about extracting the last drop of oil from the North Sea. It may well be the case at the moment, but it might not be in the future. We want to make sure that we are not ignorant of the fact that we are going to have to shift to a low-carbon economy and that there will come a point where oil and gas have to be left in the ground.
We know from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that we have roughly a 3 trillion tonne international or global carbon budget and that around half of that has already been emitted. At the rate we are going, the remaining half of the budget will be fully emitted before 2040, which is not that far away—and that is to have a safe chance of staying within a 2-degree increase in terms of global warming. At some point the oil and gas industry will have either to commit to full carbon capture and storage of all its emissions or accept that a large proportion of the oil and gas will have to stay in the ground. The reason for tabling these amendments, which as I say are very much probing amendments, is to elicit some comments from the Minister about the longer-term vision and whether we accept and acknowledge that there will come a point when our global carbon budget is exceeded and we need to do things very differently.
Amendment 95ZAC is designed to try to tease out some of the recommendations of the Wood review in a bit more detail. We understand that this is enabling legislation but we felt that it would be good to be provided with a little more detail and some assurances that the Wood review’s recommendations will be introduced.
The last amendment in my name in this group is Amendment 95ZBA, which relates to an aspect of these clauses that the noble Baroness has touched on; namely, the payment of the new regulator. We fully support the idea that this should be an arm’s-length regulator in due course and that it should be funded from receipts from industry. We have tabled this amendment simply to require the Secretary of State to report on when the regulatory body will be fully funded by that levy.
These amendments explore an area which is now the subject of a very important debate. As I have said, we have had 40 years of access to an amazing resource that has led to countless millions and billions of pounds being ploughed into our economy, many thousands of jobs being created and various successful industries being born off the back of it. Those days, I fear, are drawing to a close. There are new ways we can use the continental shelf and what it offers us, and there is infrastructure there which can be reused. Let us be under no illusion: the Wood review was needed because we are in a process of change, and I am sure there will be more changes in the future. I would like to see the Infrastructure Bill, before it leaves this House, fully acknowledge that we are in this transition and put an emphasis on new technologies, new uses of our assets, and the new infrastructure that we will need.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I want to make just a few remarks on this. I do not quite share my noble friend’s rosy picture of the effect of the oil and gas industry on the British economy. Although benefits were derived from the period during which Britain was an oil producer, it distorted the rest of the economy. That need not necessarily have been the case, had we had a plan to use the proceeds from North Sea gas and oil in a way which developed the rest of the economy. Instead, large sections of the manufacturing sector disappeared. We did not have a clear strategic plan for the totality of the economy although there was a fairly clear strategic plan as regards the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil itself.
I do not wish to prolong that situation during the decline of North Sea gas and oil. We now need to plan for the transition. That is, in a sense, what the Wood report is saying. The mechanism for doing that is in part reflected in these government amendments. They are, however, slightly odd amendments because they effectively propose the basis for a new regulator. As that regulator is not yet in being, reference is made to the Secretary of State. Presumably, the Minister will be able to confirm that at some point down the line we will have new primary legislation which sets up the structure, governance, powers and responsibilities of the new regulator, in which case some of these measures will have to be rewritten not very far down the line. I am not necessarily against that but it means that how the measure is written in relation to the Secretary of State will be different when we have a fully fledged regulator. There will be different parliamentary oversight apart from anything else.
My next point follows that made by my noble friend on carbon capture and storage. It is important to recognise that the continuing use of fossil-based fuels will not be compatible with our carbon targets unless there is some form of carbon capture and storage. Moreover, the North Sea has bequeathed us a significant natural facility for storing that carbon. The whole issue of enhanced oil recovery and the use of that storage for carbon dioxide storage in the future is vital. Indeed, in the whole of Europe, and possibly the world, there is no more obvious place where we could store the carbon produced through the continuing use of fossil fuels, with, I suspect, relatively little local opposition.
When the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and I were involved in the Select Committee report on European energy, we found that Germany and other central European countries were very opposed to carbon capture and storage taking place among their population and on their territory. However, in Britain we have a real opportunity to offer the totality of the European energy and industrial network the use of those North Sea facilities, which would last a long time. I once asked someone to put a timescale on that but it will certainly see us out and will probably be longer than the period during which we have extracted North Sea oil and gas. It is therefore important that the carbon capture and storage element is written into the strategy and the legislation paving the way to set up a new regulator, as my noble friend’s amendment would do. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept it.
My last point is tangential and requires the Minister to talk to her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Amendment 94B and the subsequent amendments seek to establish the provisions of a licence. Some noble Lords may remember that when we started to discuss this Bill a few weeks ago, we talked about a licence for a new highways company. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that that would all be dealt with in the licence. However, in relation to energy, primary legislation is required to set down what the licence will cover. I think that we need a reply from the Department for Transport at some point as to why we do not need the equivalent in relation to the corporatisation of the Highways Agency into a body that will itself require a licence. The questions that I and others have raised on the nature of this new body have been brushed off by it being said that it will all be in the licence. When we come back to the front end of this Bill, I may start asking those questions again. I do not expect the Minister to answer that now, but perhaps she or her officials could convey that to their opposite numbers in the Department for Transport.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I shall make a few observations on the speeches that we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. The Government are pursuing carbon capture and storage. They have put up £1 billion, which will probably not be necessary, and have identified projects that will be supported, one of which is the project at Peterhead, which will use the storage available in the offshore oil field. That is exactly right. I have asked questions in the past about the perfectly good saline caps onshore and why they could not similarly be used; they have exactly the same provision to be able to keep material indefinitely over millennia. Some of them are now being used for gas storage. I was pleased to hear today that there has been quite a significant increase in gas storage in recent years—something for which I and others have been arguing. It is entirely right, as the Secretary of State said in his Written Statement that,
“the principles will apply to offshore activity, however Government intend that the OGA’s remit should extend to onshore—as well as to the licensing activity for natural gas storage and unloading and carbon dioxide storage—and so, working with the respective industry stakeholders and trade groups, we will look to extend the principles accordingly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/14; col. 74WS.]
I am sure that that is right, but it prompts the question of whether these principles apply to the extraction of natural gas from shale. Different conditions may need to apply. Noble Lords have already referred to the idea of progressively replacing inevitably declining oil and gas resources with the apparently huge availability of shale gas in this country. I do not want to anticipate the debates that we will have in the autumn after the consultation on access to shale gas. However, the fact of the matter is that there are very large quantities indeed. It is interesting that the Bowland shale basin, which has been surveyed quite substantially by the British Geological Survey, is many hundreds of feet in thickness, quite apart from being two kilometres down, or whatever it is. Much of what was being extracted in America has been from comparatively slender deposits of shale. In that respect, we are sitting on a huge potential resource, which will need to be very carefully managed from all sorts of angles—environmental, and everything else. What we hope that OGA will do for the offshore oil and gas industry is to gain knowledge that will be applicable to these onshore developments, to which the Secretary of State referred in column 68 of his Written Statement. Of course he also said:
“Government will work closely with industry and other interested parties in the months ahead to undertake this work and ensure we are ready to put legislation on the additional powers before the House in the first Session of the new Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons 16/7/14; col. 75WS.]
That is keeping up with the tradition of having a new Energy Bill every Session.
This is so important, and one has to get this right. Perhaps with the addition of the amendments that the Government have tabled, this is a very important step forward. One has to recognise that this is not inevitable; it has to be very carefully managed, and with the co-operation of the industry, government and eventually the OGA, which is a key player in this, there is no reason why it should not be achieved. I look forward to this with considerable optimism. It is a very good and attractive part of the Bill, and I hope that we accept the Government’s amendments.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, again we have had some excellent contributions. I do not agree with the amendments which have been tabled by the noble Baroness and I will respond to them in due course, but I thought it would be helpful to respond first to the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. He said that the industry feels that it has not been consulted on the government amendments. I hope that I can reassure him that the Wood review itself was the subject of nine months’-worth of detailed consultation with the industry and interested stakeholders, which welcomed the recommendations and called on the Government to implement them rapidly. However, we plan to consult further on the additional regulatory powers that the body will have and on matters such as how to apply MER UK to the onshore industry and the cost recovery mechanism to pay for the new oil and gas authority. We will therefore continue to consult industry, and I hope that my noble friend can take that back, saying that industry representatives will be very much part of the discussion.
My noble friend also touched on the issue of taxation. Clearly any sensible approach to maximising economic recovery for oil and gas needs consistency between the regulatory and fiscal regimes. This was a central recommendation made by the Wood review. The Treasury, the industry and the oil and gas regulator should commit to a tripartite strategy to deliver MER UK. In Budget 2014, the Chancellor announced that the Government would conduct a review of the fiscal regime and on 14 July the Treasury launched that review. We will publish interim conclusions with the Autumn Statement. He also mentioned that the scope of the body should include onshore projects such as shale. Although the Wood review focused on actions to maximise economic recovery from the UK continental shelf offshore, Sir Ian did note that there was a strong rationale for extending the remit to the recovery of oil and gas onshore—for example, to shale. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked about the second phase. It is likely that additional legislation will be required to implement the regulatory powers that were recommended by the Wood review for setting-up the new arm’s-length body. Primary legislation will be brought forward as necessary.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. Amendment 95ZAA would extend the maximising economic recovery principle objective into the important area of enhanced oil recovery. It would also extend the principle of maximum economic recovery to carbon dioxide transport and storage. These are clearly important technologies that must be developed and deployed appropriately, and which will require a significant degree of co-ordination and collaboration between industry, government and the regulator. The EOR is a technique for increasing production from oil and gas reserves. As such, its exploration, development and co-ordination is intrinsic to maximising economic recovery and there is no need for specific provision on the face of the Bill.
The Wood review called for government, industry and the regulator to develop six sector strategies to underpin the delivery of the MER UK strategy. These include a technology strategy that would set out the key areas for progress and development of key technologies such as enhanced oil recovery to maximise economic recovery. The Government believe that the framework we propose is the best suitable means for doing so.
Baroness Verma
“The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
After section 8 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 insert—“8A The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(1) The Commissioners may do anything which they think necessary or expedient in connection with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in so far as it relates to taxes the collection and management of which is the responsibility of the Commissioners.
(2) In this section “the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative” means the international initiative of that name which has the aim of promoting openness in the management of revenues from natural resources.””
Baroness Verma
My Lords, Amendment 95 will give HMRC a new function, allowing it to participate in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which I will now refer to as “EITI”. On 22 May 2013, the Prime Minister announced that the UK will sign up to EITI. This was a key announcement under the UK’s G8 presidency. EITI provides an assurance that companies will publish what they pay for extracting natural resources and that Governments will disclose the money that they receive from this. By joining EITI and encouraging other countries to join the UK will play its part to improve the way revenues from oil, gas and minerals are managed and to make sure that people across the world share in the economic benefits of the natural resources of the countries in which they live. The amendment will ensure that HMRC will be able to participate in this important initiative and is the minimum legislation required to meet the UK’s public commitment to EITI. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I must confess that I am rather puzzled by this amendment, as indeed I was by the Prime Minister’s announcement more than a year ago that he and Mr Hollande would both sign up to EITI. EITI was, of course, an initiative by the previous Government with the very commendable aim of ensuring, as the noble Baroness said, that oil industry companies are obliged to disclose their financial transactions and treasuries are obliged to disclose the revenue. It was very commendable because it was initiated for countries where the oil industry was extremely corrupt and made clandestine payments to the Government in exchange for concessions and where taxpayers—if indeed they paid much tax at all as they were too poor—had absolutely no sight of these financial transactions. Now, even the most extreme critic of British capitalism would not, I think, say that anything like that regime obtains here so I am curious as to why we need to sign up to this system, which was entirely meant for developing countries where their resources have proved inimical rather than helpful to their development. It is also my understanding that the revenue obtained from oil companies is easily available from the Treasury in any case, so why this amendment?
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I put one small question to the Minister. We discussed in the previous amendment a new levy that will be introduced as a consequence of the Bill. Is it envisaged that that levy would be includable in EITI reports and, if so, is it a tax for the purposes of the proposed new Section 8A of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their intervention. I shall respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, first. We are transparent, but we want to show clear leadership and be part of the growing group of countries signing up to the EITI, which sends a very clear message across the industry globally that we need to have transparency in the oil, gas and mineral sector. By being part of the growing group, we are indicating that UK companies based overseas are committed to the transparency that we expect on our shores here. I do not think that there is any other purpose than to be able to show clear leadership and that it is the right thing to do. We have always tried to be transparent but, as the noble Baroness said, there are countries that need nudges. Perhaps by showing leadership and being part of an ever-extending group of countries wishing to sign up to the EITI, we can show globally that this is a direction that countries that want to show transparency are taking.
I may need to write to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, with a more detailed response on his point.
Baroness Verma
“Maximising economic recovery of UK petroleum
After section 9 of the Petroleum Act 1998 insert—“Part 1AMaximising economic recovery of UK petroleum9A The principal objective and the strategy
(1) In this Part the “principal objective” is the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, in particular through—
(a) development, construction, deployment and use of equipment used in the petroleum industry (including upstream petroleum infrastructure), and(b) collaboration among the following persons—(i) holders of petroleum licences;(ii) operators under petroleum licences;(iii) owners of upstream petroleum infrastructure;(iv) persons planning and carrying out the commissioning of upstream petroleum infrastructure.(2) The Secretary of State must produce one or more strategies for enabling the principal objective to be met.
(3) A strategy may relate to matters other than those mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b).
(4) A strategy may not impose an obligation which relates to the powers of a person to make commercial arrangements unless—
(a) the strategy imposes the obligation on relevant participants in the petroleum industry, and(b) the Secretary of State considers that the obligation will—(i) stop commercial arrangements made by those relevant participants, or associates of those relevant participants, from having a significant adverse effect on the principal objective, or(ii) reduce the extent to which such arrangements have such an effect.(5) In this section—
“associate” has the meaning given in section 91 of the Energy Act 2011;
“relevant participant in the petroleum industry” means—
(a) the holder of a petroleum licence,(b) an operator under a petroleum licence, or(c) an owner of upstream petroleum infrastructure.(6) For provision about producing and revising a strategy, see sections 9F and 9G.
9B Exercise of certain functions of the Secretary of State
The Secretary of State must act in accordance with the current strategy or strategies when—(a) exercising functions under the other Parts of this Act (except Part 4),(b) exercising functions under Part 4 to the extent that they concern reduction of the costs of abandonment of offshore installations and submarine pipelines,(c) exercising functions under Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2011 (upstream petroleum infrastructure),(d) exercising any function or using any power under a petroleum licence, and(e) exercising any other function or using any power—for the purpose of enabling the principal objective to be met.(i) to provide advice or assistance to another person, or(ii) to acquire, use or supply information,for the purpose of enabling the principal objective to be met.9C Carrying out of certain petroleum industry activities
(1) A person who is the holder of a petroleum licence must act in accordance with the current strategy or strategies when—
(a) planning and carrying out activities as the licence holder, and(b) making commercial arrangements which relate to the person’s activities as the licence holder (in so far as this does not fall within paragraph (a)). (2) A person who is an operator under a petroleum licence must act in accordance with the current strategy or strategies when—
(a) planning and carrying out activities as the operator under the licence, and(b) making commercial arrangements which relate to the person’s activities as the operator under the licence (in so far as this does not fall within paragraph (a)).(3) A person who is the owner of upstream petroleum infrastructure must act in accordance with the current strategy or strategies when—
(a) planning and carrying out the person’s activities as the owner of upstream petroleum infrastructure (including the development, construction, deployment and use of the infrastructure), and(b) making commercial arrangements which relate to the person’s activities as the owner of upstream petroleum infrastructure (in so far as this does not fall within paragraph (a)).(4) A person must act in accordance with the current strategy or strategies when planning and carrying out the commissioning of upstream petroleum infrastructure.
9D Reports by the Secretary of State
(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consider the extent to which, during that period, these persons have followed section 9C by acting in accordance with the current strategy or strategies—(i) licence holders,(ii) operators under petroleum licences,(iii) owners of upstream petroleum infrastructure, and(iv) persons planning and carrying out the commissioning of upstream petroleum infrastructure; and(b) produce a report on the results of the consideration of that question.(2) The report may contain other material, including a statement of action which the Secretary of State has taken, or is proposing to take, in response to any matter included in the report (including changes to a strategy).
(3) The Secretary of State must publish, and lay before each House of Parliament, a copy of each report produced under this section.
(4) In this section “reporting period” means—
(a) the period of two years beginning with the day when this section comes into force, and(b) each subsequent period of one year beginning with the day after the end of a previous reporting period.9E Secretary of State’s security and resilience functions
(1) This Part does not limit the exercise of the Secretary of State’s security and resilience functions.
(2) This Part is subject to the exercise of the security and resilience functions by the Secretary of State.
(3) In this section “security and resilience function” means any function which relates to—
(a) the security of petroleum supplies, or(b) the resilience of the petroleum industry.9F Producing and revising a strategy
(1) The Secretary of State must produce the first strategy before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(2) The Secretary of State may subsequently—
(a) produce a new strategy, or(b) revise a current strategy,whenever the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. (3) The Secretary of State must review each current strategy before the end of each relevant four year period.
(4) In reviewing a current strategy, the Secretary of State must (in particular) take account of the results of any consideration undertaken under section 9D in respect of reporting periods falling within the relevant four year period.
(5) In this section “relevant four year period”, in relation to a current strategy, means a period of four years beginning with—
(a) the date on which the strategy was issued, or(b) if later, the date on which the last review under subsection (3) was concluded.9G Procedure for producing and revising a strategy
(1) Before—
(a) producing the first strategy,(b) producing a new strategy, or(c) revising a current strategy,the Secretary of State must prepare a draft of the strategy or revised strategy.(2) The Secretary of State must—
(a) consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate about the draft, and(b) consider any representations made by them.(3) If, after complying with that duty, the Secretary of State decides to proceed with the draft (in its original form or with modifications), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the draft before each House of Parliament.
(4) The Secretary of State may not take any further steps in relation to the draft if, within the 40 day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft (a “negative resolution”).
(5) If neither House passes a negative resolution, the Secretary of State may issue the strategy or revised strategy in the form laid before Parliament.
(6) The strategy or revised strategy comes into force on the date specified by the Secretary of State (which must not be before the date when it is issued).
(7) Subsection (4) does not prevent a new draft of a strategy or revised strategy from being laid before Parliament.
(8) In this section “40 day period”, in relation to the draft of a strategy or revised strategy, means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament (or if the draft is not laid before each House on the same day, the later of the 2 days on which it is laid).
(9) For the purposes of calculating the 40 day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
9H “Upstream petroleum infrastructure” and its owners
(1) In this Part “upstream petroleum infrastructure” means—
(a) a gas processing facility,(b) an oil processing facility, or(c) an upstream petroleum pipeline,if and in so far as it meets conditions A and B.(2) A facility or pipeline meets condition A if and in so far as it is situated in Great Britain or relevant UK waters.
(3) A facility or pipeline meets condition B if and in so far as it is used in relation to UK petroleum (including such petroleum after it has been got).
(4) But an upstream petroleum pipeline is not “upstream petroleum infrastructure” if it is a pipeline to which section 17GA applies (petroleum pipelines subject to Norwegian access system).
(5) In this section, the following expressions have the same meanings as in Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2011 (see section 90 of that Act)—
(a) “gas processing facility”; (b) “oil processing facility”;(c) “upstream petroleum pipeline”.(6) In this Part, “owner”, in relation to upstream petroleum infrastructure, means—
(a) a person in whom the pipeline or facility is vested;(b) a lessee and any person occupying or controlling the pipeline or facility; and(c) a person who has the right to have things conveyed by the pipeline or processed by the facility.9I Other interpretation
In this Part—“current strategy”, in relation to any particular time, means a strategy under section 9A(2) in force at that time;
“operator under a petroleum licence” means a person who is responsible for organising or supervising any of the operations of searching for, boring for, or getting UK petroleum in pursuance of the petroleum licence;
“owner”, in relation to upstream petroleum infrastructure, has the meaning given in section 9H;
“petroleum” has meaning given in section 1;
“petroleum licence” means a licence granted under—
(a) section 3 of this Act, or(b) section 2 of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934;“principal objective” has the meaning given in section 9A;
“relevant UK waters” means—
(a) the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom, and(b) the sea in any area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964;“UK petroleum” means petroleum which for the time being exists in its natural condition in strata beneath relevant UK waters;
“upstream petroleum infrastructure” has the meaning given in section 9H.””
Baroness Verma
“Levy on holders of certain energy industry licences
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for a levy to be imposed on, and be payable by, one or more of the following kinds of persons—
(a) persons who hold licences under section 2 of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 or licences under section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (exploitation of petroleum);(b) persons who hold licences under section 4 of the Energy Act 2008 (unloading and storing gas);(c) persons who hold licences under section 18 of the Energy Act 2008 granted by the Secretary of State (storage of carbon dioxide).(2) No licensing levy is to be imposed in respect of a time which falls after the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the first day of the first charging period.
(3) The Secretary of State must exercise the power conferred by subsection (1) so as to secure—
(a) that the total amount of licensing levy which is payable in respect of a charging period does not exceed the costs incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising the relevant functions in respect of that period; and (b) that no levy is payable in respect of costs incurred in any exercise of relevant functions for which a charge is payable under the Gas and Petroleum (Consents) Charges Regulations 2013 (as those Regulations stand when this section comes into force).(4) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) the total amount of licensing levy payable in respect of a charging period, an amount of levy payable in respect of that period may be ignored if (during that period or subsequently)—
(a) having been paid, it is repaid or credit for it is given against other licensing levy that is payable; or(b) having not been paid, the requirement to pay it is cancelled.(5) The “relevant functions” referred to in subsection (3) are—
(a) functions under the following enactments—(i) the Pipe-lines Act 1962 (cross-country pipe-lines);(ii) section 3 and the other provisions of Part 1 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (exploitation of petroleum);(iii) Part 1A of the Petroleum Act 1998 (maximising economic recovery of UK petroleum);(iv) Part 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (submarine pipelines);(v) Part 4 of the Petroleum Act 1998, in so far as the functions concern reduction of the costs of abandonment of offshore installations and submarine pipelines;(vi) section 4 and the other provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2008 (importation and storage of combustible gas);(vii) section 18 and the other provisions of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2008 (storage of carbon dioxide);(viii) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2011 (upstream petroleum infrastructure);(b) carrying out policy work on matters relating to UK petroleum and its recovery;(c) providing advice and assistance to the petroleum industry on matters relating to UK petroleum and its recovery;(d) collaborating with the petroleum industry on matters relating to UK petroleum and its recovery;(e) acquiring, using and supplying information on matters relating to UK petroleum and its recovery;(f) encouraging development of the petroleum industry in relation to the recovery of UK petroleum;(g) carrying out, or providing advice and assistance to those carrying out, research and development in relation to technology and products relevant to the recovery of UK petroleum;(h) functions which relate to— (i) the security of petroleum supplies, or(ii) the resilience of the petroleum industry;(i) international co-operation on matters relating to UK petroleum and its recovery, including—(i) resolution of disputes relating to the entitlements of different countries in relation to petroleum fields, and(ii) openness and accountability in the management of natural resources.(6) The matters relating to UK petroleum and its recovery which fall within paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (5) include—
(a) maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, and(b) improving the supply chain of UK petroleum. (7) The amount or amounts of licensing levy payable by licence holders must be—
(a) set out in the regulations, or(b) calculated in accordance with a method set out in the regulations.(8) The licensing levy is payable to the Secretary of State.
(9) Schedule (The licensing levy) (the licensing levy) has effect.
(10) Schedule (The licensing levy) does not limit the provision that may be made by regulations under this section.
(11) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend subsection (3)(b) by adding, removing or amending a reference to any regulations made under section 188 of the Energy Act 2004.
(12) In this section and Schedule (The licensing levy)—
“charging period” means a period in respect of which licensing levy is payable;
“licensing levy” means the levy provided for in regulations under this section;
“UK petroleum” means petroleum (within the meaning given in section 1 of the Petroleum Act 1998) which for the time being exists in its natural condition in strata beneath—
(a) the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom, and(b) the sea in any area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964.”
Baroness Eaton
“Renewable heat incentives
(1) Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008 is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (2)(a)(i), after “operate the plant” insert “, or any person nominated by the owner”;(b) in subsection (2), for “the Secretary of State or the Authority” substitute “the Administrator” where it appears in paragraphs (a), (d), (e), (h) and (i);(c) in subsection (2), after paragraph (i) insert—“(j) make provision about appeals.”;(d) in subsection (3), before the definition of Authority, insert—““the Administrator” means—
(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the Authority; or(c) if the regulations so provide, a specified person other than the Secretary of State or the Authority;”;(2) Omit section 105(2)(a)(vi) of the Energy Act 2008.”
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, efficiency has been mentioned rather a lot during the proceedings in this Committee today, and I propose a brief amendment that would improve efficiency and increase the opportunity for all to benefit from the government scheme to introduce renewable heat, which will improve the UK’s most important infrastructure—mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—our buildings.
The legislation set out in the Energy Act 2008 does not allow for the assignment of renewable heating incentive payments to a third party as is permitted for feed-in tariffs. Indeed, under current powers, only the owner of the renewable heating system can receive payments for the scheme. The result is that while those with access to finance can benefit from the government scheme, those without such access will not be so fortunate. Many of them are hard-working rural families who, by living off the gas grid, have higher energy bills and a greater tendency to be fuel poor. My amendment would give the Government options on how to open the scheme most efficiently and effectively to wider funding. It would allow the renewable heat incentive to replicate the successes that have been seen with the Solar PV that has been installed so widely.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for describing her amendment and will comment briefly on the group. Starting with the last point about making administrative changes to the way the RHI works through the negative process, I do not think that is necessary—we are not there yet and I would not support it. One of the benefits we have had over the last year or two as we have been talking about the RHI is that we have had regular opportunities to discuss the issue. It is definitely not the case that everything is hunky-dory and that we can just forget about it and let it all roll on. There are still some quite important issues, and we will need to return to them and have parliamentary scrutiny over them.
Having said that, it is also true that there are some issues with the RHI that we need to see streamlined. I do not wish to sustain a bureaucratic and complex jungle of regulations, but this is a complex piece of legislation and removing parliamentary scrutiny is not going to resolve that. It is fundamentally about improving the policy over time as we become more comfortable with what the RHI is delivering. The other reason for not supporting that element of the amendment is that, unlike the RO and the FITs, this is money from the public purse and therefore requires a higher degree of public scrutiny.
I was interested to see this amendment last night, but I am afraid that I did not get a chance to speak to the noble Baroness beforehand about the background to it. Not so long ago I was at a party when someone came up to me and said, “We have just installed a renewable heat boiler”. I will not reveal any names, but the person was concerned that in order to get it going, they had had to work around the regulations as they stood because of the restriction on who can receive payments and the fact that it is not the same as self-owned or self-installed renewable technologies. I would be interested to learn about the background to this amendment and certainly I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to it. It is about flexibility around the finances that are required for what are often quite capital-intensive projects. The funding has to be arranged in a flexible way so that people who do not have a lot of capital upfront are still able to engage with the RHI through arrangements that may not be standard. There is something here that I would strongly recommend the noble Baroness to look at and perhaps come back to us. As I say, it is a simply a coincidence that someone raised this issue with me personally.
On whether Ofgem is the right body to deal with this, well, if we have a Labour Government we will not have an Ofgem, so we can revisit that question then. We will certainly have a regulator, but we will look again at how these things are taken care of. Again, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for her amendment and I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I know that we have discussed these issues on many an occasion in the Moses Room. Of course we want to make sure that the scheme is as efficient and cost-effective for the taxpayer as it possibly can be. It should deliver the benefits that have been so clearly outlined, which is something that the Government are strongly keen on pursuing.
Perhaps I may respond to my noble friend on using an alternative to Ofgem. We have seen Ofgem already successfully administering a number of schemes for the department through Ofgem E-Serve, including both the domestic and non-domestic RHI, the Renewables Obligation and feed-in tariffs. Ofgem has significant expertise in the area and has experience of running these programmes. It is also frequently evaluated to ensure that lessons are learnt both by the body and the department in order to improve the customer experience and value for money in policy administration. I think that Ofgem is the right body to be the administrator for these tools. The Government want the best kind of body to reach out to consumers. However, I take the points she raised and, listening to the noble Baroness, we have discussed on many occasions how we can improve the process. It is, of course, a complex tool so we need to ensure that it does not inadvertently exclude the very people who we are trying to assist and help.
As with all things, I must look at the upsides and the downsides of my noble friend’s amendment. What I would like to do is take it away and consider it. The amendment seems very sensible, but I would prefer to give it some thought first. Perhaps I may come back to her on Report with some further consideration.
Baroness Eaton
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for her comments and my noble friend for responding so carefully and thoughtfully to my amendment. I appreciate the fact that it will be considered and look forward to hearing her comments on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
United Nations: Secretary-General
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government do not put forward the criteria for candidates for the UN Secretary-General role. However, we would want to see a proven leader fully committed to the values of the UN, with sufficient political authority and expertise to lead and manage such a large and complex organisation. The current system whereby the Security Council nominates a single candidate for the General Assembly continues to ensure that the candidates receive maximum support.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should all send a message of solidarity to the present Secretary-General for the immense burdens that he is carrying on behalf of all the people of the world? Do not the events of Ukraine and the Middle East illustrate how vital this appointment is and that it is not too soon to prepare for his successor? In preparing for his successor, is not transparency essential in order to have the good will and support of the world community, and therefore should not a specification of the terms of reference be published? Should there not be a process open to candidates from every region of the world, and is it not essential that the General Assembly, for final approval, should be able to see a shortlist with, if need be, the recommended candidate of the Security Council?
Baroness Warsi
Of course, I join the noble Lord and this House in paying tribute to the work of the Secretary-General, and I acknowledge the immense pressure of work that he currently faces as international events unfold. I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, who through the United Nations Association has over many years raised the issue of reform in the selection and election of the Secretary-General. However, I go back to what I think is an essential element. The General Assembly and the United Nations generally have to approach these matters through a principle of consensus. The job is difficult enough without making sure that you have enough member state support behind you. It is therefore important that the support of the Security Council and the General Assembly is maintained during the selection process.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, by 2016, 71 years will have passed without there being a female Secretary-General and that it will be 35 years since there was a European Secretary-General? When she says that the United Kingdom Government have no specific criteria at this point, will she at least recognise that the 2006 Canadian non-paper had very clear specifications and recommendations? Finally, will she agree that the United Kingdom will at least not discourage—in other words, rule out—a suitable female candidate, should one come up in the final selection?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I think we all agree that, first and foremost, it is important that we find the best candidate to do this incredibly important job, and we have the pick of the world. I agree with my noble friend to this extent: we have now had eight Secretaries-General and not one of them has been female. I know that there is much discussion about a female Secretary-General being put forward, and I understand my noble friend’s position in relation to Europe having a potential candidate. I assure her that the UK will in no way try to discourage a female candidate and will get behind the best candidate, but I think she would acknowledge that the P5 would not have a candidate in that list.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, what is being done to ensure that the UN is being structurally strengthened to support the new Secretary-General, and to reflect the modern, varied and challenging new responsibilities of that office?
Baroness Warsi
I have the enviable task of being responsible for UN reform, among other things, and it is an area of my work that I find difficult. I am trying to find international consensus in an organisation that is now established as the organisation which responds to international affairs but with member states each putting forward their national interests. It is therefore important that reform is done in a way that makes the United Nations much more effective and efficient. The United Kingdom’s priority is to contain the UN budget, focus less on staff and more on delivery, link funding to results, prioritise countries and mandates, make better use of IT and streamline back-office work.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister perhaps come back to the point of the original Question and address it slightly more specifically? Are we opposed to regional pre-emption before the process even starts? If we are not, should we not be, because is that not what narrows down the gene pool quite undesirably before we have even looked at all the possible candidates?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord, with his expertise, will be aware that the United Kingdom has never formally endorsed the process of regional selection in the appointment of the United Nations Secretary-General. Like many practices, it has developed over time, through non-binding resolutions at the UN, but it is important that member states around the world should feel that the whole world has an opportunity to put forward a potential candidate.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
It is claimed that the UN Secretary-General should be either a secretary—perhaps there have been too many of those of late—or a general, like Dag Hammarskjöld. Into which category, given the current challenges facing the UN, do the Government think the new Secretary-General should fall?
Baroness Warsi
I shall not comment on potential candidates, some of whom have been named in the public domain, while others may wish to put themselves forward. I am clear that, despite the mandate of the Secretary-General, it is apparent that those with clear leadership and an ability to add their personal perspective to the issues at the UN General Assembly are those who seem to achieve real results.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister is aware of what happened when Kurt Waldheim became Secretary-General of the United Nations. Is she aware that at that time there were six candidates on the shortlist, five of whom were good? The Russians vetoed the five good ones and that is why Waldheim got the job. Can we be sure that that sort of shenanigans do not happen again?
Baroness Warsi
Of course, that Secretary-General was appointed in 1972 when I was one year old but I will try to recall that period. The noble Lord makes an important point. The P5 has a veto in relation to these matters. Even when we end up with nine approved votes at the UN Security Council, the P5 can still come along and cut across it. That is why it is important that we achieve some consensus before we get to that point.
Lord Hylton (CB)
Does the noble Baroness agree that transparency would be much better than a system of Buggins’s turn, which appears to have prevailed in the past? Is not problem-solving a very important criterion?
Baroness Warsi
Transparency is important, but agreement and consensus are also essential in getting off on the right foot.
Health: Midwives
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the sufficiency of midwives in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to improving maternity care and have charged Health Education England with ensuring that staff with the right skills are being trained and developed to meet future needs. Between May 2010 and March 2014, the numbers of full-time equivalent midwives increased by more than 1,700 and over 6,000 are in training. Health and social care is a devolved matter and the responsibility of individual devolved Administrations.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
My Lords, what are the Government actively doing to retain experienced, longer-serving midwives at a time of recruitment shortages? Why is it that, according to the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, only one in eight mothers giving birth is helped by a midwife known to her?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we attach great importance to choice in maternity care and, in particular, to each mother having a named midwife throughout the care pathway. That is what we are aiming at and what NHS England and Health Education England are charged with delivering. As regards the age profile of midwives, my advice is that there is not a particular age bulge, although we are keen to ensure that we do not lose qualified midwives who, clearly, we can ill afford to lose. However, we have made a commitment to ensure that the number of midwives in training is matched to the birth rate and, so far at least, we have been successful in that.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, continuity in care is very important, particularly when you consider that one in 10 women suffers from postnatal depression, and that number increases to four in 10 for teenage mothers. Can my noble friend reassure the House that, first, there is good identification of health needs for mothers during the prenatal stage; and, secondly, that there is one-to-one care during labour and postnatal so that these women are helped and supported?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes two important points. As I said, we attach great importance to each mother being able to have throughout the care pathway a named midwife. Improving diagnosis and services for women with pregnancy-related mental health problems is one of our objectives for maternity care. The mandate from the Government to NHS England includes an objective for NHS England to work with partner organisations to reduce the incidence and impact of postnatal depression through earlier diagnosis and better intervention and support. We are clear that midwives have a key role to play in that.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, what have we done to address demographic inequalities in the experience of childbirth, particularly for black and minority ethnic women, who often express a great lack of satisfaction with the treatment they receive during labour?
Earl Howe
My Lords, helping commissioners to reduce unwarranted variation in service delivery is one of the key roles of maternity and children strategic clinical networks, which are being established and supported by NHS England. We know from experience that these networks have a tremendously beneficial effect in ironing out inequalities in access.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend rejoice with me that independent midwives now have professional indemnity? Does he agree that they make a very valuable contribution to maternity services, especially for vulnerable women?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we naturally applaud the professionalism of independent midwives. I agree with my noble friend that it is a positive step forward that all healthcare professionals in this country have professional indemnity insurance. We must think of the patient always and, should something go wrong, it is right that every patient is protected by indemnity or insurance.
Lord Christopher (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister content that the measure of training, related only to the birth rate, is adequate? Should we not build in wastage?
Lord Christopher
Is a measure of the numbers training which is related only to the birth rate adequate, unless you also build in the wastage rate?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord makes a good point about building in a wastage rate. Since 2010, the number of midwives has increased by 5.75% and the number of births has decreased by 3.3%. This is why I indicated in my earlier answer that we were, in that sense, ahead of the curve. There is a great deal of work going on to ensure that there is no attrition or wastage during the training period, as this is a waste of the person’s skills and taxpayers’ money.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, what progress has been made in implementing the top 10 recommendations in the Eighth Report of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom, especially those relating to the 19 women who died from pre-eclampsia between 2006 and 2008, which are the latest figures we have? Can the Minister also tell us when we will get a more up-to-date report on maternal deaths?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not have information on the confidential enquiry in my brief but, according to international statistics, the NHS remains one of the safest places in the world to give birth. The latest independent CQC survey found that maternity care in England has improved, with women reporting a high level of trust and confidence in the staff caring for them. I shall gladly let my noble friend know the latest that my department has on the issues she has raised.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, did the noble Earl see the report in the Times this morning that the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust maternity unit closed 97 times in a period of 12 months due to pressure? Freedom of information requests have shown that some 62 maternity units were forced to close because of pressures in 2013. Is that not a firm indication of a shortage of midwives? Does it not show that the Government are less than active in seeking to put this right?
Earl Howe
It is up to commissioners to ensure that facilities are available to meet the needs of women who are due to give birth. There may be limited occasions when a maternity unit cannot safely accept more women into their care. That is why we have seen some temporary closures of units. Any decision to redirect women is made by a clinician as part of a carefully managed process. It is not something that suddenly happens. However, commissioners need to be alert to the risks for provider facilities that a bulge in births can create.
Learning Disabilities: Community-Based Support
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking in the light of the events at Winterbourne View hospital to ensure that people with learning disabilities inappropriately placed in hospital are able to move to community-based support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working with health and care system partners, self-advocates, family carers and other stakeholders to improve safety, quality of care and outcomes for people with learning disabilities, including reducing significantly reliance on in-patient care, by reviewing people’s care and moving them to alternative, community-based support where appropriate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that. Can he confirm that the Government set a deadline of 1 June for the transfer of thousands of people with learning disabilities out of institutions such as Winterbourne View? The latest figures show that only one in 10 such residents has actually been so moved. Will the noble Earl accept responsibility for this and tell the House what the Government intend to do about it?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Government’s mandate for NHS England in the current year includes an objective which covers Winterbourne View concordat commitments. He is right that the deadline was missed. We are not satisfied with that and we are working very hard with NHS England to set out our expectations for progress and improved rates of discharge from in-patient settings. NHS England is going to produce an action plan this August but, in the mean time, it is doing three things. It is complying with the transforming care and Winterbourne View concordat commitments, which we have tasked it to do. It will set out what progress it expects to make and by when, with milestones, and it will provide real clarity on what success looks like—an important issue if we are trying to hold it to account—and how progress will be measured.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the first six months of this year, 544 new people were admitted to assessment and treatment units and only 338 were transferred? Does he agree, therefore, that prevention is as important as discharge, and that in order to achieve both of these, skilled community support and skilled specialist support in the community are urgently needed and need to be funded?
Earl Howe
I do agree with the noble Baroness. For people who, with the right support, could and should be living in community-based settings, there is a variety of reasons why sometimes that does not happen. The lack of appropriate housing can be a barrier. For others, we know that clinical decisions are preventing discharge. NHS England is looking very carefully at how to strengthen second opinion to support people in in-patient settings to challenge the reasons for their placement as and when they need to. We are looking at making some capital funding available to support the transfer of people from in-patient care to community-based support.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, given the figures we have just heard about the number of people with learning disabilities being admitted to costly assessment and treatment units rather than leaving them, will my noble friend the Minister say what action the Government are taking to ensure that local commissioners—in both local government and the NHS—have the necessary skills and competence to deliver the high-quality local services that are needed to allow as many people as possible to return to their communities?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is absolutely right to focus on the role of commissioners. The Winterbourne View joint improvement programme has already stepped up its activity in working with local areas, including identifying 35 areas for in-depth review. NHS England is engaging with commissioners to reinforce the importance of ensuring appropriate services for people with learning disabilities close to their homes and families. That includes looking at how funding streams can be shared with local authorities so that there is no procedural blockage in the way that money moves across the system.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, on that very point of funding, how will the Government ensure that funding in fact follows the individual and does not, as so often currently occurs, remain locked into the funding of the wrong kind of provision? In asking this, I draw attention to my registered interest as vice-president of Mencap.
Earl Howe
Lessons are being learnt almost by the day by the NHS and local government on how to pool funding and share responsibility in areas of this kind. Admittedly, most of the effort at the moment is on the vulnerable elderly but the lessons apply equally to those with learning disabilities and to ensuring that we do not have any artificial walls forming between the NHS and local government as regards the flow of money. I can tell the noble Lord that this is a major area of focus for both NHS England and the Local Government Association at the moment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, given the recent resignation of the director of the joint improvement programme, which was tasked with delivering the Winterbourne View action plan only 18 months ago, will the Minister let us know what the future of the programme holds and how it will work with the new group, also tasked in a similar way, led by Sir Stephen Bubb?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have every confidence that the programme will continue as we had hoped it would, and indeed with a renewed momentum. The noble Baroness is right that NHS England has asked Sir Stephen Bubb, the chief executive of the charity leaders’ network ACEVO, to head a new group of experts and advisers to develop a national guide on how we provide health and care for those with learning disabilities. We have every confidence that Sir Stephen, with his immense experience in these areas, will be able to bring everybody together to a good result.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the only criteria that will be used in making these arrangements is the way to improve the quality of life of the user of the services rather than any bureaucratic processes set by NHS England?
Earl Howe
The fundamental principle that must underpin and inform all decisions in this area is about ensuring that we respect people with learning disabilities as individuals who have the same rights as everyone else, including the opportunities to make informed choices about where and with whom they live. The noble Lord is absolutely right.
Housing: Underoccupancy Charge
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to change their policy following the publication of their report Evaluation of the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy: Interim Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
We inherited a housing benefit system with costs spiralling and took steps to bring expenditure under control. This remains our policy. The interim report establishes an early baseline. Since the field work was completed, the numbers affected by the policy have continued to fall month on month, reported levels of arrears experienced by English housing associations have fallen, and there is emerging evidence that many landlords are adapting their building plans in response to this policy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, everything we feared about the bedroom tax has been confirmed by this research—everything. Two-thirds of affected families are disabled. As there are no small homes, only 4% have been able to downsize. They cannot move but as most cannot get discretionary housing payments, they cannot pay and stay either. So 60% are in arrears; one-third face eviction; meals are forgone; debts are mounting; grandparents are cutting back on grandchildren’s visits because they cannot afford to feed them; people cannot stay; people cannot move. Does the Minister agree and accept that the bedroom tax—the coalition bedroom tax—is profoundly wrong?
Lord Freud
This report was based on evidence from last autumn and we have had data since then that show that people are adapting. The numbers affected are falling and are now down 70,000 people; arrears have fallen in the past two quarters and rent collection remains for the Homes and Communities Agency for the social sector at 99%; homelessness numbers are reducing and are down 7% on the year. As for DHPs, we had a quarter of a million payments last year to people affected by this policy and we had £20 million returned to us unallocated. Finally, the Court of Appeal has upheld the Government’s position that DHPs are the proportionate remedy for looking after people with problems from this policy.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, as a landlord I recall that the last Labour Government brought in this very same measure for the private rented sector. So why is Labour making such a fuss now—with the Liberals apparently jumping on the bandwagon—when all this Government are doing is rolling out to the public sector what Labour did in government to the private sector?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the private sector had the LHA introduced, as my noble friend pointed out, by the previous Government. We had to take steps to constrain the spending on that. We have taken £2 billion out of that benefit for savings. The results of that also came out last week. The final report was dramatically less in its impact than the predictions that we had. Instead of landlords pulling out of the market, they have increased their supply by 7%. There has been very little evidence of displacement; a very marginal probability of moving home; and again we have had homelessness acceptances coming down. We are on the same trajectory with the spare room changes as with the LHA changes.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am starting to wonder whether the Minister and I have read the same report—
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I thank the Minister for putting this research in hand, as he promised when the ping-ponging on this measure stopped between us and the other place. I am afraid that one cannot take very much comfort from the figures. The Minister said that the figures are pretty bad; they are, in fact, awful: 60% of people getting into arrears with only 4.5% of people making a move as a result of the measure. He said that there are some more recent figures that are better; I fear that they are not very much so. Five hundred thousand families are affected by the measure and the position remains dire, with a third of landlords—
Lord Best
Will the Minister confirm that when the space standards were introduced in the private sector, the measure was not retrospective and did not apply to all people already occupying the properties? Does he accept that it is quite different in this case, where it was applied to the lettings of existing tenants, which is why it has been so harmful and so hurtful?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have told the House on previous occasions that the difference here is that there is very little changeover or moving within this particular group, so there is no way in which one could introduce this kind of policy on that kind of basis. It therefore has to apply to stock. I remind noble Lords that the impact assessment for this measure envisaged moving or downsizing on the part of about 50,000 people. Nineteen thousand people have moved during the first eight months, which is on the trajectory of our expectations.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, the Minister has read the report. The House will be aware that he has previously reassured us not to worry about the hundreds of thousands of people affected because of all the things that they can do. This report shows that every one of those has failed: they are not taking in lodgers; they cannot move; they cannot find additional hours; and they cannot downsize because there are no properties out there. This week, Chambers put “bedroom tax” into its dictionary. Is it not time for the Government to accept that they have got it wrong and make that term archaic for ever?
Lord Freud
The report was an early look at the policy. As the research says, it provides a baseline. There is evidence of people looking for work—18% of those affected are looking to earn more in work and 50% of the unemployed are doing so. As I told the House last week, the number of people in workless households in social housing is dropping dramatically. People are moving, as I just said. Nineteen thousand people have moved in the early months of the policy, which is in line with our expectation of 50,000. It is clearly stated in the report that, over two years, one might expect to see 20%.
Gangmasters (Licensing Authority) Regulations 2014
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft regulations and draft orders laid before the House on 9, 16 and 23 June be approved.
Relevant documents: 3rd, 4th and 5th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 July.
Public Bodies (Marine Management Organisation) (Fees) Order 2014
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the draft order laid before the House on 13 May be approved.
Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 July.
Birmingham Schools
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education in the other place earlier today. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the report into allegations concerning Birmingham schools arising from the so-called Trojan Horse letter. That report by Peter Clarke has been laid before the House this morning.
The abiding principle of this Government’s education policy is that schools should prepare children for life in modern Britain and, indeed, the modern world. Schools should open doors for children, not close them. That is what parents want and expect. We should be clear that this is as true for the overwhelming majority of British Muslims as it is for everyone else.
As a Government, we strongly support the right of Muslim parents to be involved in their children’s schools and their commitment to take leading roles in public life. What has been so upsetting about the history in this small handful of schools is that the success of efforts to encourage more British Muslims to take up governing roles has been damaged by the actions of a few. I sincerely hope that parents will continue to come forward to serve as governors and take leadership roles in schools.
But what Peter Clarke found is disturbing. His report sets out compelling evidence of a determined effort by people with a shared ideology to gain control of the governing bodies of a small number of schools in Birmingham. Teachers have said they fear children are learning to be intolerant of difference and diversity. Instead of enjoying a broadening and enriching experience in school, young people are having their horizons narrowed and are being denied the opportunity to flourish in a modern multicultural Britain.
There has been no evidence of direct radicalisation or violent extremism. But there is a clear account in the report of people in positions of influence in these schools, with a restricted and narrow interpretation of their faith, who have not promoted fundamental British values and who have failed to challenge the extremist views of others.
Individuals associated with the Park View Educational Trust, in particular, have destabilised head teachers, sometimes leading to their resignation or removal. Particularly shocking is the evidence of the social media discussions of the Park View Brotherhood group, whose actions,
‘betray a collective mind-set that can fairly be described as an intolerant Islamist approach that denies the validity of alternative beliefs’.
Evidence collected by Peter Clarke shows that Birmingham City Council was aware of the practices that were subsequently outlined in the Trojan Horse letter long before it surfaced.
The council published on Friday its own report by Ian Kershaw into the problems. He concluded that in some cases the council was actually a vehicle for promoting some of these problems, with head teachers being eased out through profligate use of compromise agreements rather than being supported. The council’s inability to address these problems had been exacerbated, the report found, by a culture of not wanting to address difficult problems where there is a risk of accusations of racism or Islamophobia.
We are all in the debt of Peter Clarke for the rigour that he brought to his investigation and for the forensic clarity of his findings. And we are in the debt of my predecessor, now the Chief Whip on this side of the House, for his determination in the face of criticism to invite Mr Clarke to take on this task. No Government and no Home Secretary have done more to tackle extremism than this Government and this Home Secretary. In the conclusions of the Government’s extremism task force last year, the Prime Minister made it clear that we need to deal with the dangers posed by extremism well before it becomes violent. Peter Clarke’s report offers us important recommendations to address this challenge in schools.
Our first priority after Ofsted reported its findings last month was to take action over the schools in special measures. The members at the Park View Educational Trust have now resigned, enabling outstanding head teachers from the wider Birmingham community to take on the governance of the trust and ensure a strong future for its three academies. My noble friend Lord Nash has today written to the Oldknow Trust notifying it that I will terminate its funding agreement in the light of the trust’s manifest breaches. And a new interim executive board has replaced the failing governing body of Saltley school. I pay tribute to the right honourable Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, and the honourable Member for Birmingham, Yardley, for their work with these schools.
The second priority is the progress which must be made by Birmingham City Council. I have spoken to Sir Albert Bore and we have agreed that I will appoint a new education commissioner within the council to oversee its actions, to address the fundamental criticisms in the Kershaw and Clarke reports, while building resilience in the system as a whole. The commissioner will report jointly to Birmingham’s chief executive and to me. If we are unable to make rapid progress with these new arrangements, I will not hesitate to use my powers to intervene further.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has also spoken to Sir Albert Bore about the need to address the wider weaknesses that these events have highlighted in the governance culture of the council. It has agreed that Sir Bob Kerslake will lead a review of governance in the city council, reporting with recommendations for both the short and medium term by the end of 2014.
I want also to ensure that our system of standards and accountability for all schools should better withstand the threats of extremism of all kinds. The National College for Teaching and Leadership will take the extensive evidence provided by Peter Clarke so that its misconduct panel can consider whether any teachers involved should be barred from the profession. Advice to the panel already provides that actions which undermine fundamental British values should be viewed as misconduct. I will strengthen that advice to make clear that exposing pupils to extremist speakers should be regarded as a failure to protect pupils and promote British values. I will also strengthen the advice to make it clear that prohibition from teaching should be imposed while such cases are investigated and a prohibition without review made where misconduct is proved.
We have already published a consultation on strengthening independent school standards, which apply also to academies and free schools, including a requirement actively to promote British values. Ofsted will inspect how well all schools are actively promoting fundamental British values through their curriculum. We will provide further guidance on how to improve the social, moral, spiritual and cultural development of pupils, which is also inspected by Ofsted. We will strengthen our regulations to bar unsuitable persons from running independent schools, including academies and free schools. Anyone barred in this way will also be prohibited from being a governor in any maintained school.
Peter Clarke recommends that Ofsted should be more sensitive to the signs of emerging problems. I believe that key evidence can be hidden from inspectors, and the inspection regime needs to be strengthened further. My predecessor asked Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, to look at the feasibility and practicalities of introducing no-notice inspections for schools. I am pleased that Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector has already decided—and notified schools earlier this month—that he will be broadening next term the criteria that Ofsted uses to judge whether unannounced inspection is required for a particular school. HMCI believes there are advantages to extending no-notice inspection to all schools and will use his consultation in the autumn on changes to the 2015 inspection regime to consult on whether universal no-notice or a different change to the no-notice regime should be made.
HMCI has also highlighted the need to ensure that all state-funded schools meet the requirement to teach a broad and balanced curriculum. The chief inspector is clear that this is an area where inspectors will pay more attention, and the autumn consultation will seek views on whether Ofsted needs to do more to ensure that all schools meet their requirement to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.
My predecessor commissioned a review by the Permanent Secretary on whether the department missed historical warnings in Birmingham, and he will report to me later in the summer. The department has already ensured increased scrutiny of new academy sponsors and of the governance arrangements for schools seeking to convert to academy status. We have appointed regional schools commissioners, backed by boards of local outstanding head teachers, who will bring local intelligence to decision-making on academies, but I will now improve the department’s due diligence and counterextremism division’s capacity as Peter Clarke recommends, and I will ensure that the department works in partnership with the Home Office, the Department for Communities and Local Government and other agencies to improve the intelligence available to us on whether other parts of the country are similarly vulnerable to the threats that have been exposed in Birmingham.
The report also raises questions and makes specific recommendations about other important areas including: the role of the Association of Muslim Schools UK; further action on improving school governance; how to communicate better the role of local authorities with all schools—maintained, academies and independent —over safeguarding and extremism; and how we can be sure that all schools are meeting their statutory duties. I want to reflect further on these issues, as well as all specific recommendations made in the report published today, and return to this House in the autumn on steps to be taken on these matters.
Peter Clarke’s report confirms the pattern of serious failing found by Ofsted inspection reports and identifies how the actions of a small number of individuals in some schools represented a serious risk to the safeguarding of children and the quality of education being provided. We are taking action to put things right and I will not hesitate to act in any schools where serious concerns come to light in future.
However, I want to be clear that those who seek to use this case to undermine this Government’s reform agenda will be disappointed. Today there are more than 4,000 academies and free schools serving pupils and parents up and down the country. They are helping thousands of young people, regardless of their background, to unlock their potential and become valuable and rounded members of society. The expansion of the academy programme has been one of the great success stories of this Government and the actions of a small number of individuals will not divert us from this path. The programme of reform goes on. I commend the report to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. The contents of the two reports that have led to the Statement clearly make for sobering reading. Failures in oversight and supervision go back years, to a time when the Conservative-run Birmingham City Council failed to hear the concerns of local head teachers and a delegation brought a dossier of complaints to the then Education Minister in the Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, in 2010. Those complaints were registered with promises of action, only to disappear into the bowels of the Department for Education, never to be heard of again. Since then, despite repeated concerns being raised about the consequences of a lack of scrutiny of schools, we have been reassured that processes are in place to guarantee standards. However, the fact that these latest allegations came to light not through the diligence of Ofsted inspectors but from whistleblowers clearly demonstrates that these provisions were not sufficient. Does the Minister recognise that, in retrospect, the Government should have heeded the warning messages at a much earlier stage and introduced a much more robust system of oversight? Is he now in a position to share with us what exactly happened to the complaints that were raised with the noble Lord, Lord Hill, back in 2010?
I am aware of the similarities between the two reports published today, but also aware of the different tones of their conclusions. Clearly, when dealing with matters of potential community sensitivity we need to be confident in the strength of evidence before us. So we need to acknowledge that actual evidence of incitement to violent extremism or radicalism appears to be relatively weak. This does not mean that there is not serious cause for concern about the conclusions of both Peter Clarke and Ian Kershaw.
First, it is clear that all agencies involved, including the department, Ofsted and Birmingham City Council bear some responsibility for the poor governance of these schools. There are lessons here for the appointment and training of governors, as well as for the focus of future Ofsted inspections. Does the Minister welcome the recommendations on training and accountability of governors, and does he accept the case for them to be rolled out across all schools in future?
Secondly, there are concerns that secular schools are able to focus on a narrow, single-faith doctrine that rejects and denigrates other faiths, including teaching a very narrow interpretation of the curriculum. What advice do the Government propose to give in the future about the teaching of religious tolerance in both faith and non-faith schools?
Thirdly, there are concerns that girls are being segregated and given restricted access to subjects such as sport, biology and PSHE education. Will the Minister clarify how the Equality Act sits with these practices; whether girls are entitled to be treated equally and to mix with students of the opposite sex on equal terms; and how we can be assured that these rights will be protected in all schools in the future?
Finally, is it not now time for the Government to face up to the failures of their own policies for school oversight, so aptly described by Peter Clarke as “benign neglect”? Sir Albert Bore, Labour leader of Birmingham City Council, has apologised, even though his party was in power for only a short time over this period. Should the Secretary of State not also take responsibility and apologise for the failings of the Government’s education policy to monitor effectively what was happening on their watch? Does the Minister accept that what parents, teachers and communities want is an authoritative local body that can be trusted to take up their concerns and with the power to intervene to guarantee standards? This view is shared by the Local Government Association. Our policy of having local directors of school standards to support and challenge schools to improve, and to root out problems before they set in, is exactly what is needed now.
Both reports today identified systematic failure in the current structures so, while we welcome today’s announcement that there will be a new education commissioner in Birmingham, how can we be sure that these problems are confined to Birmingham? Is there not a case for rolling out this model of supervision across the country? I hope that the Minister will accept that the Government’s schools policy is no longer fit for purpose, and that he will work with us on developing a model for proper local oversight in which everyone can have faith for the future.
Lord Nash
This is not a matter for bipartisan point-scoring but one for serious reflection on the issues that have arisen. The noble Baroness is quite right that some of the evidence suggested that these issues go back 15 years, including under a previous Government and while these schools were all maintained schools. Within a few weeks of becoming aware that issues were apparent with the academy trust described by Peter Clarke in his report as the incubator, Park View Educational Trust, we had removed the members of that trust. Clearly, that shows swift and firm action.
We, too, expect all schools to teach tolerance and we have set that out in the independent schools standards. As I say, we will be improving the social, moral, spiritual and cultural guidance on this. We do not mandate training for governors. We have 300,000 governors in this country and we are extremely grateful to them for the work that they do. We expect governors to be trained where appropriate but at this time we do not think it appropriate to mandate them. The Equality Act of course applies to all schools.
As far as our policies are concerned, there is no doubt now that the academies programme, started under the previous Government and dramatically rolled out under this Government, is an outstanding success up and down the country. Schools that have been failing for years—hundreds of them—are being dramatically transformed under academy sponsorship. The Labour Party’s solution to such issues is to have 50 to 100 new directors of school standards, all with their own bureaucracies. As far as I am concerned, I know who I would rather trust to give me advice on local issues such as the ones we have seen in Birmingham. It would be head teachers, every time, ahead of local bureaucrats. That is why we have set up our eight regional schools commissioners.
I pay tribute today to the three outstanding head teachers who have come forward to take over as the new members of the Park View Educational Trust and the speed with which they are getting to grips with the issues in those three schools, to ensure that they are safe and appropriately staffed when they open again in September. I also pay tribute here to those officials in the Department for Education who have worked so tirelessly with me over the past few months to ensure that the former members of the Park View Educational Trust have stood down.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing the Secretary of State’s Statement to the House and for the publication of Peter Clarke’s report. As he mentioned, this goes alongside Ian Kershaw’s report, which was published on Friday, about Birmingham City Council and it has the support of the Birmingham Trojan horse review group, of which I am a member. That group has published its own, wider recommendations in this complex and troubling period. Does the Minister agree that both reports are thorough and hard-hitting, and that there is much in common in their findings?
Will he also affirm that it is vital now that we have a co-ordinated effort across all interested parties and responsible bodies, not only to rectify wrongdoing and implement the welcome recommendations of both reports but to ensure that every child in Birmingham has an excellent education, preparing her or him to flourish in our liberal 21st-century democracy, so that they can start the new academic year in September confident that the proper structures, monitoring and support are in place? Can he also reassure the House that, given the arrangements he is proposing, with these rapid and responsible responses to new structures and influences in Birmingham, we will be absolutely clear by September who is responsible for what in this revolutionary period in our education system? Will sufficient resource be directed to enable local authorities and their partners, new and old, to achieve this safeguarding, which is the responsibility for all children, in whatever form of education or schools they are, and can he reassure the House that they will receive that?
May I also make a wider point about this complex matter? Faith, in a city such as Birmingham, is of great importance to a huge number of the population, which is perhaps unusual across the population of the country. The issues that we face in these reports are wider than just education and, of course, the Prevent strategy, such as making sure that proper arrangements are in place for the safety of all. Will the Secretary of State’s department consider taking responsibility for developing a new awareness and experience among all professionals, of whatever responsibility, of what lived faith looks like in a 21st century city and enable a wider conversation about faith, not only in education but throughout civil society?
Lord Nash
I welcome the right reverend Prelate’s “look forward” approach to this matter and am grateful to the diocese of Birmingham for its support for the schools and academies programme and its collaborative approach to working both with the department and with other dioceses. As the right reverend Prelate says, both reports are hard-hitting. We should all take stock and analyse all the recommendations.
As for being clear by September who is responsible for what in these schools, it is clear now today that we have changed the members of the Park View Educational Trust, which was responsible for three academies, Park View, Golden Hillock and Nansen Primary. They will become trustees of the trust. We will bring in further outstanding heads as trustees, who will be responsible between now and the beginning of September for securing the schools and analysing which teachers may have behaved inappropriately. They will not hesitate to take the right action against any teachers who have behaved unprofessionally and will make sure the schools are safe and ready for opening in September. Probably during August, we will work with potential sponsors for these schools to ensure their long-term future. This has invited a wider discussion about faith, which is very welcome.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s Statement. Sometimes good can come out of a difficult situation. I have four questions to ask the Minister.
Lord Storey
I have two questions to ask him. First, does he think that there is a need for Ofsted to inspect academy chains, and that the curriculum proposals should be for all schools? Secondly, he mentioned in his Statement that a number of head teachers were eased out through compromise agreements. These compromise agreements often come with confidentiality clauses. We currently know that up to £3 million of education money is being spent on these compromise agreements. Does he not think that we ought to look at this situation? Had those confidentiality issues not been linked to the compromise agreements, perhaps we would have got to the truth of what head teachers felt sooner.
Lord Nash
To answer my noble friend’s two questions, we have so far felt that, given that Ofsted is capable of conducting batch inspections on a number of schools in a chain, as it did in Birmingham and has done on many occasions, that gives it plenty of opportunity to examine the support that those schools get from the centre. Visiting the head office—when Ofsted probably would not see very much except the office—would not tell it any more. However, we keep that constantly under review.
On the compromise agreements, when I came to work in education I was pretty shocked by the lack of due diligence that was often taken over referencing people in teaching. Of course, what can happen as a result of compromise agreements is that bad teachers just pop up elsewhere, which is described in America as the dance of the lemons. That is something that we need to look at.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, there is much to welcome and to ponder in today’s report. There is an underlying issue of knowing what is going on in schools to which I will draw attention by asking two related questions. I suggest that one of the key sources will always be responsible teachers and head teachers. Is there any way of devising a route that they can follow to raise questions about serious difficulties within the school, knowing that they will be taken seriously?
Secondly, there is an issue of governance and governors. I welcome what is recommended in the report, but it is a much broader issue than that. Could a broader look be taken? I could take the Minister to schools within a mile or two of here that struggle to find enough good governors. We have to find ways of improving that situation, and that will not happen reactively in situations like this.
Lord Nash
I pay tribute to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in the area of HMCI. We have whistleblowing procedures in place in the department and in the EFA. We have been discussing with Ofsted how we can improve them, and we will look at doing so.
On page 90 of Peter Clarke’s report, he says that he does not see that there is an issue with governance generally, merely an issue with governance in these particular schools. In the last 18 months, as Minister with responsibility for governors, we have dramatically beefed up our focus on governance to focus governors on three core skills, to focus governance on skills rather than representation and to view governing bodies more as non-executive director bodies. I was delighted to hear in the other place earlier this afternoon the shadow Secretary of State support the non-executive director approach. Ofsted is far more focused on governance than it was and we are increasingly working with it to make it more so.
The noble Lord is quite right about recruiting more governors. We have recently launched the Inspiring Governors Alliance to work with the CBI and other business groups to recruit more governors.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
It has been 13 years since I ceased to represent part of my city in the other place. My former constituents would not thank me if I started to play a party-political game here, so I have only one question. Will Sir Bob Kerslake’s review of governance look at the splitting of the city into three boroughs? London is no less London for having 32 boroughs dealing with social services and education. Last autumn I advised the then Secretary of State not to send in commissioners for social services and education necessarily, but to send in the boundary commissioners. With wards with an electorate of 20,000 for three councillors in that city compared to 6,000 electors for three councillors in London, there is a disconnect in democratic accountability. The elected councillors cannot possibly be in touch with things that happen on their patch. It is the only place in the country that has such a democratic dislocation at ward level between councillors and the electorate.
Change is long overdue. I even raised it when Tim Brighouse came to Birmingham. With more than 400 schools in one city, it is just not possible to manage it properly. I am not calling for the dismemberment of the city, but for the boroughing of the city in that same way that London is boroughed, so that there will be more accountability and more people will know what is going on. It is not just the governors but the elected councillors as well. Bob Kerslake seriously has to have a look at this, because although it is not the entire solution it is part of it.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for the Statement. It is a relief that this applies to a very small number of schools, however important it is, and to note that there are serious problems of governance. It is important to underline that there is no evidence, as we saw in the lurid headlines, of a “plot” or of violent extremism.
We know that there is a difference between religious conservatism and extremism. That has not really come out in a lot of the narrative from these schools. It has been quite damaging. Can the Minister comment on that? Does he agree with me that when we talk about values, we need a shared level of standards, values and accountability for all schools, be they faith schools, free schools, academies or private schools? Would he also agree that we need to refrain from the generalisation that we have seen that stigmatises whole communities and faiths? This has been very damaging and will make it more difficult for moderate people in Muslim and other communities who want to get engaged in public life to become school governors and councillors, and to play a full role in British civic society.
Lord Nash
My noble friend is quite right about the difference between religious conservatism and extremism. We are dealing with some extremely difficult issues. We must respect all faiths, but all schools should be places where pupils start to learn about inclusivity and tolerance, not where they are excluded from society. We are focused on our pupils being adequately prepared for life in modern Britain, and the noble Baroness raises some very important points.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, do the Government agree that this scandal, like Muslim segregation and Islamist violence more generally, is a problem that arises from within Islam and can be cured only from within Islam? Given all that is happening in Africa as well, why do the Government go on intoning that Islam is a religion of peace?
Lord Nash
I think that what has happened in Birmingham is unacceptable to all the communities there, including most of the Muslim parents and teachers. I do not recognise the noble Lord’s analysis of the religion of Islam, which I see as a religion of peace. I do think that there are issues in relation to developing counter-narratives to extremism, but I do not think that there is time to go into that here.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that the department has to take its fair share of the blame and be accountable? It is not possible to put all the responsibility on to Ofsted for knowing what is going on in schools day in and day out. With academies, the department has the responsibility through its newly imposed regulatory system. How could it miss what was happening to girls in those schools, when many women were being dismissed from schools as cleaners, dinner ladies and so on, as well as teachers? Many of us feel very let down in this respect by the Government, with their centralised control of academies. I declare my interest as a member of Northern Education Trust and as a governor of Castle View Academy in Sunderland—so I am not against academies by a long way, but the Government have neglected these schools and have not now got the infrastructure to know when things are going wrong. What are they going to do to change that?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right that everybody needs to take their fair share of the blame in this. Nobody comes out of this particularly well. One could say, “How did the local authority miss these issues for years?”. It was only when Ofsted did a batch inspection of 21 schools and saw a common pattern of behaviour which had accelerated dramatically in terms of threatening behaviour in recent years that it became absolutely clear what was happening. As I said in relation to the actions we have taken with Park View Educational Trust, we dealt with these matters extremely speedily. We have now substantially tightened our procedures in relation to schools becoming academies and we will, as a result of events in Birmingham, look further at that.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that we owe a great debt to Peter Clarke for this report and that its modulated contents disprove many of the concerns in the media at the time of his appointment? It is a modulated, precise report. As to its content, after the Minister’s Statement, I am much clearer about the Government’s thinking on the governance of these schools. However, the report also criticises the conduct of a number of teachers. I am not sure how the discussion is going to develop on the point of the teachers—as opposed to governors—whose conduct is discussed in the Clarke report.
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with the noble Lord about the great debt that we owe to Peter Clarke, one of the great investigative policemen of our time. At this precise time I cannot comment on the detail of the noble Lord’s point about the conduct of the teachers. However, I can assure noble Lords that the new trustees of Park View Educational Trust will take all appropriate action, and the National College for Teaching and Leadership will take the extensive evidence provided by Peter Clarke so that its misconduct panel can consider which individuals, if any, should be barred from the profession.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, as a former MEP for Birmingham for 15 years, and as a feminist, I have taken a great deal of interest in this matter. Can the Minister say what his department will do to ensure that the Equality Act is implemented in faith schools, free schools, academies and maintained schools from now on?
Lord Nash
I can assure the noble Baroness that we are extremely focused on that. We make sure that all schools, particularly when we are approving them as free schools, are thoroughly inclusive. We visit the schools, and if we see any practices that we think are inappropriate, we are very quick to draw them to the attention of the schools and make sure they are rectified. We are extremely focused on that. The noble Baroness makes a very good point.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and I thank the authors of the two reports. I do not know the author of one of them, but I know Peter Clarke, and I have long appreciated his judgment and analysis, which come through in this report. It is obvious that there were problems in the schools, the local communities and the local authorities, and we have concentrated on that. However, without in any way laying particular personal blame or being party political, it is equally obvious that there were failings at the centre of government, and in more than one department. To put it at the minimum, someone somewhere, or a number of people, took their eye off the ball. The Minister said that procedures had been “tightened up”—I think that that was his phrase. Could he elaborate a little more on that? Can he say—if we are reviewing everything that is happening in Birmingham, in the local authorities, the schools, regarding the teachers and so on—what is the nature of the review being carried out in the Home Office and/or the Department for Education, and whether any conclusions have already been reached?
Lord Nash
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, particularly given his vast experience in this area, and particularly his comments about Peter Clarke. We have dramatically beefed up our due diligence and counterextremism division in the department, and will further strengthen it. We were the first department outside the Home Office to set up such a unit. I cannot comment on the Home Office, but we will look carefully at all the issues arising out of this. I can assure the noble Lord that, in terms of analysing the individuals involved in any schools in which the department is involved in any approvals, we will use our due diligence unit very rigorously.
Police Reform
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement on police reform that was given earlier today in the House of Commons by my right honourable friend Theresa May, the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our ongoing work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police. I have always been clear that I believe the vast majority of police officers in this country do their job honestly, and with integrity. They fight crime in our villages, towns and cities. They deal with dangerous criminals, strive to protect the vulnerable, keep our streets safe and have shown that they can cut crime even as we cut spending. Under this Government, crime is down by more than 10% since the election, proving that it is possible to do more with less. But as I have said before, the good work of the majority threatens to be damaged by a continuing series of events and revelations relating to police conduct.
That is why, over the last 18 months, the Government have been implementing a series of changes to improve standards of police integrity. The College of Policing has published a new code of ethics, which makes clear the high standards of behaviour that are expected from all police officers. A national list of police officers’ pay and rewards, gifts and hospitality is now published online, and their final list of business interests will be published for the first time later this summer. A national register of officers struck off from the police has been produced and made available to vetting and anti-corruption officers in police forces. The Government will legislate later this year to ensure that officers cannot resign or retire to avoid dismissal in misconduct hearings. We have beefed up the Independent Police Complaints Commission so that, in future, it can take on all serious and sensitive cases involving the police. In addition to these specific measures, many of our other police reforms—the creation of the College of Policing; direct entry into the senior ranks; the election of police and crime commissioners; the changes to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary—will make a positive difference when it comes to police integrity.
Since I began the Government’s programme of work to improve public confidence in the police, further events and revelations have reinforced the need for reform. We have had reports on the misuse of stop and search, and the poor police response to domestic violence. We have had the findings of the Ellison review, which examined allegations of corruption during the initial deeply flawed investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. We have had Sir David Normington’s review into the Police Federation, which recommended change ‘from top to bottom’.
The measures we have introduced are vital, but we cannot stop there, so I want to tell the House about my plans for further change. I want to open up policing to the brightest and best recruits. The Government have already introduced direct entry to open up the senior ranks of the police and bring in people with new perspectives and expertise. In London, the Metropolitan Police received 595 applications for between five and 10 direct-entry superintendent posts. Some 26% of the applicants were from a black or minority ethnic background, compared with 8.6% of traditional recruits, and 27% were female. In addition, using seed funding that I announced at the Police Federation conference in May, the Metropolitan Police is setting up “Police Now”, the policing equivalent of Teach First, which will attract the brightest graduates into policing. However, I want to go further. The College of Policing will undertake a fundamental review of police leadership. The review will look at: how we can go further and faster with direct entry; how we can encourage officers to gain experience outside policing before returning later in life; and how we can open up the senior ranks to candidates from different backgrounds. The review will start immediately.
In addition to these reforms, I also want to ensure that the systems and processes that deal with misconduct by police officers are robust. That means, where there are cases of wrongdoing, they must be dealt with effectively, and, where necessary, appropriate disciplinary action must be taken. In March I announced I would be creating a new offence of police corruption through the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, but this alone is not enough. The police disciplinary system is complex. It has developed organically rather than been structured to fit its purpose. It lacks transparency for the public, it is bureaucratic and it lacks independence.
So today I can tell the House that we will be reviewing the whole police disciplinary system from beginning to end. This review will be chaired by Major-General Clive Chapman, an experienced, independent and respected former Army officer, and I want it to draw on best practice from the private and public sectors. I have asked Major-General Chapman to look for ways to ensure that the disciplinary system is clearer, more independent and public focused. I intend to consult publicly on the policies that emerge from the review later this year. In addition to the review, I want to make some specific changes to the police disciplinary system. In particular, I want to hold disciplinary hearings in public to improve transparency and justice. I will launch a public consultation on these proposals later this year.
In my Statement on the Ellison review on 6 March, I said I would return to the House with proposals to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers. Police officers and police staff need to know that they can come forward in complete confidence to report wrongdoing by their colleagues. So the Government will create a single national policy for police forces on whistleblowing to replace the current patchwork approach. This will set out the best principles and practices on whistleblowing, and ensure consistency of approach across all forces. Following the publication of HMIC’s integrity inspection, I am prepared to consider putting the whistleblowers’ code on a statutory basis. We will also require forces to publish more information on the number of conduct issues raised by officers and the action taken as a result. From 2015 onwards, the Home Office will collect and publish data about conduct and complaints brought by police officers and police staff about their colleagues. But I still want to go further, so in the autumn I will launch a public consultation on police whistleblowing. The consultation will look at a range of new proposals to protect police whistleblowers. For example, I want to consider how we can introduce sealed investigations—which prevent both the force and suspects learning that an investigation is taking place—into serious misconduct and corruption by police officers.
I also want to take an in-depth look at the police complaints system. Last year, I announced reforms to the IPCC to ensure that all serious and sensitive cases are dealt with by the IPCC. This included the transfer of resources from the police to the IPCC and measures to ensure that the IPCC has the right capacity to deal with demand. As I told the College of Policing conference in October, this work is on track and the IPCC will begin to take on additional cases this year. But now is the time to build on those reforms. Public satisfaction surveys on the handling of complaints show that satisfaction levels remain consistently low. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, less than a quarter of those who complain to the police are satisfied with the outcome of their complaint. The overall number of complaints being handled independently is still far too low. This year, a review undertaken by Deborah Glass, the former deputy chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, found that 94% of cases referred to the IPCC in 2012 were referred back to be dealt with by the police.
Police and crime commissioners are locally developing new and innovative approaches to police complaints. In Thames Valley, Anthony Stansfeld has announced a complaints, integrity and ethics committee to provide scrutiny on how the force handles complaints. In Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd has appointed an independent complaints ombudsman to resolve complaints before they become part of the complaints system. We need the police complaints system to keep up with the changes we have seen in police structures, to reflect the changes made locally by PCCs and chief constables, and to meet public expectations. So today I will launch a review of the entire police complaints system, including the role, powers and funding of the IPCC and the local role played by police and crime commissioners. The review will look at the complaints system from end to end, examining the process every step of the way and for all complaints from the most minor to the most serious. The review will commence immediately and conclude in the autumn this year. It will include a public consultation on proposals for a system that is more independent of the police, easier for the public to follow, more focused on resolving complaints locally, and has a simpler system of appeals.
The measures that I have announced today will ensure that we are able to examine the entire approach to cases of misconduct, improper behaviour and corruption. But in working to ensure the highest standards of police integrity, I want to leave no stone unturned. This year, I commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to carry out a review of anti-corruption capability in police forces. HMIC is also carrying out an inspection of police integrity as part of its planned programme of inspections for 2014-2015. In addition, I have agreed with the chief inspector that HMIC’s new programme of annual inspections of all police forces, which will begin later this year, will look not only at a force’s effectiveness and efficiency but at its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Every annual inspection will therefore include an examination as to whether each force’s officers and staff act with integrity.
Together these measures represent a substantial overhaul of the systems that hold police officers to account. They will build on our radical programme of police reform and they will help to ensure that police honesty and integrity are protected, and that corruption and misconduct are rooted out. That is what the public and the many thousands of decent, dedicated and hardworking police officers of this country deserve. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. Most of us at some point in our lives have contact with the police: as witnesses—not as victims, we hope—reporting a crime; and in their community role, which at its best is excellent and at its worst is minimal. At their best the British police are rightly held in national and international high regard. They are praised by communities and they encourage and justify public confidence.
However, we have also seen evidence of policing going wrong, when its integrity cannot be relied on and public confidence is not justified. Issues such as the Hillsborough disaster and the investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder—and the appalling police actions following those shocking events—make it clear that a new framework is needed. The IPCC has too often done too little too late.
From talking to police officers, it is clear that they themselves feel the criticism of their profession more acutely than anyone else, because all the professionalism and integrity on which they pride themselves is undermined by the actions of a minority. We have already initiated a review of ensuring stronger actions on standards in policing. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, led the independent commission that made a number of recommendations: a new stronger police standards authority, replacing the IPCC and HMIC with the power to initiate investigations; chartered registration for all police; the ability to strike officers from the register; and high professional and ethical standards for all officers.
I had hoped that we would have seen some of those issues incorporated in today’s Statement and an indication that some action is taking place. Instead we are going to have a review of the police disciplinary system and a public consultation on disciplinary hearings; as well as the existing Ellison review we are going to have another consultation on whistleblowing; we have got a review on police leadership; and we have a review on the police complaints system, including a review of the IPCC and the role of the police and crime commissioners. Just to confirm in case I have got it wrong, I count that as three reviews and four consultations. I am not necessarily against these reviews in areas in which we want to see progress, but so many reviews and consultations are a poor excuse for little or delayed action. How many reviews do the Government need to tell them that the IPCC is not working and that a piecemeal, sticking-plaster approach to reform is not what is needed?
The Statement begs far more questions than it gives answers. We shall come to some of them today but I hope that at some point we can have a longer debate on this issue. I am sorry that I find the Statement disappointing. It does not give me confidence that the Government will tackle the failures in the system with any sense of urgency or understand the scale of reform that is needed. So many reviews seem to indicate that the plan is to kick reform into the long grass well beyond the next election. The public and the police deserve better.
Yesterday in the Moses Room we debated the Government’s proposals relating to the by-election following the tragic and untimely death of Bob Jones, the police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands. Despite some worthy candidates and officeholders, there is little interest in and support for the role of the PCCs, with humiliating turnouts—just 14% across the country—in the 2012 elections. The cost of those elections, and the by-election in August, would have paid for hundreds of police officers at a time when every police force is facing swingeing cuts. One has to ask whether this is value for money.
I am sure the noble Lord has spoken to police officers, as I have. They have told me that the thin blue line is getting thinner and thinner. They feel they are unable to do their job as they want to and should be able to. The reforms that we and they expect seem no nearer with so many reviews and consultations. Those delays hit their morale, especially when they see convictions falling.
For example, in my home county of Essex, the investigation into the Colchester murders is drawing officers away from other parts of the country. They are having to leave the policing and investigations in their areas to undertake mutual assistance in Essex to ensure that they can effectively investigate these dreadful murders and police the area in Colchester. I have been told that this has meant that some officers have been on permanent 12-hour shifts for three weeks. That has taken its toll.
I do not know whether the Minister has seen the sickness figures for Essex but, in 2009-10, Essex Police lost 27,654 days to sickness. In the last year to April 2014, with fewer officers in Essex Police, that has risen to a staggering 41,251 days. Is the Minister as shocked and as worried as I am that the sickness levels in the Essex Police—and I have no reason to expect that Essex is different to anywhere else—have risen so dramatically since this Government have been in office?
We are right to expect the highest standards from the police, but does the Minister agree that the police also have a right to expect the highest standards from the Government in tackling police reform issues more quickly and in making effective use of resources?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness has picked up from where we were talking yesterday. I challenged her on how she viewed the role of the PCCs under a future Government headed by the Labour Party. She had no answer then—and it would appear that she has no answer now—as to what role they might have.
I agree with her about Bob Jones. He played an important role in the policing of the West Midlands area. I am sure she agrees with me on the role that Nick Alston plays in Essex and the important and innovative way in which he has undertaken his responsibilities there. Accountability to local communities, through the PCC, is at the heart of policing and I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be very useful to discuss these issues at a future date. I would like to hear how she plans to deal with police accountability to local communities.
The noble Baroness is right about how much we depend on the police and that they are held in high regard by all of us. She pointed to a couple of cases—Hillsborough and the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence and the investigations thereafter—which raised questions for all of us who are interested in police integrity. I agree with her that professionalism is undermined by misconduct. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is not in his place today and it is a pity that he has not participated in police debates recently, because his report was a genuine effort to look at ways of dealing with this matter. However, the Government are responsible and must take their own view of how to deal with these matters. They quite rightly chose not to merge the Independent Police Complaints Commission with HMIC but to look at the role of these bodies separately, through reviews which will report quickly, in the early or late autumn. These will find ways of making sure that the pattern of accountability which we set for the police and the ability to inquire into police misconduct effectively can be set in place promptly. It would be reckless to do that sort of thing without proper review and consultation. I make no apology on behalf of the Home Secretary for her announcement of those reviews. They are a way of making sure that in future we have a structure which is capable of satisfying demands for the highest standards of policing.
Lord Dear (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I endorse its subject matter and I am delighted to see leadership mentioned. It does not get a bold headline but it is in there and Members of your Lordships’ House will know that I have pressed that subject before. The fact that leadership needs ventilation by attachment to outside bodies is well taken. I have two questions for the Minister: one on leadership and one on another matter. Does he agree that, with good-quality, robust, visible leadership, all the issues of probity, ethics, due process, professionalism and so on are almost superfluous because they would flow naturally from it? Without good-quality leadership, any of the things I have enumerated would struggle to succeed. Leadership, therefore, needs not only to be endorsed, as it is in the report, but lifted to the top of the list, together with a proper career path for those who are recruited into the service with those attributes. Will leadership be one of a number of issues or is it going to be one of the prime issues that will lead the rest through?
Secondly, if leadership is a key to the door, this is surely a door with at least two locks. We have talked about the first metaphorically. The second key to the door is the structure of the police service. There is nothing in the list we have heard today on structure. There is a balance to be struck which is, sadly, out of kilter at the moment. Wherever I go in the police service or whenever I talk to the many people who are outside the service but interested in it, the question is always why we do not have a national force or a regional force; there are too many forces. I take no view on that other than it needs addressing. I am a great believer in loyalty to cap-badge and locality but the fact that we have the National Crime Agency at one end and police and crime commissioners at the other means there is a great gulf in the middle. So my question to the Minister is: will there additionally be an in-depth review, perhaps along the lines of what has been mentioned in the Stevens report, of the whole structure of the British police service, in which leadership and everything else can flourish?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, who speaks with a great deal of authority on this whole issue.
The question of leadership is at the heart of the Statement because, as the noble Lord will know, the Home Secretary recognises that leadership is the key to achieving police reform. The noble Lord will share that view. It is therefore very much a key feature of this Statement. Probity is important and the noble Lord will understand that the reinforcement of the professionalism of the police by having proper measures for probity as part and parcel of this package is a very important thing. I hope the noble Lord will also acknowledge that the establishment of the College of Policing has led to a remarkable transformation of policing. Indeed, the leadership that it is providing to the force through the code of ethics and the many other aspects of policing that it is addressing is very important.
I agree with the noble Lord that in the long term we perhaps need to look at the structure and the balance of resources. There will always be arguments. I come from a very rural part of the country, where it is very easy for people to feel almost overlooked. But there are also places where the pressures on policing are much greater than they are where I live. Those issues will not go away. What the Government have done with the formation of the National Crime Agency is facilitate the ability to deal effectively with those things that operate across borders while at the same time enabling local policing to take place, governed by local police and crime commissioners.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that this report is a tale not so much of poor structures—although there are poor structures—but primarily of a failure of leadership in the police force, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, suggested? Therefore, will he accept that I welcome the concept of more direct entrants into the police force, and I hope that special priority will be given to members of the Armed Forces who are being made redundant despite their fine records, who could come into the police force and do great good work? If there is a structure that needs changing, it is that we should re-establish a proper college for the senior officers of the police force to be induced into the police force and to take the leadership role in it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I agree with my noble friend. It is certainly the case that many people who have been active in the Armed Forces have qualities that could be important in policing. I do not know that I would go as far as to say that they should be given priority but they should clearly be encouraged to apply for those posts.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, while I welcome the Statement by the Home Secretary—and clearly there are serious issues with the current investigation of police complaints and the police’s disciplinary procedures—is the Home Secretary aware of the dangers of articulating direct entry at a senior level and changes to the inspectorate of constabulary, where we now have for the first time a Chief Inspector of Constabulary who has no experience of policing and a majority of inspectors who have no experience of policing? Is she also aware of the impact on senior officers of the utmost integrity who have spent their whole careers in the police service of saying that those changes are a positive difference to police integrity, and the impression that she appears to be giving to the public about the integrity of the police service at the moment? Is the Home Secretary aware that every time she runs down the police service in this way it makes the police service less effective because the police service relies on public confidence and trust to ensure that the public give information and support the police in their work?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I refer my noble friend to the second paragraph of the Statement that I have just read, in which the Home Secretary pays tribute to individual police officers and the way in which they conduct themselves, “honestly and with integrity”.
If I am honest with my noble friend—and I think I owe it to him to be honest—the way in which he presented his question shows all the problems that policing has: it is the notion that only the police can know how to manage the police. What the Home Secretary has done with this series of reforms is to say to the police service, “There are better ways of doing these things. Other people will be able to get you to the place you want to be”. It is very important that we back those changes. At the heart of it all, the degree to which the police have seen themselves and their problems as being something for them alone is something that the public are no longer prepared to tolerate.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I agree with, and congratulate, the Home Secretary and the Home Office team on a great deal of this Statement. A clear wind of change needs to blow through the police service and it is to be welcomed. A great deal, but not all—I will not tire the House with a view on PCCs; the Minister and I have discussed that enough. My question refers to an odd phrasing in the Statement that I have never come across before. The phrase of “sealed investigations”—I use that term in inverted commas—into police corruption. The police service, especially the Met, has for years carried out secret and successful investigations into police corruption.
I was talking about the Statement to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. We agreed that her officers had assisted the Met in some of those inquiries. I carried out an overt inquiry into police corruption which led to prosecution and convictions at the Old Bailey. The idea that I would have withheld the information I was receiving from the man in charge of running the police service from the top, who at the time was the noble Lord, Lord Condon, would be unthinkable. I ask the noble Lord to ensure that those charged with this initiative seek to learn from the previous experience of those who have spent most of their lives investigating police and other corruption, including some of those who sit in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am very happy to take the noble Lord’s advice on that matter. What he had to say was very interesting.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Does the noble Lord recollect, and indeed agree with, the historic words of the late Lord Callaghan in relation to the police when he said that our police are not a gendarmerie, they are not a corps d’élite, they are citizens in uniform? Does he accept that, although sophisticated systems may well assist the police, the essence of being a police officer is very much encapsulated in the words of James Callaghan? While accepting—indeed, the noble Lord will remember that I raised on many occasions the need for a comprehensive inquiry on the lines of that conducted by Sir Henry Willink in the early 1960s. There were so many problems that coalesced and it was the only way of dealing with them.
It seems to me, respectfully, that the inquiries that are now being considered are indeed wide-ranging and deep-seated. A great deal will depend on the collation of the evidence. I would ask for one matter, which has already been raised by my noble friend, to be considered in addition. We should ask ourselves the question whether, in the 21st century, we can carry on for very much longer with 43 police forces without considering a process of rationalised amalgamation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That takes us back to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I think that I explained that the issue appears different from different points of view. I am not sure that a change in size or relocating a responsibility to a regional level or whatever would necessarily lead to more effective policing—in fact, my own prejudice suggests that it would not. However, I agree with the noble Lord’s dictum. It goes back further than Jim Callaghan to Peel himself, who said that the people are the police and the police should be the people. That is the concept that lies behind the British police force, which certainly differs from police forces in other parts of the world.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and for telling us of this blizzard of inquiries that the Home Secretary is setting up—I see him shaking his hand as though he feels that that is being pejorative. The point to which I hope the Minister will respond is that these are all interrelated issues; they have an impact on each other. Single, separate inquiries are not necessarily the best way to resolve all these matters. There is a question of how all this will be made to cohere and to be effective in delivering the sort of police service that I am sure all noble Lords want.
The Minister also referred to requirements that would be placed on the police to report—I think that it was in relation to whistleblowers and what happens to the issues that they report. Does the Minister agree with me, with those in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and with those in the Independent Police Complaints Commission who think that one aid to transparency would be the proper recording by the police of those instances in which they use restraint or force against members of the public, and for those statistics to be publicly available so as to be measured against any complaints that may be received?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
When I was waving my hand, I was not making an offensive or hostile gesture to the noble Lord, Lord Harris; I just wanted to explain that they are not inquiries but reviews. They are reviews that are taking place with the Home Office. He wanted to know how the reviews would work together. They are all short term and are designed to report within the next six months, with some even shorter, in order to bring together, as the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, the parallel policy formation that will be necessary to make sure that we have coherence.
On the accountability of restraint, I will suggest that that is something that the College of Policing could consider. It is the sort of issue on which it quite rightly makes recommendations and issues guidelines. I am sure that it will be interested in the noble Lord’s comments, but I cannot comment today.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, the “Plebgate” incident at the gates of Downing Street took place on 17 September 2012. At that time, the commissioner of the Met decided to investigate himself. Does my noble friend recollect that, when he answered a Question from me on 1 April this year, 18 months after the incident had happened, he said, first, that HMG had no role in deciding who should investigate it? Therefore, I ask him whether in future it would be possible for the Commissioner of the Met to decide to investigate such an incident rather than having it independently investigated.
Secondly, my noble friend told me in his Answer that although the IPCC had requested that the Metropolitan Police should publish its report once the misconduct proceedings had been concluded, it would be for the Metropolitan Police to decide whether to publish the report. Does that example not reveal a very unsatisfactory state of affairs? And, incidentally, when will we get the final report on that incident?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot answer my noble friend on the latter point. All I can say is that the events surrounding my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell and the process that followed are among a number of issues informing the present debate about policing and the way in which the police deal with complaints. It is good that my noble friend has had the opportunity of raising the matter again today; it belongs to a whole collection of matters, including Hillsborough and the Stephen Lawrence murder, that have led us to believe that it is right for us to undertake these reviews.
Wales Bill
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, the Bill before us today continues this coalition’s ambitious programme of reforms to devolved governance in Wales. We have already achieved the commitments in our programme for government relating to Wales, including delivering the 2011 referendum on full law-making powers for the Assembly and establishing the Commission on Devolution in Wales—the Silk commission—which has since published two detailed reports.
I pay tribute to Paul Silk and his commissioners, including my noble friend Lord Bourne, for their two excellent reports. The commission included representatives from all four political parties in the Assembly, and reached unanimous agreement on its recommendations. I hope that a similar spirit of broad consensus will exist in this House in respect of this legislation.
The Bill implements the vast majority of the recommendations that the Silk commission made in its first report, devolving an exciting package of tax and borrowing powers to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers. These reforms provide the tools and incentives for the Welsh Government to grow the Welsh economy; make the Welsh Government more accountable for raising some of the money they spend; and deliver borrowing powers that will enable Welsh Ministers to invest further in Welsh infrastructure.
I now turn to the detail of the legislation. The Bill provides for the introduction of a Welsh rate of income tax. As the Silk commission recommended, the devolution of income tax powers would be subject to a referendum, should the Assembly decide to trigger one. The devolution of income tax powers to Scotland was subject to a separate referendum question in 1997, and it is only right that people in Wales should decide whether income tax powers should be devolved to the Assembly.
Should the Welsh people vote for an element of income tax to be devolved—and I sincerely hope they will—it would provide a significant incentive for the Welsh Government to grow the Welsh economy and deliver a real-terms boost in revenue—money that the Welsh Government could then spend on key services such as health and education.
In the event of an element of income tax being devolved, the UK rates would all be reduced by 10p for Welsh taxpayers and the Assembly would set a single Welsh rate of income tax for all three income tax bands that would be paid alongside the reduced UK rates; this is the so-called lock-step mechanism. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that the proposal has generated some intense debate, not least as the Silk commission recommended that the Assembly should be able to set separate Welsh rates of income tax for each of the three income tax bands.
The Government recognise that there are arguments for and against the lock-step mechanism, but we continue to believe that the approach set out in the Bill is appropriate for Wales. Given the porous border with England—almost half of the Welsh population and 10% of the English population live within 25 miles of the border—the changes to individual income tax rates in Wales could have wider effects than similar changes in Scotland.
It would not be logical to provide more flexible rate-setting powers in Wales than in Scotland. The Government have therefore decided that the lock-step is the best system for encouraging the Welsh Government to grow the overall tax base in Wales while safeguarding against the risks of damaging cross-border tax competition and increased tax avoidance.
We are now less than two months away from what I consider to be one of the most fundamental decisions in the history of the United Kingdom. I, along with almost every other noble Lord present, sincerely hope that the people of Scotland choose to remain united with the peoples of Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that even a clear no vote may well lead to further income tax devolution to Scotland.
Having said that, we are not there yet, and I would not wish to pre-empt that debate. The Government remain open to revisiting the arrangements for income tax devolution in Wales as any changes are brought forward in Scotland; but, as I explained, there are differences between Wales and Scotland, particularly in the nature of their borders with England.
The Bill also devolves powers over stamp duty land tax and landfill tax to the Assembly, giving it the ability to devise a system of tax on land transactions and landfill specific to Welsh needs. That will provide an independent revenue stream for the Welsh Government to borrow against and give them additional tools to manage housing and waste management policy in Wales, both of which are already devolved.
The devolution of tax powers is intrinsically linked to the devolution of borrowing powers. In addition to powers relating to current borrowing, the Bill provides the Welsh Government with the ability to borrow up to £500 million to invest further in capital infrastructure in Wales. That is a generous limit, which reflects the independent income generated through the two devolved taxes, and which can be increased if additional taxes, such as an element of income tax, are devolved. Crucially, it will allow the Welsh Government to move on with much needed infrastructure investment, including improvements to the M4 around Newport.
The Government have been criticised for linking the borrowing limit to the income from devolved taxes. However, we have been clear that any borrowing must be contingent on the Welsh Government’s ability to pay that money back. You or I would not get a reputable loan without a means of repaying it, and Governments should be no different.
Finally with regard to fiscal reforms, the Bill devolves responsibility to the Assembly for its own budgetary arrangements, enabling it to decide how it wishes to scrutinise and approve its annual budget.
I now turn to Part 1, which includes a number of important electoral and constitutional reforms for Wales. Clause 1 deals with the move to permanent five-year Assembly terms. Noble Lords will recall that the scheduled 2015 Assembly election was moved to 2016 by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 in order to avoid it coinciding with the UK general election. The Bill makes the change to five-year terms permanent, following the Government’s 2012 consultation on future electoral arrangements for the National Assembly. This change will make it less likely that Assembly and parliamentary general elections will occur on the same day in future. I hope that we would all agree that it is important that Assembly elections are contested, wherever possible, on issues specific to Wales and are not overshadowed by wider issues that often dominate parliamentary elections.
The Bill also overturns the ban on candidates standing for election in both a constituency seat and on a regional list in an Assembly election. We are restoring the position to that set out in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and reversing the ban imposed by the then Labour Government in the 2006 Act. That change was made against the wishes of all the other major political parties in Wales and against the advice of the Electoral Commission and electoral experts in Wales. Noble Lords will be aware that, for Welsh Members of the Labour Party in the other place, judging by column inches in Hansard, this is seemingly the most important issue in the entire Bill. Important though this issue is, the Bill simply reverses a change that should not have been made in the first place. It restores fairness to Assembly elections, which the ban on dual candidacy took away.
The Bill also prohibits dual mandates between the Assembly and the House of Commons. The Government do not believe that it is possible for an Assembly Member to represent their constituents effectively and to devote their full attention to their role as an Assembly Member if they must also spend a significant portion of their time in Westminster. From now on, politicians elected to both legislatures will need to make a clear choice whether they wish to serve as a Member of Parliament or an AM. The Bill does not impose a similar prohibition on your Lordships, as we do not have the same constituency commitments or the requirement to attend this place regularly. At the request of the Welsh Government, this legislation also formally enshrines that name in statute. This title has been common parlance for the Welsh Assembly Government since the advent of full lawmaking powers in 2011 and it makes sense for legislation to catch up with the reality on the ground.
Finally, I would like to say a little about the second Silk report. The commission has made some crucially important recommendations about the future governance of Wales within the United Kingdom, most notably by recommending a move to a reserved-powers model similar to that in Scotland. The move would involve a fundamental, top-to-bottom change to the Welsh settlement and is not something which could be entered into lightly or done quickly.
In responding to the report’s publication in March, and while welcoming the report, the Government made clear that the Bill is not the right vehicle for implementing its recommendations. Let us implement the commission’s first report before we turn our minds to the second. Including a whole raft of additional powers in the Bill would serve merely to delay its progress and jeopardise its enactment in this Parliament. Much better that these matters be left for the next Government to take forward, giving all political parties the opportunity to seek the endorsement of the electorate through party manifesto commitments.
This Government believe that devolution should be used to give Wales a competitive edge. It should give its politicians the ability to make decisions for the people they serve, becoming increasingly accountable to them as a result. The Bill delivers on that. I commend it to the House and beg to move.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the shape and clauses of the Bill. The timing of the Bill is extremely sensitive, as the noble Baroness hinted, with this Second Reading taking place before the Scottish referendum and the Committee stage coming after that referendum. The Bill will therefore be a moving feast. The constitutional implications and the political response in Scotland, and in the rest of the United Kingdom, will need to be carefully considered after the referendum vote, irrespective of the outcome in September. It was interesting to note that the Minister stated that further discussion following the referendum will be possible on certain aspects of the Bill.
We also have a new Secretary of State for Wales in Stephen Crabb, and it was lovely to see him at the opening of this debate. While the previous Secretary of State, David Jones, seemed to have a rather ambivalent attitude towards devolution and despite the fact that the new incumbent has proclaimed himself in the past to be a self-confessed devo-sceptic, pleasingly he appears to have seen the light in recent weeks and has promised to develop a better relationship between the Government and the Welsh Assembly. We shall give him the benefit of the doubt and look forward to this being the case.
We are also entering a pre-election period where manifestos are being drawn up and there is an increasing awareness of the overcentralisation of the state in London. In addition, we are dealing in the Bill with recommendations that have been largely taken up as a result of the Silk 1 commission. Since then, however, Silk 2 has been published and it would seem strange not to take the opportunity to discuss some of the suggestions of that report. On the whole, I shall desist from that temptation although there is one notable exception, to which I shall allude later.
Before I start, however, it is worth pointing out what my motivation is and always has been in relation to devolution in Wales. As a founder member of the cross-party Yes for Wales campaign in 1997 and having then been on the team, along with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to draw up the initial standing orders for the Assembly, I was and am a lifelong supporter of devolution. I even remember wearing a sticker to school as a 12 year-old in 1979 in support of that doomed campaign when it took place. However, my motivation has never been rooted in any romantic, nationalist or even patriotic ideals. Neither is it controlled by a fixation on limiting the role of the state. Some would argue that this has been attempted in the Bill through the promotion of competitive taxation, which will inevitably lead to lower taxation across the United Kingdom and therefore a reduction in the size of the state. My motivation has always been to do what is best for Wales: making decisions close to the people, taking local circumstances into account and, crucially, ensuring that the people of Wales, particularly the poorest, are not left worse off.
Wales remains one of the poorest parts of the UK, although the unemployment rates are falling fast thanks to some innovative measures by the Welsh Labour Government. It is absolutely right that Wales continues to benefit from the UK Treasury receipts. The nature of the politics I believe in means that there should be a sense of social solidarity across the whole of the United Kingdom. In Wales, we have more of a sick population due to our industrial heritage, which helped to create the historic wealth of the United Kingdom. We also have a proportionately higher ageing population, many of whom have moved from England—and we happily welcome them to our beautiful country. Nevertheless, there is and has been hitherto a sense that these conditions and historic legacies should be recognised and that there needs to be a redistributive mechanism from the richer centre to the poorer periphery.
However, Wales has seen significant cuts in recent months and years. The IFS has suggested that the total block grant allocated by the UK Government to Wales in 2013-14 is 9.4% lower in real terms than it was in 2010. Further cuts have been announced for 2015-16 which, if implemented, would take the cut to 12%. There has been a 31% cut in the amount earmarked for capital expenditure. That cut in capital expenditure has been a severe handicap to the Welsh Government’s ability to invest in projects and infrastructure that could increase economic activity and grow the economy. Central to the Bill and the key reason why we in the Labour Party are anxious to support it is that, for the first time, the Welsh Government will have the power to borrow.
Let me underline, however, that it is critical that the ability to borrow should not be used by the Government in Westminster as an excuse to cut funding that should otherwise come to Wales. The focus so far has been on the need to borrow in order to invest this money on improvements to the M4 motorway. That commitment was announced by the Welsh Government last week and has received support, in particular from the business community. I believe that that is crucial, but we need to be sure that a similar project in the north of England, for example, would not have been funded out of this Government’s central pot once the Barnett formula has been taken into account.
The ability to borrow is crucial, but we would like to question in Committee why the level of borrowing allowed for Wales is so low. It has been suggested that the mechanism that determines the borrowing levels in Scotland has been used as a template for Welsh borrowing. However, we on these Benches shall argue that there has been an inconsistent approach, and that both Northern Ireland and Scotland have been allowed to borrow irrespective of the ability to raise the commensurate amount through their revenue-raising at a devolved level. Neither has the amount Wales is allowed to borrow taken into account the fact that Wales, in relative terms, has very little to make in terms of PFI payments compared to Scotland. Ideally we need a mechanism in this Bill to allow the Welsh Government to borrow more in future. We need to be assured that a degree of flexibility is allowed in relation to the conditions of borrowing. The ability to borrow, at least initially, is predicated on the fact that two specific taxes will be devolved to Wales: stamp duty and landfill tax. We can consider the benefits and disbenefits of these taxes in Committee, but it is worth noting that the nature of both these taxes is that they can vary considerably from year to year. There has been an agreement that, due to the nature of the variability, an adjustment can be made, but I would like to probe a little further in Committee on the nature of the adjustment deal and how watertight this agreement is.
The disbenefits are obvious. Being part of a larger group means that hitherto Wales has been pooling the risk with the rest of the UK. Probably the most controversial part of this Bill is the power to raise income tax, subject to a number of criteria. The previous Secretary of State for Wales argued, along with the Liberal Democrats, that he would be pushing for a 1p cut in income tax, suggesting that that would be a stimulant for investment and economic growth. He could well be right. However, reducing the Welsh rate of income tax by 1p, as suggested, would cost £200 million in terms of cuts to services. It will be interesting to see how the new Secretary of State feels about that, especially given that he has said that his,
“opposition to devolution … has been driven by a belief that … devolution would foster and feed an increasingly separatist and socialist discourse in which sensible Conservative policies that could promote national cohesion, economic liberalism and”—
note—
“smaller government would find little oxygen for survival”.
National cohesion is the last thing that we will see as a result of tax competition. Smaller government, however, would inevitably be delivered. Just imagine cutting 7,700 nurses, which is what £200 million represents, in the hope that the economy would grow. It could happen, but it would be a huge risk at the expense of central public services. It should be noted, however, that £200 million should also be set in the context of an overall budget for Wales of £15 billion. It must be said that that is pretty small change, and probably would have a negligible effect on the efforts to change the economic fortunes of the country.
Even if the economy did grow, much of that growth would return through income tax receipts to the central UK Treasury, and would go only some way to top up the payments to services cut in Wales. Let us not forget that only 4,000 individuals in Wales paid a top income tax rate of 50p in 2010-11, and that more than 90% of the people of Wales pay a basic rate of tax. The Government believe that devolution should be used to give a competitive edge to Wales, and that the powers devolved should be used to grow the economy. My fear with these figures, however, is that if we are to engage in any kind of tax competition with the rest of the UK, Wales will come out the loser. That is great if you are chasing some kind of nationalist dream of self-dependence; it is a disaster if you are poor and do not want your services cut. We want no race to the bottom. This would prove detrimental to all parts of the United Kingdom.
As the Minister has set out, there are cross-border implications of income tax competition. We would like to address the need for a comprehensive, cross-border Treasury impact assessment which takes into account the fact that 48% of Welsh people live within 25 miles of the English border, with 10% of the English population living within 25 miles on the other side; that is, 6.3 million people. It is worth contrasting this with Scotland, where just 4% of the population lives within 25 miles of the English border, with 0.5% of the English population living within 25 miles on the other side; that is just 450,000 people. The complexity associated with different tax rates, therefore, is much higher in Wales, both for employers and for employees.
We are also concerned that not enough has been done to calculate the cost of collecting tax in Wales. Again, we would like to probe further in Committee the indexation aspects of the impact of income tax changes to Wales. It is essential to underline the fact that Labour has a clear triple-lock system, upon which we would insist before embarking upon income tax devolution for Wales. First, there is of course a need to ensure a fair funding mechanism for Wales. Even with the Bill’s proposed devolved tax arrangements, 75% to 80% of the Welsh government budget will still be provided through the Barnett formula. We need to be sure that we are not locked into the current funding system, which would disadvantage the country for ever. Secondly, we would insist upon a period of assignment to ensure that Wales is not worse off as a result of any tax-varying powers. Thirdly, of course, none of this will happen unless the Welsh people vote for tax-raising powers for the Assembly. Having seen the lamentable turnouts for the European and police commissioner elections, and with the idea of a campaign on a question containing the word “tax”, I would not be volunteering to lead a referendum to promote this in Wales.
Other aspects of the Bill are also important. In the parts relating to electoral systems and frequency of elections, our principal position is that these should be matters for the Welsh Assembly to decide. The public are confused by a system which allows a candidate to stand on both the constituency ballot paper and the regional list ballot paper. Labour will be submitting an amendment to protect the status quo. The Explanatory Notes make clear that the measure will benefit small parties with a smaller pool of candidates, so there is undoubtedly a highly political angle to this, as there is to much of the Bill; my noble friend Lady Gale, who will be helping me out on the Bill, will elaborate on this point later.
We also believe that a shift to the “reserved powers” model of governance should be introduced at the earliest opportunity. We should not wait for Silk 2 to be implemented in a further Bill, but should address this issue now. Once again, the coalition Government have questioned the authority of the Welsh Government to make decisions in certain areas and, once again, recently, the Supreme Court has found in favour of the Welsh Government, ensuring that the Welsh Government have the right to protect vulnerable farm workers. These are costly, bureaucratic fights, which should be halted as soon as possible. We shall be proposing an amendment to include the reserved powers model for the Assembly.
Extra powers would mean extra responsibility for Assembly Members, particularly in the role of scrutinising expenditure. Although this would obviously be a matter for the Assembly, ideally we need an assurance that the personnel infrastructure and the expertise, both in terms of administration and scrutiny, are in place before handing over these powers. Assembly Members are already extremely stretched with 60 Members and I am sure that some noble Lords will want to pick up on this issue during the debate.
Overall, the Labour Party will be supporting this Bill. However, we will take the opportunity to probe and test various aspects of the proposals which we feel need further thought and consideration.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is introduced into the House at a very interesting time, with the Scottish referendum only weeks away. It provides centrally for the introduction of tax powers specifically to permit the Welsh Government to set a rate of income tax, subject to their first obtaining a favourable referendum vote. This is what the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, said about that last November:
“As a Government, we are not pursuing the devolution of income tax, certainly not at this time. The reason for that is we believe that income tax devolution cannot come unless there is reform of the Barnett formula. The funding basis for Wales must be solid first, before we can consider whether income tax devolution will be appropriate and right for the people of Wales”.
I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, a moment ago said that she would not lead the campaign for income tax devolution. That continues to be the Welsh Government’s position.
There is a bit of curious thinking in the Labour Party about this, because the Scottish Labour Party’s commission on devolution report explicitly and repeatedly rejects proposals for a needs-based alternative. In an interview on “Newsnight Scotland” on 18 March last, Labour’s Scottish Leader, Johann Lamont, claimed that:
“The Barnett formula works for the United Kingdom”,
which is very different from what was being said a moment ago. She said it works for the United Kingdom, not for Scotland. Well, Labour received its comeuppance in Scotland in the last Scottish Parliament election.
One of the problems—
Lord Richard (Lab)
The noble Lord provokes me slightly, since I chaired the commission on the Barnett formula in this House. Is the noble Lord in favour of the Barnett formula remaining in its present form for Wales? Is the Liberal Party in Wales seriously suggesting that the way in which the Barnett formula is calculated at present should remain in that state?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the Liberal Democrats are for the reform of the Barnett formula and always have been. I can give that assurance. I am just puzzled to hear what is said by the Scottish Labour Party, which obviously prefers the current arrangements.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The Scottish Liberal Party has been merged with the Scottish Liberal Democrats. I am not going to go any further into that.
The problem with devolution in Wales is that a Labour Government continuously in power—either on their own or as the lead party—escape accountability for their failures for a number of reasons. First and fundamentally, the essential link that all democratic Governments should have between raising resources through taxation and spending those resources on policies is missing. This Bill goes some way to dealing with that particular problem.
Labour’s demand for more money from the central government from a reform of the Barnett formula before they dare put these taxing powers to a referendum, is like Oliver Twist’s, “Please sir, can I have some more?”. It is Labour’s excuse for condemning Wales to fall behind in education and health, as it does, not merely judged by UK comparisons but also against international comparisons. Any very proper criticism of those failures is said to be “a war on Wales”—an empty piece of rhetoric first used by Carwyn Jones himself at the Welsh Labour Party conference in Llandudno in March.
Just as Labour seeks to delay the introduction of a Welsh income tax, so in the House of Commons debates on the Bill Labour sought to delay the introduction of the borrowing powers by waiting for a report on the legislative steps necessary to move to a model of reserved powers for the Welsh Assembly. I heard with interest the noble Baroness say that an amendment will be proposed to bring in reserved powers as the model in the Bill, and look forward to seeing how that is expressed.
The second matter that concerns me is that the recommendation of the Richard commission 10 years ago that the number of AMs should be increased to 80 to improve scrutiny within the Assembly was not pursued. The recommendations of the Silk 2 report, as the noble Lord will no doubt have noted, are that:
“A range of options should be considered in the short term for increasing the capacity within the existing National Assembly, including greater flexibility on the number and size of committees, increased numbers of research staff and better use of Assembly Members’ time. … The size of the National Assembly should be increased so that it can perform its scrutiny role better. The practical implications, and those for the electoral system, will need further consideration”.
The third matter that concerns me is that the press and media in Wales allow a dominant Labour Government to get away with it. Take the desire and the ability of the press in Westminster to tear Ministers limb from limb on a daily basis—for example the spat between Theresa May and Michael Gove over extremism in schools—and compare it with the deferential approach of the Welsh media over the very recent abject dismissal of Alun Davies, the former Welsh Government Natural Resources and Food Minister, for gross misconduct. One wonders whether the politicians and the Welsh media are too closely aligned and too ready to exchange roles.
I return to the Bill. I welcome the proposal to remove the current restrictions on individuals standing as a candidate for both a constituency seat and a regional seat. Studies by the Electoral Commission have shown that the current prohibition has a disproportionate impact on smaller parties, because they have a smaller pool of potential candidates from which to draw. The proposal to prohibit MPs from sitting as Assembly Members, and vice versa, is also welcome. It has an interesting history. Back in 1998, as the then Welsh spokesman for the Liberal Democrats I was lobbied from the very steps of the Throne by Mr Ron Davies Member of Parliament, the then Secretary of State for Wales, to give our party’s support to an amendment to the Government of Wales Bill which would permit him and others to have a dual mandate. At the time, it seemed reasonable to have some experienced politicians in the new body we were setting up, and so we agreed. However, I think that with the experience of the years that have passed it is time to end that practice.
I will raise another issue during the passage of the Bill. Much was made of the fact that two of the Lib Dem candidates in the last Assembly election were disqualified from being Members because they belonged to various public bodies, one of which was the Care Council for Wales. On the complaint of a Labour Party Member, they were interviewed by the police on an allegation that they had knowingly made a false statement in a document in which they gave their consent to being a regional party list candidate at those elections. That was translated into being disqualified from nomination.
The confusion arises because, under the Local Government Act 1972, a person is disqualified from being elected as a member of a local authority, whereas Sections 16 to 18 of the Government of Wales Act specifically say that:
“A person is disqualified from being an Assembly member”.
Of course, elections to local government are on the first past the post system; elections to the Welsh Assembly are done on both a constituency and regional basis. The regional election is in accordance with a party list. It is ludicrous to require a person on a list, who might not be first with a chance of election but second, third or fourth, to give up public service on a public body, very often unpaid, just to be a candidate. Although Liberal Democrat candidates were highlighted last time, I am aware that members of other parties stood as candidates, but were not elected, who might have been subjected to the same treatment. A successful candidate in an election ought to have a period in which to resign from any body that would disqualify him from being an Assembly Member—maybe eight days. I shall accordingly seek to amend Section 16 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 to make that position absolutely clear.
The aftermath of the Scottish referendum will, in all likelihood, see changes in Scotland. I was delighted to hear from the Minister that the situation in Wales will be revised; in particular, the lock-step will be looked at again. The structure of Welsh devolution is not yet satisfactorily settled. Once the Bill is passed as a further step, the focus in Wales will turn to the recommendations of Silk 2. The Liberal Democrats, who accept all its recommendations, will be here to return to the fray in the next Parliament. For the moment, I look forward to the fray in the Committee stage of the Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, this is the third Wales Bill since the 1997 referendum. The second Silk report will no doubt require a fourth Bill and developments in Scotland, as we have just heard, may well trigger even further legislation. Indeed, I feel that the issues in the Bill are ones that I have lived with for most of my life. I was involved in the legislative processes in another place on the ill-fated Wales Bill 1977-78, as were a number of colleagues here today, on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan worked so very hard. Indeed, I was involved in the Wales Bill 1998, which became the basis of the National Assembly in the present settlement. Back in 1970, I also gave evidence to the Crowther commission, as it then was, which became the basis of the Kilbrandon report of 1973. I gave further evidence, as an elected Member of the National Assembly, to the Richard commission of 2003. That, of course, led to the 2006 Act, which will be amended by the Bill and was the basis of the 2011 referendum and the advanced settlement that we got subsequently. The issues and I go back a long way, and I have the scars to show for it.
I first want to thank, as an individual and on behalf of my party, Plaid Cymru, Paul Silk and his fellow commissioners for their hard work. I pay particular tribute not only to my colleague, Dr Eurfyl ap Gwilym, the Plaid Cymru representative on the Silk commission, but to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who, as the Conservative voice both on the commission and previously in the National Assembly, managed to bring his party to play a positive role in the new post-devolution Welsh politics.
The Silk commission’s efforts in coming to grips with an immensely complex subject—particularly in its first report, which is the basis for the Bill—deserve to be rewarded by the way we enact consequential legislation. Indeed, I believe that our starting point today should be to accept that the Silk commission worked very hard to reach a consensus involving much give and take, and that, as such, it presented a balanced report that should be accepted and taken forward as a package and not cherry-picked. I say that because all political parties had to compromise on their party programmes and a united, unanimous report was secured only on that basis. Naturally, my party, Plaid Cymru, would have liked to have gone very much further. We aspire to the maximum possible degree of independence for Wales within a framework of a united Europe with its free movement of people, goods and capital, which inevitably imposes some constraints on the degree of independence that any country has.
Unlike the Calman commission in Scotland, our Silk commission succeeded in getting all-party acceptance that there would have to be some compromise so as to get implemented at an early stage those changes that all parties saw as necessary in order to make the Assembly a more effective body and the Government of Wales more transparent and democratically answerable for their actions. That is why, even at this late stage in the Bill’s parliamentary journey, I urge that we look at whether we can implement the entirety of the Silk package. In that regard, I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
Since the publication of the Bill, the Silk commission has brought forward its second report on the legislative powers to strengthen Wales, and in some ways it is difficult to differentiate between the two. Indeed, some have suggested that the reports are in the wrong order. An old saying that I found very apposite in the world of industry as much as in the world of government is that “form follows function”. The function of the National Assembly is dependent on the model of devolution—it would be somewhat different if Wales had a reserve-powers model such as that of Scotland and Northern Ireland—and inevitably that impacts on the transparency and accountability of the Assembly. The range of devolved portfolios will dictate the size of the budget, and the nature of those portfolios and the extent to which they lend themselves to policy variation in Wales compared with England will dictate the degree of budget flexibility that is needed. In addition, the degree of responsibility deemed appropriate for a Welsh Executive in largely non-legislative matters, such as economic stimulus management, will determine the balance between capital and revenue responsibilities.
I have deliberately tried to set my remarks in the context that I have for the very reason that we must formulate the financial powers needed to strengthen Wales with regard to the responsibilities of providing adequate enabling resources and ensuring proper answerability. In order to deliver the legislative, executive and administrative agenda that the Welsh Government will have as their responsibility, they need to be clear about the powers that they have. That of course is the agenda that the Welsh people expect to be arranged for their needs and expectations to be answered.
I believe that we shall have to make certain assumptions with regard to those non-financial matters as a basis on which we can reach meaningful conclusions regarding finance and the adequacy of the Bill. For example, the linkage between the budget and expenditure, and hence the resources needed, and the democratic need for the Government’s performance to be judged by the electorate requires both financial transparency and resource flexibility. I shall give a concrete example. If the NHS in England were privatised, as some politicians on the right advocate, and if the Welsh Government, having full legislative responsibility for the NHS in Wales, wanted to follow a different path, they would have to have a significantly different financial and fiscal freedom from the one they have at present for that to be a meaningful policy option.
I turn to some specific aspects of the Bill that will no doubt warrant our attention in Committee. In Part 1, I certainly welcome the removal of the restriction on dual candidacy and a return to the original settlement of the 1998 Act. It was, quite frankly, a piece of naked party-political jiggery-pokery by the Labour Government to have removed it, and they should be ashamed of themselves for having tinkered with the constitution for party-political advantage. I hope that we can have an assurance from the Labour Front Bench that never again will they resort to such unworthy action. If that assurance is not forthcoming, we should build into this Act a provision that any further change to the electoral system of the Assembly should be implemented at Westminster, if indeed it has to be done at Westminster, only if it carries a two-thirds endorsement by Assembly Members.
With regard to the Assembly’s election and membership, I am totally convinced that the Assembly cannot do an effective job with its new, enhanced powers since the 2011 referendum without a larger membership. That becomes an even greater requirement with the additional financial scrutiny that will emanate from the Bill. I believe that there need to be at least 100 Members to do an adequate job. Might I suggest that if we are not to have an STV model of election, which I favour, we should consider each of the current 40 Assembly constituencies having two Members for each seat, with one man and one woman elected in each, thereby largely overcoming the question of gender balance that has been a problem for some parties over the last few years? Primarily I believe that this is something that the Assembly itself might consider as any such initiative should come from Wales and not be imposed by Westminster. I hope that the Government might be amenable to giving the Assembly full powers over the electoral system.
I am, incidentally, aware that in the Commons Report stage, Labour proposed taking steps towards a reserve powers model, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, referred earlier, and I heartily endorse that. But inexplicably, it linked this to a delay in implementing Part 2 taxation powers, which I could not understand. I hope that when this matter comes to Committee we shall be able to consider the pressing need for Wales to have a Parliament based on the same reserve powers as underpins the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, without unnecessarily linking it to delaying the taxation powers.
With regard to the taxation powers in Part 2 of the Bill, they are very modest indeed—so much so that I personally had some doubt about whether they warranted a referendum. However, I accept that that was part of the Silk recommendation. In the spirit of accepting Silk as a package, and not cherry picking, I accept that that referendum may be necessary. But, for every small change in relation to the government of Wales, we cannot have referendum after referendum. The House of Commons is elected and this Chamber is appointed to do a job of work, and we have to take that responsibility. In that spirit I urge the Government to reconsider their rejection of the Silk proposal on tax rates being varied in each band, to which reference has already been made and signals given that we are moving in the right direction.
The Government’s insistence on having a straitjacket of lock-step provision in the Bill undermines, at a stroke, the flexibility of the Welsh Government to use the new tax-varying powers in a radical fashion. They could not, for example, reduce the top rate by 5p, say, to make Wales a more entrepreneurial-friendly place, at a modest cost in terms of forgone income without reducing the standard rate proportionately—a totally impossible and unsustainable action. The irony, as I have no doubt the government Front Bench are very much aware, is that in Scotland, where the Calman commission insisted, I believe, in having a lock-step model, the Government in their move towards a devo-max situation as part of buying off the yes vote in the Scottish referendum are now talking about scrapping the lock-step, as recommended by the Strathclyde commission, and indeed personally endorsed by the Prime Minister. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that the Government will indeed look again at this, and there may be a possibility of doing something about it in Committee or on Report.
I welcome the provisions of new Section 116C to be inserted in the Wales Act, allowing new devolved taxes. Some work needs to be done in the Assembly to see how that can best be used. I shall now say a word about the workings of the borrowing powers, which appear in Clauses 20 and 21 of the Bill. I understand that until a further referendum is held the Assembly’s borrowing powers will be capped at £500 million, which frankly is chickenfeed, and totally inadequate to deal with Wales’s economic problems. This is insufficient even to fund the M4 improvements around Newport, which will cost more than £900 million.
Will the remainder of that capital have to be funded from the already truncated capital budget of the National Assembly, leaving virtually nothing for any other capital projects—hospitals, schools, roads, sea defences—needed around the rest of Wales? It seems, quite frankly, as if the Welsh Government’s hands are being tied by Westminster in order to deliver London’s objectives and priorities, not the balanced capital programme needed by Wales. The Assembly should have an accumulated borrowing capacity of £2 billion over and above the M4 costs and we should address that question in Committee.
I have dealt with what is included in the Bill but I cannot let it pass without noting what is not included. In its introduction, on page 3, the Silk report comments that:
“Consideration of the Holtham Commission’s proposals for funding reform in Wales … was excluded from our terms of reference. These issues are being taken forward through a separate bilateral process between the UK and Welsh Governments”.
That is the elephant which cannot speak its name in today’s debate but whose shadow makes a sham of pretending that this Bill deals with the central financial question facing the Welsh Government—that is, the persistent, chronic underfunding as a result of the mindless, myopic adherence to an outdated and discredited Barnett formula, which has left Wales, since 1999, with a cumulative shortfall of £6 billion in its finances. This has led to the underfunding of the NHS, schools and local government in Wales, and neither party of government has had the courage to put that right.
In recommendation 12, Silk stated that if the UK Government were to agree to devolve corporation tax to both Scotland and Northern Ireland, the same powers should be given to Wales. Will the Minister confirm that if corporation tax is indeed devolved to Scotland, it will also be devolved to Wales? If so, why is there no order-making mechanism within the Bill to avoid having to get yet further primary legislation to handle the matter?
The real inadequacy of the Bill will become glaringly obvious after Scotland’s independence referendum in September. If Scotland votes yes—as I and my party hope—the relationships of the residual United Kingdom will have to be fundamentally reassessed. Even if Scotland votes no, partly as a result of the blandishments offered by the parties in Scotland to head off a potential yes vote, those commitments will need to be incorporated into the election manifestos of the UK parties, otherwise we could well see a bitter backlash in Scotland, with perhaps 20 or 30 SNP MPs holding the balance in the new Parliament.
That has a significant implication for Wales and for the adequacy of this Bill. The Bill we are debating today may well be seen, by the time we get to Committee, as a vehicle that must grow into an enabling Act relevant to the post-referendum world we shall then inhabit. It is in that context that I support a Second Reading.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill as a major step forward in the long-running saga of the principle of giving more power to the people of Wales, where it rightly belongs. Depending on the length of this debate, I apologise in advance if I miss one or two speeches as I have to preside at an event of interest to Welsh lawyers at the Supreme Court, regrettably clashing with the change of date for this debate.
We have come a long way since I introduced the Wales Bill in the Commons in November 1977—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his reference to it—and longer still since the 1950s, when I discussed Jim Griffiths’ remit to Lord Prys-Davies to put on paper a model for an elected council for Wales, the first practical step, a foundation, upon which we developed as a party and delivered—indeed, the only party that can deliver at Westminster.
In 1974 my party was split. We had not sufficiently prepared Wales for the momentous task of choosing the way forward in a referendum. In the past, the Conservative Party has fought resolutely against giving any power to Wales, from the setting up of even a Secretary of State’s office. The last Secretary of State kept a very low profile on the Prime Minister’s last visit to Cardiff. Not a few years ago, he was advocating in the Assembly that no taxation powers should be given. I surmise that the change of heart of many Conservatives in Cardiff owes a great deal to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. I thank him and his fellow commissioners on the Silk commission. We are all devolutionists now: or, should I say, mostly all?
In 1998, Lord Callaghan told this House,
“that the age of small nations has arisen as a kind of backlash to what is happening globally”.—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1056.]
I wish the new Secretary of State well, despite the Prime Minister’s inflammatory comments at the Royal Welsh Show yesterday. I just missed him, as it happens. The Secretary of State’s first task, when he sits down during the recess, is to find ways of bringing the war of words between Westminster and Cardiff to an end and, despite the approaching 2015 election, find ways of working with the First Minister for the better governance of Wales. The Prime Minister is not encumbered by past battles and should have shown leadership and a way forward. We all have to deliver on our priorities. Sometimes they can be right and sometimes they can be wrong or improved upon. Given the problem on both sides of Offa’s Dyke, the administration of health and education cannot be perfect in today’s conditions. If there were no problems with the health service in England, which we read about, day after day, week after week, perhaps it would be allowable for the pot to call the kettle black. However, this is not so and there are problems on both sides of Offa’s Dyke. The more we learn from each other, the better. The whole idea of devolution is that we can be different and learn from each other. From plastic bags, at the bottom end of the scale, to experimenting in a small way with administering the health service, Wales can learn from England and vice versa.
It is interesting that the 2015 general election will be fought, in Wales, on matters not within the province of Westminster MPs. I was aghast when a Welsh Assembly Member is reputed to have said that it was constitutionally inappropriate for a Welsh MP to give evidence to an Assembly committee on a devolved matter. I gather that my right honourable friend Ann Clwyd has now given evidence. Likewise, a Welsh Minister is reputed to have refused to give evidence to a Commons Select Committee. I have consulted the Clerk of this House and the contention of inappropriate behaviour is without any foundation. The sooner we learn that Wales and England are interdependent, not independent, the better. Only two years ago, I travelled to Cardiff, at the invitation of an Assembly committee, to give evidence. Since then, I have received another invitation. I am pleased that the thrust of most of my earlier evidence was accepted and I am delighted at the proposal to grant modest borrowing powers to the Assembly. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, can remind us what the borrowing powers of the WDA—which I created—were. He will be able to say better than I but, looking at it as a whole, they are modest. I congratulate the Assembly Government, and their most effective Business Minister, on being decisive in their proposal to use some of those borrowing powers to invest in better communications around Newport. We all suffer from being held up by the problem there: I do so week in, week out.
When I became Secretary of State, not a spade was being dug to further the M4. I maintain my firm belief that the secret of Wales’s prosperity is good east to west communications. I spent many long hours—including once on a long business trip to Japan—expediting the planning process for the A55 in north Wales. In that time, I agreed the line of the road but, unfortunately, I had to defer the problem of Conwy because of the lack of evidence on the practicality of a tunnel. Eventually, the evidence was forthcoming and my successors—I congratulate them—built the A55. Good east to west communications in south Wales and north Wales are crucial. If the Newport bottleneck is tackled, other problems will be seen and dealt with in north Wales. It is a matter of availability of resources and I firmly believe that this is the way forward. This is why, in my time, I rejected grandiose economic plans for the whole of Wales. In the north, there would be very little interest in what was being done in the south and vice versa. What was important was communicating with the markets in England.
I am less enthusiastic about the detail of taxing powers in the Bill. My bottom line is that, whatever taxes the Welsh Assembly raises—at its peril—Wales must not lose out in any Treasury subvention. Taxation does go with representation, so there is a lot going for the principle, but the end result must be clear and untrammelled by unnecessary restrictions. However, it should follow and not precede reform of the Barnett formula. I was there on day one when the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on the back of an envelope, conceived the idea of the share of the money I should have. It was never intended to be a formula and it has never worked as a just way of allocating resources. Governments —particularly my own, I fear—did not attempt the reform. I ask, rhetorically, whether this was because Scotland was gaining so much more from it than Wales was. It should have been reformed years ago. Whatever Government are in power after 2015, it is essential that that is tackled now.
Before I close, I will make one fundamentally important point, which has already been referred to. The Bill’s weakness is that it is yet another manifestation of a drip-by-drip granting of new powers to Wales. Surely there is a better way of utilising parliamentary time, despite what the Minister has said. The time has come for the adoption for Wales of something similar to the original Scottish model of the transfer of all powers, save those that are reserved to Westminster, with further consideration to the Scottish position after the referendum. The constitutional position would be clear and the boundaries of powers would not need updating every few years. It would avoid the Attorney-General marching, metaphorically, up and down Offa’s Dyke, acting as a policeman to ensure that the Welsh Assembly did not exceed its powers, a role which I created in 1977. The last Attorney-General was trigger-happy and only last week came unstuck before the Supreme Court. His intervention seemed to lack an understanding of the purpose of the granting of a particular power and that is where he went wrong.
After we have examined the mechanics of the Bill, which should pass, we should, after 2015, concentrate on the granting of a settlement based on the reserved powers model. I cannot emphasise that too much. The next Government should then set up a constitutional convention, a body with a membership even superior to and with more clout than the Kilbrandon commission, the genesis of Scottish and Welsh devolution—perhaps party leaders might even serve on it—to examine the sheer unevenness of the constitutional arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, how devolution is still largely unrecognised and ignored in the workings of Westminster, and the future roles of both Houses of Parliament for the devolved assemblies.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, who has unparalleled experience in these matters. I found myself in agreement with much of what he said. I also join the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, in saying that it was a great pleasure to see the Secretary of State here for the beginning of the debate. It signals a close working relationship with us and indeed with the Welsh Government in Cardiff, perhaps underlined by the fact that he attended the First Minister’s reception yesterday. I think that is a sign of things to come. I do not think that the jury is out: I think it is going to be a good, close working relationship.
The Bill is in three parts. I do not propose to deal with one part for very long, except to say that it deals with the housing revenue account debt. I do not think anybody else has dealt with that either. It is largely non-controversial. I will first say a few words about Part 1, which deals with matters that were not at all within the purview of the Silk commission—namely, electoral arrangements. First, moving to a five-year fixed term now that the UK Parliament is on a fixed term makes a lot of sense. The party leaders and indeed the parties in the National Assembly welcomed it and we should as well. The ending of the dual mandate with the House of Commons also makes sense. There are some transitional measures there for people who move from one body to another so that they are not automatically disqualified from the other body. Once again, these are sensible.
What seems to be controversial, at least with the Labour Party, is the return to the process that the Labour Party introduced, which it now says people find confusing, of allowing people to stand both on a regional list and for first past the post constituencies. I would like to see the evidence that the people of Wales are confused by that. I do not have such a low opinion of the intelligence of the people of my country as to believe that. There is no evidence to suggest that anybody is confused by that. It is perhaps even more insulting that the Labour Party did not seem to think that the people of Scotland were confused by that because, at the same time as the Labour Government were changing it for Wales, they kept it for Scotland, where of course they had regional Members. When they changed it in Wales, they did not have any regional Members. If it were not the noble Baroness putting this forward, it would smack of hypocrisy, but I know her well enough to know that the opposition that she is putting forward is probably tongue-in-cheek. It makes sense to permit this and allow people to vote as they wish to vote.
Turning to the part of the Bill relating to Silk Part I, the taxation and borrowing powers are largely but not exclusively an adoption of Part I of the Silk report. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said about the consensual nature of that. I particularly commend him for the lead that he has always taken in Plaid Cymru, and that Eurfyl ap Gwilym took as the representative of Plaid Cymru, in ensuring that we developed a consensus. It was not perhaps as difficult as he has suggested. I well remember that in Scotland Eurfyl ap Gwilym was mistaken for the Conservative representative because he was far to the right of me on many economic policies when we met the trade unions. It is sometimes surprising how these things develop. It is also important to note that the Labour Party was represented on Part I by a much respected and very able former Finance Minister, Sue Essex, who worked extremely hard, as did Rob Humphreys for the Liberal Democrats. The consensus building on Part I and indeed Part II was not that difficult. If we are able to capture that same capacity to move forward together within this House and the House of Commons, that will be all to the good.
Looking at the various taxes that are dealt with in the Bill and were dealt with by Silk Part I, the proposals on landfill taxes have been accepted, as have those on stamp duty land tax. The difficulties on aggregates tax were largely to do with the European position, and when we recommended devolution of that we put in the caveat, “Subject to this being solved in relation to European constraints”. We recommended that air passenger duty should be devolved for non-stop or direct long-haul flights. I regret that that has not been the case. I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, will deal with that when he speaks. I am disappointed in that regard.
The other difference is on income tax—not with the proposals on the bands so much as the lock-step. The amount on the bands is the same but we recommended the scrapping of the lock-step, which I thought was a good thing. Of course, there is lock-step in Scotland and we have to see that at the moment everything is looked at through the prism of Scotland, as noble Lords have said. It may look very different after the Scottish referendum, as my noble friend the Minister suggested. I do not agree but I can understand the Government’s position on that.
In relation to borrowing, I suppose we would all want more borrowing for Wales but we should note that this is a significant step. It goes further than what the Labour Party achieved in its period in government. For all the complaining about lack of progress on the Barnett reform—I wish the noble and learned Lord had grabbed that envelope and torn it up when it was being scribbled on in front of him; it might have saved us all a lot of trouble—and the gnashing of teeth on the other side, no progress was made on reform of the Barnett formula while Labour was in government. To be fair, I think the present Finance Minister in the National Assembly, Jane Hutt, has acknowledged that; in discussions with my right honourable friend Danny Alexander they have made progress on reform of the Barnett formula, although clearly there is still some distance to go on that.
I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said about not leading the campaign for income tax powers in Wales. I must say, since she seems to regard those powers as pretty much akin to killing blue-eyed babies, we should be grateful that she is not going to be leading that campaign because, on the basis of her speech today, I do not think she would convince many people. But this gives power to the people of Wales, for us to do things differently based on having some independent tax-raising powers—new taxes, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, mentioned. These are things that we should be seizing.
Yes, there are some deficiencies in the Bill but it is a massive stride forward and we should acknowledge that and try to move forward in the spirit of consensus, as we have done so far on these issues, in marked contrast to Scotland. No doubt the position will look different after the Scottish referendum, but that does not mean that we should not grab this opportunity and move forward because otherwise we will get left even further behind. On that basis, the Bill deserves our support and then close scrutiny in Committee.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I add my voice to those who have welcomed the provisions in the Bill. In doing so, I pay tribute to the contributions of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, in both Cardiff Bay and Westminster, who insisted on the inclusion of a commission to examine the devolution settlement in Wales in the coalition agreement. Their foresight has resulted in this opportunity to strengthen the constitutional arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales.
When the National Assembly opened in 1999, the limited powers and responsibilities it was given resulted in it being labelled a talking shop, and I would probably be correct in saying that many of us who were there at the time would agree with that description. I was certainly struck in those early days by the difference between the Welsh and Scottish constitutional settlements as I sat in the Scottish Parliament and, with a great degree of envy, watched MSPs debate a piece of primary legislation to create the first national park in Scotland.
Thankfully, the situation in Wales has moved on, and whether we agree with some of the decisions of the Welsh Government or not, it is absolutely our responsibility as we debate this Bill to distinguish between the Labour Government in Cardiff on the one hand, and the institution which is the Senedd on the other, and to ensure that its constitutional framework allows the Senedd itself to carry out its functions properly.
This Bill has much in it that many will see as a sensible way forward—Members have already referred to them—including: the change to a five-year term in the Senedd to avoid clashes with parliamentary elections; the banning of double jobbing, where Assembly Members retain their seats in the Senedd if they become MPs and vice versa; and the renaming of the Welsh Assembly Government as the Welsh Government—clearly focusing on the difference between the Government of the day and the institution itself. All of those are to be welcomed.
The issue of dual candidacy will, of course, engender debate and I look forward to contributing to that debate as the Bill progresses through this House. Perhaps it will be enough to comment, at this stage, that no other democratic country that operates an additional member system as a means of achieving a proportional result has placed a ban on dual candidacy. That Wales remains in the same category as South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Ukraine—surely not the best examples of democracy at work—casts a shadow on the fairness of the system underpinning our Senedd. Critics of the ban on dual candidacy have observed that:
“The biggest single public concern about the operation of the Assembly is a concern about the calibre and life experience of Assembly Members. Dual candidacy does at least help all parties to secure the election of their best people”.
Debates at future stages of this Bill may also present us with the opportunity to address the issue of closed lists for the regional aspect of elections, introduced by the party opposite when it was in government and operational in the 2011 Assembly elections. Reversing this situation and reintroducing an open list, where names of candidates as well as parties appear on the ballot paper, would re-establish that link between lead candidates and their electorates.
I said earlier that this Bill will ensure the framework to allow the Senedd to properly carry out its functions, but I wonder whether it goes far enough. This Bill does not deal with aspects of Silk 2 which many would argue we should take the opportunity to include. The new fiscal powers envisaged for Wales—the design and arrangements for schemes to collect stamp duty tax and landfill tax, for example—present the Welsh Government and the Senedd itself with many challenges.
The other elephant in the room is, of course, the size of the Assembly. In its publication, Size Matters, the Electoral Reform Society argues that the size of the Assembly is a matter which is,
“too important to be left to the politicians”,
but it is surely we, as politicians, who will have to make the final decision. There is a need to open the debate on the issue and examine the arguments in a logical and unbiased way, with the goal of strengthening the effectiveness of the institution that is the Assembly.
With 60 Members at present, the Assembly is smaller than almost half the unitary authorities in Wales. In the years leading up to the formation of the Assembly, none of the recommendations about its size fell below 75, with most recommending 100. With an Executive of 12, the remaining Assembly Members already experience difficulties fulfilling an effective scrutiny role alongside their other duties and their workload is heavier than that of Members in Westminster, Holyrood and Stormont. Perhaps the assertion made by the Electoral Reform Society that good scrutiny saves money is one worthy of debate in this Chamber. But these are issues for another time—perhaps even in the next stages in this Bill.
The Bill before us today seeks to strengthen the constitutional arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales and to introduce a new funding framework which will empower and enhance its accountability. Perhaps it is pertinent to remember that these recommendations are not the result of some political dogma but come from, and are underpinned by, the recommendations of a commission that consulted with the people of Wales—a theme to which I will undoubtedly return in future stages of this Bill.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the King’s College group which has produced a plan for a written constitution, currently being considered by the House of Commons constitutional committee. I cannot, I am afraid, declare an interest in the House of Lords Constitution Committee because I have been kept off it.
I therefore speak from the Back Benches with the independence that that conveys, and do so by giving the Bill my very strong general support. As has been pointed out by other speakers, it is a remarkable change for the Conservative Party, which opposed devolution and primary legislative powers, and the former Secretary of State, who spoke against the Assembly having taxing powers. So when the Prime Minister in Cardiff recently declared that this is a Government who believe in Welsh devolution, that was a very remarkable conversion worthy of events on the road to Damascus a long time ago.
This Bill has many excellent features from the small—like the name of the Assembly Government—to implementing the bulk of the first report of the Silk commission on taxation. One concludes that we have a coalition Government of repentant sinners—who, we are told in the good book, have a better than even chance of entering the kingdom of heaven.
I want to say something briefly about the Assembly and its character and a little about the policy it should pursue. I pray in aid not a Welshman but a Scotsman, Gordon Brown, whose contribution to the Scottish independence debate has been outstanding, and who has many important things to say in his latest book on the constitution more generally.
It is clearly important that the powers of the Assembly should be revised. It was a big conceptual mistake that the Welsh Assembly did not have reserved powers from the very beginning. It had the drip-drip of conferred powers. No intelligent reason was given why this should not be done as it was in Scotland. I do not think, with respect, that any intelligent reason has been given this afternoon. It seems to me that it is bound to happen as part of the wider constitutional changes which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said will follow the Scottish referendum whatever the outcome is. As the Silk report has said, it would make matters clearer and make for greater coherence and consistency. It would also bring out the meaning of what devolution actually is. It is really rather humiliating to have powers determined for you by another assembly. I think that this would strengthen the Assembly, and would make the Welsh Assembly as Gordon Brown would wish to see the Scottish Parliament—namely an entrenched, permanent part of an updated constitution, and an updated written constitution, I hope. I hope to see that and, as people have said, for that to be treated as a matter of urgency.
On the size of the Assembly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, that 60 Members is nowhere near enough. The Richard commission argued strongly for it. This is a very small number of Assembly Members who are not in the Government to carry out the processes of scrutiny. I remember raising this with the previous Secretary of State but one and inquiring why the Welsh Assembly did not have more powers. She observed that the public mood did not favour having more paid officials. I recall asking her why in that case the Government had suggested creating 300 more paid politicians in the upper House, but there was not a response to that.
I think that the length of the Assembly should be determined by the Assembly; it should not be told by another body for how long it should conduct its operations. As a responsible and dignified body, it should decide for itself.
On the policy changes, much has been said about the borrowing powers. That is the central feature of the Bill and will enable the Welsh Government, or should enable them, to take on far greater powers to improve the economy and infrastructure in Wales. The borrowing amount of £500 million is, as was said, far too timid—I think that “chicken feed” was the expression that I heard on my left, which seems rather accurate. It is based on a measurement which is different from that of Scotland. There is nothing divinely created about it and I am sure that it will be looked at. It is profoundly necessary after the public sector cuts that Wales has endured in the past four years that it should have the ability to expand through its borrowing powers. There is a stronger case now for greater borrowing powers because the Welsh Assembly is to have much greater powers and to be able to do more things. Silk has virtually argued that the same measurement should be used for Wales as for Scotland and I do not see why that should not be the case.
I welcome the thrust of the Bill on taxation. As we said in the debate on the Scotland Bill, there should be no representation without taxation. We now have powers for stamp and landfill duties, which will give the Welsh Government more of an independent income. On income tax, I would hope that the Labour Party, of which I am a member, would be less apprehensive. It was noted in the New Statesman a week or two back by Professor Adam Tomkins that the Labour Party had lost out in the debate on Scotland by being too timid and, having set up devolution, not spelling out what it was for. I hope that the Labour Party, which is, as it has always been, the dominant party in Wales—or has been since the First World War at least—would be less apprehensive about that. One can see the apprehension about tax competition and about the Treasury using income tax variations for its own purposes, but this is a matter on which the parties should be quite clear—for that matter, I support what the Labour Party has said about perhaps increasing to 15 pence the amount of income tax that could be devolved to Wales.
I do not think that we need a referendum. We have had quite enough referendums in Wales. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, showed proper apprehension at leading or even taking part in any such debate—it would be one of the lower turnouts on record. Politicians of both sides have been passing the buck on this one. There was no referendum in relation to the Calman proposals for Scotland. Why should there be for Wales? It is a humiliating cop-out—to use the vocabulary—which is unfair.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
There was of course a referendum in Scotland which the Labour Party provided for when devolved taxation was introduced.
Lord Morgan
Yes, I accept that. At any rate, in this case, I think that the argument against a referendum in the Silk commission report is profoundly the case and I strongly support it.
What I think is quite wrong, however, is to have income tax devolved at all while the Barnett formula continues. The formula was shredded by the Holtham report; it was shredded by the House of Lords committee. I do not know whether a stop-gap can be well past its sell-by date but—if those metaphors are in any sense reconcilable—that is the main point that has come forward. We have had a conspiracy of silence on all sides about the Barnett formula. The Labour Party had one or two debates on it in this House which were not at all sensible. The Conservatives have had their own discussion which quite falsely linked the Barnett formula with the accumulation of national debt, which it has nothing to do with. The Liberal Democrats have not been particularly vocal on it. Plaid Cymru has attached the Barnett formula to an extreme version of Welsh nationalism not particularly favoured since the days of Owain Glyndwr. UKIP has attached it to English nationalism, which seems to be equally unfortunate. In a way, the “none of the above” candidate would have a strong vote from me in that debate.
Proper government in Wales has been a long and hesitant process. It began in perhaps unlikely fashion with the demon drink in 1881, when the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act began the principle of Welsh legislation. This Bill is a welcome milestone, but it needs a wider vision linking the arguments in Wales both with the important and highly relevant debates on independence in Scotland and with the forthcoming debate on a referendum for Europe, which may not come for two or three years but will most certainly affect the attitude of Welsh people towards devolution and towards participating in a United Kingdom where England is perhaps strongly Eurosceptic. Hence, Gordon Brown has urged that a new constitutional settlement be adopted to bring together all these different themes and to make, as I have suggested, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly permanent and irreversible.
This Bill shows how Wales has been a casualty of the process of stop-start change that we have had on constitutional reform for many years. The constitution has been correctly described by Professor Anthony King of the University of Essex as a “mess”. Wales is one area that has suffered from this mess. I would hope therefore that the mess could be cleared up by having a constitutional convention to provide a holistic look at all these aspects: the union in this country; the union with Europe; and the relationship between the different nations within the United Kingdom. I hope that we will have a vision supplied—perhaps even by the Constitution Committee here, of which I shall not be a member—and that the people of Wales will benefit. Nevertheless, that this Bill is a very helpful and hopeful start is incontestable.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, this Bill well deserves the support that is obvious for it in all parts of the House, in the main because it is a Bill that takes Wales further along the road to home rule.
Many Members have meandered down memory lane in connection with the events of past decades. They reminded me of the feelings that I have, and always have had since I was a young boy, about the attainment of a Welsh Parliament. It has been something of an obsession for me, and I make no apology for that. For many years—years of disappointment and frustration—it seemed like a distant dream, which would probably never be achieved.
All that changed in 1964, with the establishment of the office of Secretary of State for Wales. Before then it seemed that nothing in the way of substantial constitutional development was possible: after that, everything has been possible—that is, in so far as it is the will and the determination of the Welsh people to achieve it.
To some extent, the devolution in the 1997 referendum, and in statute thereafter, was not classic devolution at all, because it did not, in the main, entail the transfer of any substantial new powers to Wales. The powers had already been transferred, but they had been transferred to Welsh Ministers. What it did bring about, of course, was a significant transfer of power from Ministers to the people of Wales. It meant that, for the first time, one had a body elected by the people of Wales, meeting on the soil of Wales, and with a moral and legal authority to speak for Wales. Obviously, with the greatest respect, that authority had to be on a broader basis than that which could be enjoyed by any Minister of the Crown as such.
In the referendum of 2011 we had a very considerable devolution. That created, essentially, a Welsh Parliament —a lawmaking Parliament with wide legislative powers, falling into 20 separate broad categories. That presents a massive challenge. This Parliament of Westminster has had many centuries to evolve slowly, deliberately and securely, and to mould its traditions to meet the needs of various ages. We in Wales will be expected to achieve a great deal of that process within a very short compass of time.
That must always be remembered in the context of what is now a new body. It is the Assembly, but it is essentially a Welsh Parliament. I not only recognise, but am charmed by the fact, that it should be called the Senedd. I believe that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, who set the precedent with his Bill in the 1970s, in which the name of the body was the Senedd.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I know that the Bill presented by Lord Hooson in 1967 contained the name Senedd; I drafted it.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
It did indeed. A few weeks ago I had the great honour of contributing a chapter on the political life of the late Emlyn Hooson, in which I made that very point.
There is therefore a respectable precedent for the concept of a Senedd. The word may, of course, have embarrassing connotations. As noble Lords will know, it comes from the Latin word “senex”, meaning an old man. The same stem is in the word “senile”—and also in the word “senior”. But—and I speak with some fervour and commitment in this matter—there is a great deal to be said for old men in politics.
The generality of the Bill is very much in the track of everything that has happened in the past 40 years, and especially in the past 17 years, since the referendum of 1997. I have little doubt that it shows that the curve of expectations and the curve of confidence that the Welsh people have in their own destiny has nobly sharpened during that time. I think that it will continue to do so.
It is in that context, therefore, that we look not only at what the Bill contains, but at what it does not mention. The main part of it, as we all appreciate, deals with the varied rate of tax that will be within the jurisdiction of the Welsh Assembly. I have a canny approach to such a situation, perhaps because I am a Cardiganshire man, and in Cardiganshire we have the tradition of being extremely careful in relation to money—a very laudable trait, if I may say so.
Of course the proposal has its attractions. Of course we will never be a complete and full home rule parliament unless we take up such responsibilities. But after all, we are being asked to invest in a future that is very uncertain. We are being asked to buy stock, as it were, in a new enterprise—but the prospectus is very nebulous. What do I mean by that? I refer, first, to the lock-step. That could dominate the whole situation. With a lock-step imposed on the three bands of taxation, it might be difficult to impose a progressive tax. The Silk commission—I too applaud the efforts of people like the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in this context—was strongly for that. It argued the case to the point where there was no answer to it. Nevertheless—due, no doubt, to influences from beyond the Tweed, and for reasons connected with Scotland—there is dubiety at this moment. Until that dubiety is resolved, we cannot really begin to think about the question of whether Wales should take up these powers.
There is also the question of Barnett. In passing, may I say that we hope that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will soon be restored to full health in this place; he is a gentleman of remarkable qualities, and I have enjoyed his friendship for more than 40 years. However, the losses under the Barnett formula have been enormous, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has already proved. The commission chaired by Gerry Holtham made it abundantly clear that every year, Wales loses—or did lose when the report was published, three years ago—some £300 million. As the economy improves, that loss becomes greater. It is a disgraceful situation, for which Governments of both colours over the past 30 years are responsible, because they have been unwilling to look into the inequity of the arrangement. A small country like Wales simply cannot afford this massive haemorrhaging of assets, which will continue unless something drastic and radical is done about it.
As for the main proposal in the Bill—yes, there are possibilities, but there are also dangers. There are matters that have to be spelt out. I cannot for a moment see the Welsh people accepting it until they have some sort of reasonable guarantee that we will be no worse off if we take up those options. Hazlitt said that there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes. As for death, this House may very well do something about its certainty, but as for taxes, they will remain exactly the same, and for ever.
Of course it will be difficult for a referendum to be carried if there is still a tinge of uncertainty. Gerry Holtham said to the Welsh Affairs Committee that the referendum is very losable unless those guarantees are in place.
I turn to two other matters that are not in the Bill. One is the membership of the Assembly. I do not think that I can overemphasise that feature. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has already spelt out the case, a case set out excellently in the publication by the Electoral Reform Society Wales. The facts, briefly, are these. In Scotland, there are 128 Members of the Scottish Parliament; in Northern Ireland, there are 108 Members of the Assembly; in Wales, there are 60. Once you take out the Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Officers of those various Houses, you have this result: in the House of Commons, 525 Back-Benchers; in Scotland, 113 Back-Benchers; in Northern Ireland, 92 Back-Benchers; in Wales, 42 Back-Benchers. That is well below the minimum number that can form a reasonable critical mass to carry out that function.
Edmund Burke said that, for evil to triumph, it is necessary only for men of good will to do nothing. If anyone wants to bring about the evil of destroying the very future of the Welsh Assembly, and everything that is possible within its grasp, all you have to do is to do nothing in relation to that membership. It is simply impossible for it to carry on with that small number. The Electoral Reform Society has argued strongly the case for 100 Members. It has carried out surveys in all parts of the world and found that that is about the average for what might be called a sub-parliament of this nature.
For myself, I would ask people to exercise a bit of faith and imagination, to consider how that rising curve of expectation that we have seen in Welsh constitutional development over the past 15 years might continue, and to say that 120 might not be impossible. The beauty of the figure of 120 is that it is very simple: you simply double the number of Members that you have at present.
I turn briefly to the question of reserved powers. It is simply ludicrous that if a person wants to find out whether or not a particular function has been devolved to Wales, he or she might have to look at 600, 700 or 800 little pieces of constitutional confetti just to find out whether that matter has been transferred. That is no way to run a parliament. Indeed, by placing the situation on the basis of reserved powers, we place Wales in exactly the same position as Northern Ireland and Scotland. That would also save a whole generation of Welsh lawyers from acute constitutional neurosis.
Wales stands at a point in time where there are many challenges, many dangers and many possibilities. This House must have heard the quote from the Bard of Avon very often:
“There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries”.
There is a tide in the life of a small nation, as well, and we must do all we can to see that we do not miss that fateful opportunity.
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
My Lords, many Members of the House who have spoken today have referred to their personal position on devolution. It was a curious coincidence that, as I prepared my thoughts on the Bill, I had an e-mail from a sixth-former in West Wales, Eleri Williams, with a questionnaire. The first question was: had I been a supporter of devolution? I fear that I am in a minority of one in this afternoon’s debate, as I confessed to her and now confess to the House that I was a most reluctant supporter of devolution. That was, frankly, from personal experience as a parliamentary historian who then had the great privilege of sitting for 33 years in the other House, 29 of them representing an iconic Welsh constituency. The notion that I should share this responsibility was rather underwhelming, and the notion that I would lose any constituency responsibility for health, education and transport was very unappealing. That was one factor that led me to stand down in 2001.
However, unlike my noble friend Lord Morgan—Professor Morgan—I think that since then the settlement has benefited from being gradual. We can so easily forget how frail and fragile the support for the settlement was in the first place; it was a very marginal issue. I believe that the gradual approach has been important in allowing the Assembly to build support for the process and for itself. Because of where I come from—the position I take on devolution—I believe that we should not be obsessed by aping the Scots or following the Scottish line. We should shape our devolution settlement based on our political culture and our own demographic factors. That is extremely important.
However, I believe that we are at a stage when one extremely important change has to be made, to which—as, I confess, a reluctant devolutionist—I now give my wholehearted support. That is the whole issue of reserved powers. As a result of the changes that have taken place, this reform is now overdue; it is a most important reform that needs to be made. I regret that it is not in the Bill—not only that, but I am not certain where the Government stand on the issue. Are they just saying that they do not have time to include those proposals in the Bill? Do they support in principle the idea that we should have reserved powers? That is an area that we will need to explore in Committee, because it is becoming extremely important. The case was powerfully made by my noble friend Lord Morgan earlier. That is certainly an issue that we shall pursue in Committee.
The next question that Ms Williams posed to me in her questionnaire was: what did I think about the electoral system? I explained to her that it had been designed primarily because of the fear that the Labour Party would dominate the Assembly if there had been a completely first-past-the-post arrangement, so the electoral system had been successful because there has not been a dominant party. I did have to say, however, that I thought that Clause 2, reversing the ban on dual candidacy, was foolish. I recall vividly the reaction, certainly in our area in West Wales—in the 2003 election, I think it was—to the notion that people who had lost an election should then be elected as Members. Whether we are for or against that, I should much prefer Clause 2 to go and to insert a clause that states that the Assembly should make those decisions. Let the Assembly from now on determine the electoral arrangements. Why is this House going to determine whether dual candidacy is right or wrong? It should be the Assembly’s responsibility, and it would be preferable if we abandoned Clause 2 and introduced a clause that allowed the Assembly to determine its electoral arrangements.
The borrowing powers are important and I support them, as I support the two minor taxes, although, again, I hope that we scrutinise them in Committee, because from reading some of the Commons debates, I do not think that either clause was scrutinised in a proper fashion, and I believe it to be the duty of this House to do so.
On the question of taxation, having read the carefully considered argument that Silk produces, I accept his argument for tax-varying powers, but I hope that we do not become obsessed by them. It would be political surrealism to believe that Governments of whatever political hue will seize on and make dramatic changes in taxation. At best, I think that they will be marginal. As my noble friend reminded us from the Front Bench, a 1p change in tax one way or the other is worth £200 million—not insignificant, but quite insignificant in a budget of £15 billion. I would not wish hot-headed debates to take place on whether we should say yes or no to 1p when a bigger debate about the whole nature and contribution of the Budget and the priorities in that Budget should be centre stage.
I turn finally to a point made by a number of noble Lords: the concern I share about the potential pressures on the Assembly in terms of scrutiny. I had the privilege of sitting with my noble friend Lord Richard on the Richard commission. We spotted then and felt that there was not a robust enough scrutiny system and that this was related to the number of Members of the House. We are now 10 years down the road, the Assembly is accruing more and more responsibilities and powers, and the issue of the robustness of the scrutiny process is a major concern.
With a Welsh Treasury we will have debates on taxation and on public finance issues, so we should remember how powerful and important a role is played in the other House by the Public Accounts Committee, and how uncomfortable Governments have been made by an awkward bunch of Back-Benchers questioning and pressurising. It is one of the great committees of the House and is very effective. I just do not feel that there is the same sense of an awkward squad creating problems and making Governments of whatever party uncomfortable and I think that that is partly related to the size of the Assembly itself: there are not enough Back-Benchers. Therefore I believe that we should accept, as a consequence of the Assembly accruing ever more power, that it has to have the capacity to scrutinise that power, otherwise we will have government but not a democratically scrutinised Government.
It is interesting that there has been almost unanimity in this House—it is easier for us to say, because we are not elected. It is a problem to present an unpalatable case for more politicians, but the case has to be made. It has to be seen in the context of the further accrual, the development of the devolution settlement and the expansion of the Assembly’s powers.
I welcome parts of the Bill and certainly look forward to scrutinising it. I do not know whether I should lock-step or not lock-step; I shall work that out in the course of our debates—and as for indexation and all the other issues, they look like the grist of a good Committee stage. However, I plead that we will not miss, as the professor and noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said, the slightly bigger picture; in particular, the importance of the role of an enhanced National Assembly to deal with the scrutiny of these powers.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, it is quite thrilling to hear the unanimity of those who have spoken, and our support for the Bill. We should show our appreciation of those who went before us and who fought on these issues, such as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the late Lord Richard Livsey, who were here for the last major debate on Welsh government. Perhaps we can send Gwilym Prys-Davies—he is still alive, you know—our regards at this time. There are others one cannot name.
I was going to spend a long time arguing that we should increase the number of Assembly Members from 60 to 80. I do not need to do that; the case has already been made. What we have to do now—and here I shall come into conflict with one of my colleagues—is to decide how we are going to reach that figure of 80. In Scotland, of course, we have the single transferable vote for local government. I have fought for this all my life. I do not know whether I would win the argument in this House, but certainly I might try it. At the moment, we have 40 constituencies, each electing one Member by first past the post. The remaining 20 are in five regions and, in order to get some proportionality, we have the sharing of the vote there, which seems to work quite fairly—as fairly as anything we could devise at present. One suggestion was that there should be two-Member constituencies. Let me give one or two examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, of course, represented Merthyr Tydfil, which used to be a two-Member constituency. The Tories never stood a chance there. It was always Liberal, and elected Keir Hardie. It never gave the minor party any chance at all. It had gone, of course, by 1929. The only one I can cite at the moment is Blackburn. In 1929 Blackburn was a two-Member constituency. Both socialists were elected and they polled 37,000 and 35,000 votes, but the Liberal and the Conservative polled 35,000 and 34,500 votes. It was winner takes all. To have that sort of arrangement would not be democratic or representative at all. We get it in local government sometimes. We get two-member wards and three-member wards and it is usually the same party that takes all the seats. I do not think that that is going to be acceptable to this House or to the people of Wales.
Lord Wigley
When I spoke earlier noble Lords may recall that I, too, had a preference for STV as a system, but I put forward the idea of two Members to each constituency—in the context not of an 80-Member Assembly but of a larger Assembly where there would still be a list, a presence that would bring proportionality or at least something approaching it.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
I very much look forward to having the debate when we come to that amendment in Committee. I am sure that noble Lords see the argument that simply having two-member wards or two-Member constituencies would deny us fair representation.
We come then to the question which has been debated here, which says that a candidate cannot stand for a constituency seat as well as for a list seat. Delighted I am—that is a good Welsh way of saying it—that we are going to make it legal for a Member to stand for a regional seat, a list seat, as well as for a constituency seat. I do not quite agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, said, that we simply do that so that those who are defeated at one level are successful at another level. Candidates are generally chosen for their profile and how they are able to contribute to the work of the Assembly if elected. What is wrong with trying to enable your most outstanding candidates to be elected on a first past the post system or a regional list system? We want the best people in the Assembly, and that is made easier by this recognition of dual candidacy.
In Wales, most of us vote for five different authorities: Europe, Westminster, Cardiff, the unitary authority and our community council. Are we voting too often? I am not going to deny anybody, but could we not merge the votes for, say, the community council and Europe, so that we do not go to the polls five times when we could have just the same democratic influence by going less often? I would even approve of elected local health authorities. I do not suggest that they be elected on another day, but that they could be linked so that we can make the most of these election days.
I now turn to finance and how the funding of elections and of constituency campaigns needs to be looked at in Wales. On the membership of parties, I do not have figures for Wales alone, but only those for the United Kingdom. In 1990 the Conservative Party claimed a million members. In 2011 it had 130,000 members. Membership has crashed, and not only there. In 1990 Labour claimed 311,000 members and this year it claimed 193,000 members. The Liberal Democrats had 77,000 members and now we have 49,000 members.
Diminishing membership means that fewer people are able to have more influence than before. The mass membership has gone. I remember being invited to speak to a women’s afternoon meeting—it was not Liberal, it was Conservative—and 300 people were going to be there. We do not have that now. You would have had fundraising with Christmas fairs, whist drives and regular party branch meetings, which brought in the money. Who pays now for the expenses of our candidates at elections? Where does their party funding come from?
The coalition agreement has a statement in it which refers to,
“reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics”.
We need a thorough review of party funds. I have here the names of the top donors for one quarter of 2014. I will not read those names but one contributed £1.5 million to the Conservative Party—in one quarter. Two others contributed £500,000 each to the Scottish National Party while the unions, of course, contributed very generously to the Labour Party. Now, he who pays the piper pipes the tune, so we should look at this. Especially in a Welsh Assembly, who pays and where is the influence?
The turnout in Welsh Assembly elections has never been 50%. In 1999 it was 46.4%, in 2003 38%, in 2007 43%, and in 2011 41%. The decreasing turnout over the past 50 years at all elections is a dangerous signal indeed because it means that with small branch and party memberships, and those people who are generous in their party contributions, an unhealthy influence is possible. I have presented a Voter Registration Bill, which I hope will be debated in the coming Session. In February 1974, 70% of 18 to 24 year-olds voted in the general election but, of the 5.6 million young people in the UK at present, only half are registered to vote and of that number only 24% are certain to vote. Why is that? It is because millions of citizens, especially young people, see politics as boring, out of touch, elitist, corrupt, complicated and unrepresentative. Such a small number of people are holding the reins of power now but it does not have to be that way. Our democracy can, and should, be something that everyone understands and has a stake in.
The Bill which I have presented is aimed especially at teenagers, encouraging them to register to vote and encouraging electoral registration staff to work with schools to ensure that every possible student is registered to vote. Northern Ireland already leads on this, where it is a schools initiative. As I will propose in the Bill, Wales needs this new way of registration to encourage all our young people, as well as everybody else who is eligible to vote, to cast their votes. The Welsh Assembly must belong to the people, not to a small number of them. It must be seen to be responsive to the people, not to small political parties or wealthy individuals. We have an awful lot to discuss on the coming Bill and I look forward very much to bringing these suggestions forward.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, in a democracy, decisions ought to be taken at the level closest to the people whose lives they affect. The principle of subsidiarity is right, the moral and emotional case for devolution is powerful, and I support the Bill. But how to design a model of devolution in practice is far from straightforward. Politics is about reconciling and balancing different interests. How much devolution, and what kind of devolution, is in the interests of Wales and is in the interests of the United Kingdom? A wisely designed model of devolution—the holy grail—would strengthen both.
The first requirement is that the model of devolution should be clear, which is why I agree with many noble Lords who have spoken that it is now time for Wales to have devolution on the reserved powers model, not on the conferred powers model which leads to disputes in the courts and creates profound uncertainty. Silk was clear about this but the Bill, disappointingly, fails to address it. In this regard, Wales should be placed on the same footing as Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As my right honourable friend Peter Hain once remarked, devolution is not an event but a process, and the people of Wales have now made up their mind, after much initial hesitation, that they like devolution. They are glad that they have it and, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, they have advanced up the curve of expectation and confidence. Wales is not Scotland, but if the people of Wales want no less devolution than is allowed to the people of Scotland, they should have it. But of course that raises the question: what do the Scots themselves want? And, as we consider these matters, what is in the interests of England, which is a thought all too commonly absent in debates on devolution? How can devolution strengthen the United Kingdom in the interests of all? Vague and open-ended promises of devo-max made by political leaders in the run-up to the Scottish referendum do not seem to be a responsible or satisfactory way to proceed. How is all this going to end?
Most of the wider constitutional issues that were considered in Silk Part II have been deferred to the other side of the Scottish referendum on 18 September. But perhaps after that, people will start to suggest that they ought to be deferred beyond a possible referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, stressed the importance to Wales of membership of the European Union. It is never the right moment to decide what the next stage of devolution should be but it is good that the Government are proceeding in the Bill. We should proceed where there is sufficient consensus both within Wales and across the political parties in the United Kingdom.
Although the constitutional issues have been largely deferred, there are provisions in the Bill on elections. The Bill would bring back dual candidacy: the right of a candidate to stand both in the constituency election under first past the post and on the regional list. As my noble friend Lord Rowlands has just recollected, the origin of these mixed elections was the recognition by the Labour Government in 1997 and 1998 that a Welsh Assembly elected solely by first past the post would, given the political patterns of Wales, be Labour-dominated for as far as the eye could see. It was Aneurin Bevan who remarked that “the purpose of getting power is to be able to give it away”, but that magnanimity is all too rare in politicians. It was found, however, in Ron Davies, the Secretary of State for Wales at that time, who believed that it was right to create a Welsh Assembly that would be in some sense ecumenical.
It is of course right that the parties should contest elections under both systems but I strongly believe that it is inappropriate that individual candidates should be able to run simultaneously under both systems. That being permissible, we got the absurd situation in the Clwyd West election in which all four first past the post candidates were elected. That can hardly have encouraged political engagement. Why bother to vote at all if everybody gets in? The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, observed that the people of Wales were not confused about this. No, I do not think that they were confused but simply that they were shocked, and the abuse got worse because those who had been elected on the regional list system then used publicly provided funds to set up constituency offices to establish a power base in the constituencies which they were targeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that the Labour Party’s objection to the restitution of this state of affairs is—and I wrote down what he said—naked party-political jiggery-pokery. I was going to refrain from mentioning in my remarks the scandal of Leanne Wood’s leaked memorandum to Plaid Cymru candidates in 2003 but, provoked by the noble Lord, I think it right to remind the House of it because not all noble Lords may be familiar with what she said in her missive to them. She said:
“We need to be thinking much more creatively as to how we … use staff budgets”—
those are budgets provided by the taxpayer—
“for furthering the aims of the party”.
She went on:
“Regional AMs are in a unique position. They are paid to work full-time in politics and have considerable budgets at their disposal. They need not be constrained by constituency casework and events, and can be more choosy about their engagements, only attending events which further the party’s cause. This can be achieved by following one simple golden rule: On receipt of every invitation, ask ‘How can my attendance at this event further the aims of Plaid Cymru?’ If the answer is ‘very little’ or ‘not at all’, then a pro forma letter of decline should be in order”.
This is a scandal that in the annals of political scandal should be in red letters and I hope that it makes even the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, blush. It is now a further scandal that the political parties which are the minority parties in Wales are using the majority that the coalition provides for them in Parliament at Westminster to take powers to resume these abuses. They are shameless about it and what they are doing will be seen for what it is. I agree with other noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Rowlands among them—that the Welsh Assembly and the people of Wales should decide their own electoral arrangements.
Lord Wigley
I noted the way in which the noble Lord nipped out quickly to get a copy, quoting from an earlier debate. The question I want to put is this. Would he apply the same change to Scotland now, given the political arithmetic there?
Lord Howarth of Newport
We are considering the political arrangements that are appropriate for Wales. For all the reasons that I have already indicated, it must be wrong in principle; but here we are focusing on the question of Wales.
The core of the Bill is fiscal devolution. It is anomalous that devolution should have created an Assembly and a Welsh Government that apply policies in Wales but do not raise taxes to pay for them in Wales and do not have the close accountability to the people of Wales that levying taxes creates. The fact that that was part of the initial structure of devolution reflects the early diffidence in Wales about devolution when the referendum was won by only a hair’s breadth in 1997.
The taxes that it is now proposed to devolve will be no cornucopia for Wales. Public expenditure in Wales runs at perhaps twice the level of the net tax receipts that the Welsh Government are able to spend. It is quite right that business rates should be determined by local authorities in a system negotiated with the Assembly and the Welsh Government, but that is not going to be a bonanza for Welsh local government. Stamp duty land tax is highly erratic in its yield. Is it intended that the block grant should rise and fall with the fluctuations in the yield of stamp duty land tax? If it is not, we are going to see some fairly halting progress in the kind of capital programmes that the proceeds of that tax should be able to fund. From the last figures that I saw, the yield of stamp duty land tax in Wales was only some £200 million, in contrast to London, where it is in the order of £2 billion. The Mayor of London is asking that that tax be devolved to himself and the Greater London Assembly. That raises the question of how long we can expect London to be willing to subsidise Wales on the scale that it does at the moment. Londoners may want to see Wales raising some of its own money.
I understand that the landfill tax will be a diminishing source of revenue.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The Barnett formula clearly applies to Scotland and Wales and the reform of it is linked. Does the noble Lord wish to postpone reform of income tax in Wales, or the collection of income tax in Wales, until that whole problem has been resolved?
Lord Howarth of Newport
These issues need to be addressed together. I am hoping to say something about the Barnett formula in a moment.
The devolution of tax, as we know, is to be linked to the question of borrowing powers. The ratio of borrowing permitted in Wales will be the same as the ratio of tax devolution. Borrowing is to be heavily circumscribed by the Treasury in the existing situation—up to £500 million to cover volatility in tax receipts and another £500 million for capital expenditure. That will be increased only if Wales assumes further responsibilities for taxation within Wales. Clearly, the Treasury does not believe that the purpose of power is to give it away.
The situation in Scotland is different. The Scottish Government can borrow up to 10% of their capital expenditure. It seems unfair that there should be lower limits on borrowing powers in Wales, created by this link to income tax. The scope to raise income tax is lower in Wales than it is in Scotland. I agree, therefore, with the Labour proposition that, if the people of Wales wish it, they should have the power to vary income tax to 15%. This question of borrowing powers is absolutely crucial.
The consequence of the arrangements proposed in the Bill is that Wales is placed in an unfair bind and faced with a very difficult dilemma. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has just drawn our attention again to the Barnett formula. These issues need to be resolved together, particularly against the background that the Welsh budget has been heavily cut by £1.6 billion, and in terms of capital resources cut by 31%, as my noble friend Lady Morgan said. The people of Wales, with lower living standards and a lower taxable capacity, are being told to service borrowing in order to pay for projects that previously would have been funded from the Exchequer. The people of Wales are also being asked to pay for projects, such as the improvement of the M4, which are not just infrastructure for Wales; they are infrastructure for the whole of the UK. When it comes to the referendum, the people of Wales will want to think whether they are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
The power that the Scots have to vary income tax has not been used over 15 years. The difficulty for a devolved assembly or parliament is that they are politically damned if they do and politically damned if they don’t. There are very difficult problems about introducing differentiated tax rates within a country as geographically compact and economically integrated as the United Kingdom. Wales will experience that more intensely than Scotland because of the permeability of the border and the much greater involvement between the people of Wales and those who live across the border in England.
What matters? Is it the specific powers that are devolved, or that there should be policies that on the part of the United Kingdom as a whole will enable Wales to be more prosperous, that will be fair as between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, and will enable Wales to play a strong part in the United Kingdom? There is a large gap between revenue and expenditure in Wales. Wales needs the continuing willingness of taxpayers in England to continue to support it. Some 40% of GDP in the UK is generated in London and the south-east. There are very significant risks for Wales if it embraces the opportunity of developing its own policies on income tax. Above all, Wales must not lose the willingness of the United Kingdom, and England in particular, to continue to redistribute. Wales therefore needs a Government with a vision for the United Kingdom as one nation, a nation consisting of proud regions and nations within it, and a Government who do not disparage the achievements of Wales in education, health and housing. Wales needs a Labour Government who will offer devolution that is not meagre and mean and that will enable Wales to thrive within a thriving union.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)
My Lords, I broadly welcome the Bill as a major step in the slow yet maturing process of devolution. The words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, are most wise in his assessment of the whole process, particularly on reserved powers. A number of noble Lords have referred to that feeling this afternoon.
However, when it comes to the elephant, as it has been described, I think that there is actually an entire zoo in the Chamber. The elephant in this room is of course the Scottish referendum. Whatever the outcome of that referendum, life will certainly never be the same in the United Kingdom. I am of the firm opinion that there will be major constitutional change over the next few years. A noble Lord, whose name I did not get, said, “What about England?”. Indeed. That is a whole new issue, which I am sure will be addressed at another time. I certainly do not wish to rehearse any further argument in that regard, but it is somewhat overhanging and must overshadow our attitude towards the Bill over the next few months.
I declare an interest as chairman of Cardiff Airport, which was acquired by the Welsh Government in March 2013. In that context, we are particularly concerned about the asymmetric impact of airline passenger duty on both domestic and international connectivity. I fully endorse the Silk recommendation in that regard and fully support the case for this fiscal power to be devolved. I intend to return to this subject in greater detail in Committee.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, is no longer in his place, but he tested my memory of 14 years ago, which I think will fail, in so far as if I were to dig into the back of my mind and take account of inflation, I do not think that the Welsh Development Agency’s powers were much less than what is proposed today, if at all. I will be a little more precise in Committee.
However, and it is a big “however”, the increased powers envisaged in the Bill, the other powers discussed in the Chamber today and, indeed, each step of devolution of power place greater responsibility on the Welsh Government. These steps must therefore be accompanied by greater accountability, scrutiny and transparency. These essentials cannot be undertaken with the rigour demanded by the present 42 Assembly Members who are not in the Government.
Already the strain imposed is creaking. Dame Rosemary Butler, the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly, said less than a year ago:
“There are only 42 Members to scrutinise £15 billion of taxpayers’ money, and to scrutinise the government on the big issues of the day—the future of our health service, our education system and the economy. On top of that they have to make sound, thoroughly scrutinized laws for our nation. A quarter of those 42 members sit on three committees, half sit on two. One would simply not find the same level of workload on Members in Westminster, Holyrood or Stormont”.
I therefore conclude that the logic is correct and Wales will need more Assembly Members in order to perform scrutiny effectively and to be seen to be effective, and to provide the necessary assurance to the people of Wales. I realise that my firm support for increasing the number of Assembly Members in my homeland will not necessarily lead to unparalleled joy by certain of our fellow countrymen. However, let us please remember: more responsibility, more accountability and more scrutiny. How the additional Members are elected is clearly an issue for the future.
I turn to a point made by the shadow Welsh Secretary in the other place, in his Third Reading speech:
“We still do not know whether the block grant will be eroded over time. Initially, it will be protected, but the Exchequer Secretary told us again here today that if Welsh gross domestic product and revenues grew more slowly than those of England, Wales would have less money over time to spend on vital public services”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/14; col. 281.]
Chapter 16 of the report of the Silk commission states that,
“transfers of powers should be accompanied by (and be conditional on) transfers of funding being fully agreed between the two Governments in each case, and by agreed changes to the Barnett formula comparability factors”.
Comparability is neither the issue nor the answer.
I return for a moment to your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Barnett Formula, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is unfortunately no longer in his place, on which I had the privilege to serve in 2008. Our findings were published more than five years ago. The attitude of successive Governments—and I look to both sides of the House, including the elephant in the middle—has been to shirk their responsibility. There has not been a single serious debate. Wales has been grossly underfunded over the last 10 years, if not more. Until that is confronted by a Government with the guts, if I may use that unpleasant word, to face it in this Chamber and do something about it, that will obtain. It is ridiculous. We know why Wales is underfunded, of course. I shall not mention the unmentionable. It is because a large part of the United Kingdom has been grossly overfunded for the same period of time.
This formula has been in existence for the past 35 years. There has been no real engagement by political parties in this Chamber or in the other place with discussing the detailed analysis that your Lordships’ Select Committee undertook or the recommendations that we provided. It is deplorable. There has been no review or revision of this formula for 35 years because it is political dynamite. That is the answer—or is it because of political cowardice?
Wales is, and has been, underfunded. The all-party committee of your Lordships’ House unanimously determined that central funding should be based on an explicit assessment of relative needs. Administrations with great need therefore receive more money; Administrations with lesser need will obviously receive less. Your Lordships’ committee recommended, for example, that an expert body be formed—perhaps called the UK funding commission—to determine relative needs by using a small number of need indicators, which the committee identified. That is not unusual; it is in fact similar in principle to the Commonwealth Grants Commission of Australia, which performs this function of the distribution of central federal funding annually.
The formula is inequitable. We can talk around it, we can talk about this and we can devolve this, but there is a central grant and it is inequitable as far as Wales is concerned. It should and must be changed. Where are we? I am still waiting for a political party to grasp the nettle, as are, I am sure, many other noble Lords.
I conclude by quoting our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, after whom the formula was named, much, I think, to his embarrassment, as he would say if he were in his place today. The last five lines of his oral evidence to the committee are very moving and I would like to share them with you. Our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said:
“You devised a mechanism which you hoped would last for a few years. You did not expect it to last for as long as it has lasted. You are not sure now whether it is based on the right criteria and you lean towards having, among other things, a needs based assessment. Is that fair?”.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said: “That is fair”. I think that we need to address that, sooner rather than later.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, who brings a reservoir of experience on the Welsh Development Agency and in public work in Wales generally. I agree with much of what he said about the scrutiny function, which, because of the increased responsibility of the Assembly, surely demands increased numbers. I also agree with him on Barnett—it was only to be temporary but it remains. I think he would probably not deny being a politician, but he must understand that, certainly in advance of the Scottish referendum and the 2015 general election, it would be foolish to expect any change in the Barnett formula before that time, at the very least.
I join the chorus of consensus in relation to the Bill, but I confess I cannot join the Minister in referring to it as an “exciting package”. As I left my native Swansea on Sunday or Monday, I cannot recall the bells ringing. It is unlikely to excite anyone, I would think. It is fairly limited. I speak at the end of the list. All has been said and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, would agree if I make three pastoral points. My first point is a simple, general point. It is claimed that the Bill represents another milestone along the road, in the words of my noble friend Lord Morgan, who taught me my politics at the University of Wales. The problem is: where is that road leading? No one knows and no one has revealed that destination—a point, I think, also made by my noble friend Lord Rowlands.
I concede, of course, that the Assembly, having made a shaky start and having only just won the referendum in 1997 by a whisker, is now a fully accepted part of the Welsh political landscape and is doing well. It has pioneered several initiatives that either have been adopted or will shortly be adopted at Westminster. However, there is a professional temptation to stop devolution at Cardiff; perhaps any move to city regions will provide a new opportunity for devolution within Wales and not just to Cardiff. Perhaps the report of the Williams commission, which reported in January, will provide such an opportunity. I note that the First Minister said a few days ago that there will be an expedited consultation period by September with the proposals brought forward in October. With the 10, 11 or 12 new larger local authorities in Wales, there will certainly be a much greater opportunity for devolution within the Principality, accepting the principle of bringing more power closer to our people.
In the 1970s, when I was a member of the so-called gang of six, my concern was always the problems posed by devolution in a unitary state—problems which could be solved in a federal system with clarity in the division of powers. The problems of constitutional principle remain today. Clearly, in this country, we do not do constitutions. Hence, I now agree that there should be reserved powers rather than conferred powers to the Assembly, and I note what other Members of your Lordships’ House have said about the absurdity of the Wales Office losing, on a series of references by the Attorney-General, on the question of the competence of the Assembly. I would ask noble Lords to read the judgment of 14 July, in relation to the power of the Assembly to regulate agricultural wages, before the very strong Supreme Court. I also note that it did not matter in principle whether the subject—in this case, agricultural wages—might also be capable of being classified as relating to a non-devolved area.
For the moment, we are likely to see a continuation of a series of small steps. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon used the phrase “drip by drip” in his excellent contribution—a little bit of this, a little bit of that, with perhaps air passenger duty relating to Cardiff airport being in the next drip which is coming along. The Scottish referendum, even with a no vote, gives an opportunity for a rethink in Scotland, and that is bound to have repercussions for Wales. The Strathclyde report, published in June of this year, recommended that 40% of Scottish expenditure should come from devolved income tax. I think that that will have substantial repercussions. Perhaps there is never an ideal time for making rules of this nature, but to do so in advance of the Scottish referendum is manifestly not ideal.
I will not quote it now, but I commend to the House the Financial Times editorial of 16 June headed “Towards a federal future for the UK”, which argues that Wales and Northern Ireland should gain similar enhanced powers to those likely to be granted to Scotland. A new constitutional settlement, I say in passing, might also include a more consensual reform of your Lordships’ House. If we are really keen about removing the metropolitan flavour of this House and wish to involve people in the devolved Assemblies and local authorities more, we might have some form of indirect election.
My second point is that the package of financial proposals is complex and subject to further consultation. The new borrowing powers are most important and welcome. What prevents these borrowing powers coming into effect sooner? Why should not the formula, as many colleagues have argued, be the same as for Scotland, which would more than double the amount of borrowing available to the Assembly? I have noted the current controversy in the Assembly about the amount to be spent on the road network around Newport. I hope that the Assembly will avoid the temptation, which perhaps we always have in Wales, of spreading the amount non-strategically in penny packets and look strategically at the needs of Wales. It may well be Newport this time—it cannot be Swansea—and may be north Wales next time. However, let us at least look strategically at the major problems that face us. The principle of increased responsibility for expenditure is absolutely right, but I do not believe that the relatively small sums involved will take us sufficiently far along that road for the linkage between elections and responsibility for expenditure to be clearly perceived by the Welsh electorate as a means of generally holding those who spend the money to account.
We also have to be very wary in Wales of fiscal competition with richer areas. I note that the Mayor of London has now proposed devolving receipts from stamp duty in London to the Greater London Authority. That sort of devolution to London which they may pick up from us could have very adverse consequences for Wales. I shall not mention the Barnett formula, or Holtham and the general underfunding of the Principality, and that the people of Wales clearly would have as a priority poverty, youth unemployment, health and education rather than tinkering with relatively small revenue-raising measures. The margin of variation of income tax after a referendum would be small, and it must be asked whether there is much incentive to vary in any event. If we do not vary, what is the point of the power in any event? I remind your Lordships that only about 4,000 taxpayers in Wales pay the top rate. I assume that most are fairly close to the English border; surely some work should be done now on how they are likely to respond to an increase or decrease in the Welsh element of income tax.
Apart from stamp duty land tax and landfill tax in Wales, the Bill also enables other taxes to be designated as “devolved taxes” through secondary legislation. It would be helpful to know what other taxes the Government have in mind. Some could be dangerous—for example, a hotel occupancy tax could hit the tourist areas in Wales very hard—so we have to be extremely careful.
My third and final point is on the dual candidacy rules. Such electoral arrangements should surely, as my noble friend Lord Rowlands said, be a matter for the Assembly in any event, and it is wrong in principle for us to intervene, as the Electoral Reform Society Cymru has said. One of the noble Lords opposite said, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that it was nakedly partisan of the Labour Government to have brought this forward. Let me list some of those nakedly partisan people that have opposed the dual candidacy. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the former Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, said:
“The present arrangements are really pretty indefensible”.—[Official Report, 15/6/05; col. 1216.]
Again, the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, said:
“I should also point out that the Secretary of State for Wales has said that if the Commission had considered what he called the systematic abuses carried out by list members in Wales, he would have reached the same conclusion that we have, namely that a ban on dual candidacy is the only effective solution”.
So much for the nakedly partisan nature of what the Labour Party has done—I think that this is good moment to call a cloud of witnesses in support of my contention.
I will not rehearse all the arguments, such as the Alice in Wonderland situation in Clwyd West in 2003, when there were prizes for everyone—everyone was a winner, as a fairground stallholder would say. I also note the Llanelli situation in 2003, which I witnessed, where the Plaid Cymru candidate, who had lost and was weeping copiously, then went half an hour along the road to Carmarthen and exulted at having won a position on the list.
The defence of the proposed change—proposed by some—is that it enables candidates to stand in both constituencies and on the regional list because the pool of able people in Wales, particularly for the smaller parties, is limited, and we should do our best to ensure that the best people find their way to the Assembly. It is surely a nasty slur on the people of Wales to say that we cannot produce sufficiently able people. I used to travel a lot when I chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I recall the quality of politicians in Luxembourg, for example—pace Mr Juncker —and even in little Gibraltar. I used to admire the quality of the politicians there. We in Wales will not do worse than that. Is Wales so different? To quote, or misquote, the Reverend Eli Jenkins, “Thank the Lord we are a political nation”. Although I can see that there are arguments on both sides, I will certainly vote against the proposed change.
Overall, then, two cheers for the Bill, but I am still confused as to where such drip-by-drip Bills lead us: a brave new future for the Principality, or a constitutional labyrinth for our people.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great delight and a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Opposition in this debate on the Wales Bill as we take our further steps on this journey of devolution which—as noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate have outlined—we have been travelling along for many a long year. Many of those who have taken part in this journey—and some started way before I did, including my noble and learned friend Lord Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan—have shared with us their breadth of experience today. It has been said that we will have an exciting time as the Bill goes through, and I would not be surprised if we do. We have set the scene today for that.
We have had a good debate that has shown the breadth of experience that we have in Wales on all matters of devolution, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I also thank the Minister for opening the debate and explaining so clearly what the Bill is about and the Government’s view on it. This is a small but important Bill. Its measures are important for Wales and devolution alike, and I am glad that today’s debate has provided testimony to that. However, we would like the Minister to answer a few points. As noble Lords have mentioned, the Bill has three parts: electoral arrangements, tax devolution and borrowing powers. We have five main points to ask the Minister on those areas and about how we can work to enhance the Bill, which we will want to examine further in Committee and beyond.
Labour’s five main asks are: first, that the Government accept the basic principle that Assembly elections are a matter for the Assembly itself—I will speak on that later; secondly, that the Minister explain why the Government are acting against their own and other evidence by removing the ban on dual candidacy; thirdly, that the Government make clear their position on tax competition and on whether, given recent changes in the Wales Office, for example, they still wish to start tax competition between the nations of the UK; fourthly, that the Minister explain how the Government arrived at the limit on capital borrowing and how that compares with the limit in Scotland; and, finally, that the Government consider enhancing the Wales Bill to include details of the next steps towards a model of reserved powers. I am sure that the Minister will deal with those points as we make progress during the Bill’s passage.
On Assembly elections, the Government have championed the greater responsibility that the Wales Bill will give to the Welsh Government. Yet, the very first part of the Bill is a change to Assembly elections that is being made through this Parliament and not through the Welsh Assembly. Many noble Lords have spoken on that, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who gave his clear views; the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys; and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—who warned me this morning that he would attack the Welsh Government. He certainly lived up to that in his contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, also spoke about that issue. It was interesting that he also talked about the gender balance. I have previously heard the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, say that it is impossible to carry on with the low numbers in the Assembly. In a previous debate he talked about 90 Members, but now he has mentioned 120. I was very interested that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, said that we should have not a ban but the most outstanding candidates. I hope that we have outstanding candidates in Wales, whatever position they take and whatever the list or constituency. I have no doubt that we do, in all parties.
That poses a question. Why do the Government not allow the Welsh Assembly to set the parameters of their own election system? Why should the UK Parliament dictate to the Welsh Assembly what election method should be used? A number of noble Lords raised that issue in the debate. The Welsh Government believe that they should have the responsibility for this. In their response to the Wales Office Green Paper, they said that,
“no change to the Assembly’s current electoral arrangements should be made without the Assembly’s consent. This is the fundamental constitutional principle in issue”.
We agree with that fundamental principle, and it is disappointing that the UK Government do not share that view. We will continue to make what should be an uncontentious point—that Assembly elections should be a matter for the Assembly. We strongly believe that these matters should be decided in Wales by the Welsh Assembly.
A number of Members had views on dual candidacy. We think that the Government should explain why they are acting against their own evidence, and that of the Bevan Foundation, in removing the ban. Labour shares the wider concerns of the public that removing the ban is anti-democratic. Allowing losing candidates effectively to get elected by the back door is clearly not what voters want. At a time when voter engagement is low, having a system that allows losing candidates to be elected elsewhere will not instil confidence in the system.
It is not surprising that two significant surveys on dual candidacy found a clear majority in favour of the ban. One was the Government’s own consultation, the other a Bevan Foundation study. According to the Government’s consultation, a small majority was in favour of the ban on dual candidacy. The report states:
“In March 2013 the Secretary of State … announced the Government’s intention to remove the prohibition on dual candidacy at Assembly elections. A small majority of respondents to the consultation were in favour of retaining the ban, but the Government does not think that a strong enough case for this was made in the consultation responses”.
Why put the question, if the Government then ignore the answers?
The Explanatory Notes to the Wales Bill suggest that this change will benefit smaller parties in Wales:
“studies by the Electoral Commission and others … have demonstrated that the prohibition has a disproportionate impact on smaller parties who have a smaller pool of potential candidates to draw upon”.
That quote is from the Government’s own papers. We are changing the law because some parties cannot find enough candidates in Wales to field at election time. The only way round this is to allow them to stand in the constituency and in the list. Giving a helping hand to smaller parties is not a good enough reason for a change, as proposed in the Bill. Will the Minister explain why the Government are ignoring their own evidence by pressing ahead with what we believe is an anti-democratic change? Many noble Lords spoke about this and I know that there are strong feelings on both sides. We intend to pursue this in Committee, and I am sure that there will be further arguments and debate on it.
My noble friend Lady Morgan outlined our views on income taxation. As she said, it is probably the most controversial part of the Bill. We believe that the proposals outlined in the Bill on income tax devolution are not a priority and that there would have to be a referendum on it if it were brought about in the Welsh Assembly. Many noble Lords recalled today how we started on this journey. In 1979, no counties in Wales voted in favour. We made a progression as the years went by, after we recovered from that awful campaign— I think that both sides could use that term.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I make one small correction: Cardiganshire was an exception. It did vote for it.
Baroness Gale
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. He may be able to pull me up on other things. I know that he has a fantastic memory and experience in this field.
We believe that we should have a referendum on income taxation. Many noble Lords referred to the 1997 referendum. I worked hard on it, as did a number of other noble Lords. The Labour Party policy then was not like that for Scotland because Wales is not a mirror image of Scotland. We do not do things just because Scotland has done it. It might not suit our country. However, we do what is best for Wales. I am sure that others would agree that we probably would not have won the 1997 referendum if there had been a question on income tax in it. It was so close that we could not have included that. We have now progressed further and we will discuss it further. We agree with the Government that a referendum is needed on this. However, we support the other taxes—the landfill tax and the stamp duty land tax—as a means to give the Welsh Government borrowing powers. As my noble friend indicated, we will want to look at this again in Committee.
My noble friend Lady Morgan spoke about the borrowing limits and a number of other noble Lords have also referred to them. I have no doubt that we will debate them further as we progress through the course of the Bill.
It was interesting that many noble Lords felt that we should have the reserved powers. My noble friend Lord Rowlands said that he wished to explore this in Committee, and I know that we will. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, my noble and learned friend Lord Morris and my noble friend Lord Howarth spoke about them, as did others. We want to amend the Bill to set in motion Wales’s move to a model of reserved powers.
The former Secretary of State was opposed to reserved powers. As a result, the Attorney-General referred Welsh legislation to the Supreme Court, at great cost to the taxpayer. The recent outright rejection of the UK Government’s challenge to the agricultural wages Bill by the Supreme Court made the case for reserved powers even stronger. With such a decisive ruling, we will once again be looking at ways in which we can persuade the Government to use this Bill to move to reserved powers. However, the next Labour Government will legislate to give Wales reserved powers. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on these matters, and I am sure that we will be discussing them at later stages.
This has been a very important debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the measures in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the concerns that I have raised. We will continue to raise these concerns in Committee through to Third Reading in order to improve the Bill. We support a number of measures in the Bill but we believe that it can be improved. We will be tabling amendments which we hope will make the Bill more beneficial for the people of Wales.
I look forward to our further debates in Committee and at later stages. I am sure that we will have even more interesting and exciting debates and that we will conduct them in the spirit of today’s debate. I look forward to the following stages of the Bill and I now look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, this has been a good debate. I believe that it has reflected the constitutional importance of the Bill for Wales and for the United Kingdom as a whole. I fear that at times it was a debate on a Bill that many of us would like to write rather than the one before us. As the Minister in charge of the Bill here, my first priority is to ensure that we steer the Bill through safely in the time that we have left in this Parliament. It is very important to me personally that we ensure that that is done because across the Chamber today I have noted very strong support for the Bill in general terms.
I am a devolutionary enthusiast but I am also a pragmatist, and I realise that in some ways the timetable is not ideal. As several noble Lords have mentioned, the Bill is being discussed in the shadow of the Scottish referendum, a point made powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe. We will then have our Committee stage very close on the heels of the result of the Scottish referendum without having time to reflect and to develop ideas. Therefore, I urge noble Lords to judge the Bill on the basis of where we are at present and the fact that it is being very firmly based on the Silk 1 report. The Silk 2 report is for another day and it needs to be considered in the light of our party manifestos. My party’s manifesto will contain a very firm commitment to delivering the Silk recommendations, and I hope that I will see things that I recognise in the manifestos of the other parties represented here today.
I shall try to reply to as many of the issues raised by noble Lords as possible. Many speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, mentioned the lock-step. It is clearly something that is going to continue to generate passionate debate. I said in my opening speech that the Government continue to believe that the approach set out in the Bill is appropriate for Wales, given the potentially far-reaching and significant effects of allowing the Welsh Government to alter each income tax band independently. That is our belief, particularly in the light of the porous border between Wales and England and the figures quoted by noble Lords indicating that there is a very large population that might cross that border.
The Government believe very strongly in the impact of the tax banding system on ensuring that taxation is progressive and that it reallocates money across society. That is an important aspect that we have been bearing in mind in relation to the lock-step. However, as I said earlier, at this point the Government remain open to revisiting the arrangements for income tax devolution in the light of changes in Scotland, and I am happy to restate that. I also draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that the new Secretary of State has made it clear that his mind remains open on the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked: if you do not vary the rate of taxation, what is the point of it? The point of it is that it is the basis for borrowing power. It is used as the basis for borrowing power by the Scottish Government and it would be used as such in future by the Welsh Government.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, referred to the level of the block grant adjustment. A number of different views were expressed on this across the Chamber. I make it clear that if the income tax base in Wales grows faster than that in the rest of the UK, the Welsh Government will benefit, even if the Welsh rate is the same as the UK rate. Inevitably, however, if it grows slower, the Welsh Government’s budget will be lower. That is a simple consequence of more accountability, linking the Welsh Government’s budget to the performance of the Welsh economy. This arrangement would incentivise the Welsh Government to grow the economy in Wales but, importantly, it would protect it from UK-wide effects that the UK Government are better placed to manage. It is a fair system, designed to protect Wales from the greatest volatility and it is consistent with our aims of increasing the Welsh Government’s accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about stamp duty land tax volatility. The block grant adjustment will not reflect SDLT volatility. Instead, the Welsh Government are being given new tools to manage tax volatility, which is part of increasing accountability. Those new tools include a cash reserve that can be used to save tax revenues in good years and spend them when revenues are lower than they have been forecast to be. The Welsh Government will also be able to borrow up to £500 million and up to £200 million in any one year if there are insufficient funds in the cash reserve.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and other noble Lords referred to the sensitivity of the timing of this debate in relation to the Scottish referendum result. I agree, but of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. When the timescale for the Silk process was set out, people did not have any concept that there would be a Scottish referendum at this time.
Many noble Lords raised the reserved powers model. I think that universal support for that has been expressed today across the Chamber. Several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, also referred to the recent decision on the Agricultural Wages Board. That decision certainly adds to the debate on the issue. However, as several noble Lords recognised and acknowledged, it has to be a longer-term issue. That was recognised by the Silk commission in its second report which made it clear that it was something for manifesto decisions. Even if we made the decision today to go to a reserved powers model, we would not be able to create it and legislate in the timescale left. It is absolutely right that there is a wide public debate on this and I urge noble Lords to encourage that debate.
In many ways the same points should be made about the size of the Assembly and its capacity for scrutiny. It was also an issue raised in the second Silk report, but that is also something for manifestos.
Lord Rowlands
Do I take it that, in principle, the coalition Government are in favour of the reserved powers?
Baroness Randerson
I am specifically making it clear that the Government do not have a position on the reserved powers model. As the Silk report recommended, this is something for manifesto positions from the different parties. However, my party is in favour of the reserved powers model. That does not make it a government position, and it certainly is not something that can be created now. However much one might wish to do so, we cannot write the kind of complex legislation needed for a reserved powers model of devolution for Wales. If we tried to do so at that speed, we would be in danger of ending up with second-rate legislation, which the people of Wales do not deserve.
I move on to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on corporation tax. I remind the House that the Silk commission said that if corporation tax were devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland it should also be devolved to Wales. There are no current plans to devolve to Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, the Bill contains the power to devolve further taxes to Wales by order. I would like noble Lords to note that. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, raised the same issue about the power to devolve further taxes. A good example would be the aggregates levy once the EU Commission has completed its investigations. That provision is in the Bill as it stands.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, and others, raised the issue of borrowing powers and why they are not higher. I should point out that there are two capital borrowing limits: the annual limit and the overall limit. The overall limit in Scotland is £2.2 billion, which is supported by around £5 billion of annual devolved tax revenue. Using the same ratio, the overall limit in Wales would have been only £100 million. I ask noble Lords to bear that in mind when they ask for Wales to be treated like Scotland. We accepted that £100 million was inadequate so we increased it to £500 million specifically to enable M4 improvements to be undertaken, although there are no restrictions in law on how that could be spent. Obviously this is a power in perpetuity which the Welsh Government could exert for other things.
Lord Wigley
I asked a specific question on that. If the cost of the M4 relief road around Newport is £930 million, or so, and the limit on the borrowing, prior to having a referendum that would enable more to be levered in, is £500 million, does the balance—the £438 million, or whatever the figure is—have to come out of the capital budget of the National Assembly, and does that mean that all the other projects that are being funded by that are lost?
Baroness Randerson
How the Welsh Government raise the additional money is, of course, entirely at their discretion. It could come directly from their capital budget or they could have a partnership with the private sector to ensure that additional funding is available for them.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Given that the M4 relief road around Newport is an infrastructural benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole, how much contribution are the Government of the UK planning to make to that very large cost?
Baroness Randerson
I think that the noble Lord raises a fundamental point about devolution. The control of building and road infrastructure in Wales is devolved. With it comes the Barnett consequential of the funding for infrastructure throughout the UK, which is reflected in the proportion of the Department for Transport’s budget that is devolved to the Welsh Government.
To complete the point I was making, we have agreed an annual limit of £125 million relating to borrowing in Wales. That limit was proposed by the Welsh Government. A lot of noble Lords referred to the Barnett formula. I remind them that the Holtham report recommended that Welsh funding should be between 15% and 17% above English funding. Funding in Wales is 15% above the funding for England at this time, so it is within the areas deemed as fair by the Holtham commission. That is not to say that it has been fair in the past; it is at the current point because there has been divergence in recent times rather than convergence. I remind noble Lords that in 2012 the Welsh Finance Minister Jane Hutt agreed with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in an exchange of letters a system to review the situation in relation to Barnett if convergence was about to begin again. That system worked satisfactorily at the spending review last year and it provides a basis for fairness in the future. I am absolutely sure that noble Lords will return to this in the future and that we will be talking about it in some detail.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe
Is the Minister saying that the Barnett formula has been revised in the last 12 months?
Baroness Randerson
No I am not, but the natural process of the way in which the formula works means that in times of spending restraint, where we have been for the last four years, the convergence process, which worked over many years and made the formula more, shall I say, sparing in relation to Wales, ceased to operate and we have had divergence which has brought Wales to a position of greater fairness now than in the past. That means, however, that if we go back to times of financial plenty, there would be an issue once again. That has been recognised in the exchange of correspondence between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Finance Minister in Wales.
In response to the general point made by noble Lords from the Labour Party about dual candidacy, as I predicted, when we read Hansard tomorrow it will appear as the most important matter in the Bill to members of the Labour Party. It is significant to remember that the purpose of doing this is to widen the pool of good candidates. Time and again people have raised the issue of how important it is to have scrutiny of the highest nature in the Welsh Assembly. It is not only a case of ensuring that there are more Assembly Members—whether you agree with that or not—but of ensuring that the best candidates can stand and get elected.
Many noble Lords on the Benches opposite referred to the Clwyd West situation. I refer to the Nick Bourne situation, if my noble friend will forgive me, where, as the leader of a party in the 2011 Assembly elections, he failed to gain a seat because his party had done so well. That is an anomaly, and it is important to bear in mind that within this system you will get that kind of anomaly. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, who raised the issue of people who lose still getting into the Assembly, that that applies only if you think that elections should be on a winner takes all strategy. However, if you believe that elections are a way of ensuring that different strands of opinion are represented in our legislatures and Parliaments, you look at ways of ensuring that significant minority opinions are represented as well as majority opinions.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
The very able leader of a party in Wales lost under that system. The solution is simple: his party should have ensured that he sat in a winnable seat.
Baroness Randerson
There are many other answers connected with the problems and anomalies associated with that system. However, I repeat, this system was established by the Labour Party in the first Government of Wales Act. It may not be perfect but it provides an element of proportionality, although not perfect proportionality by any means. Even now within the Assembly, 50% of its members are from the Labour Party even though it gained under 40% of the vote. It is not perfect but it brings some proportionality to the Assembly, which was an essential part of getting the original referendum accepted by the people of Wales.
I conclude by saying that it has been a great pleasure to listen to the debate. I am sure that I will be answering in considerable detail the questions that I know noble Lords will put to me when we return from the Recess. I invite your Lordships to support the Bill.
EU: Justice and Home Affairs (EUC Report)
(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
To move that this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Strategic Guidelines for the EU’s Next Justice And Home Affairs Programme: Steady as She Goes (13th Report, Session 2013-14, HL Paper 173).
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, my task in opening this debate is to address the recommendations made by your Lordships’ EU Select Committee with respect to the strategic objectives to be set by the Governments of the 28 member states for the development of the European Union’s justice and home affairs programme for the next five years—that is to say, from 2015 to 2019. The Government’s response to these recommendations is also available and much of what I have to say will be directed to that response. For good measure, we also now have the European Council’s conclusions/decisions on its strategic objectives for the period ahead, which were reached on 27 June and which are available in EUCO 79/14. So, rather unusually, in this debate we are debating the whole issue in the round, from the inquiry and report by your Lordships’ House through the process of negotiation to its completion.
I am speaking as the former chair—until the end of the last session, in May this year—of the EU Select Committee’s Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education, which was responsible for the report we are debating. In doing so, I pay tribute to the members of my own sub-committee, to the members of the justice sub-committee who participated in our work, and to the three successive clerks—whose help and support in the last four years was so invaluable to me—Michael Torrance, Chris Atkinson and Michael Collon twice.
Looking back, as we did when we wrote this report, at the rapid development of the EU’s activity in the field of justice and home affairs over the last 20 years, we considered carefully what were the main drivers of that increased activity. On the basis of the evidence that was put before us and the evidence submitted to us in the context of other recent inquiries, particularly those into the block opt-out under Protocol 36 of the Lisbon treaty, we concluded that the main driver was the challenge from the massive increase in serious international criminal activity in recent years. That increase has been not only in volume but also in complexity. It has been marked by the unwelcome arrival of many new fields of criminal activity—in human trafficking, drugs, terrorism, cybercrime, child pornography and financial fraud.
It was our view that none of these challenges could be adequately combated without intensive international co-operation. If you doubt that, just look at the steadily increasing use being made by our own law enforcement agencies of such EU agencies as Europol and Eurojust. The case for much of this justice and home affairs activity is simple: it is to protect our own national security. Those who criticise this development need to explain convincingly how that could be better achieved in some different way. So far they have failed to explain that at all.
We were also clear that in the five years ahead the emphasis needed to be on consolidation and implementation and not on the proliferation of new legislation, which should be brought forward only if there is strong evidence of the need for it. I am glad to note that the Government, the Commission and now, most importantly, the European Council agreed that this should be a period of consolidation and implementation, and those words appear in their conclusions. That approach is encapsulated—slightly more crisply than the European Council managed—in the title of our report, Steady as She Goes.
Within this overall ordering of priorities, we urged that emphasis should be put on the following four main areas. First is the completion of the existing legislative programme. This includes important measures to reform and Lisbonise—it is a terrible word—Europol and Eurojust. It includes the proposals for passenger name recognition and the personal data protection package. Those are all big bits of legislation which remain unfinished and on which much work remains to be done. There are other, less prominent measures still in the pipeline. It does not include the proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office, which we continue to believe does not properly fulfil the criteria of subsidiarity and against participation in which the United Kingdom is protected by clear treaty provisions.
Secondly, we focused on the implementation of all existing justice and home affairs legislation in all member states, which is lamentably not currently the case. This country has its lapses, too, in that respect. One example is the European supervision order, which was mentioned in debate last Thursday. Fortunately that measure, which will enable British citizens to be bailed here until their cases are ready to be tried, is on the Government’s list for rejoining and should be in effect by the end of this year, a mere two years late. Will the Minister confirm that that will, indeed, be the case, assuming that the package on Protocol 36 goes through?
Thirdly, we urged that there should be much more systematic and effective evaluation of justice and home affairs legislation. So far, such evaluation at the European level has been patchy and inadequate and I am glad that the European Council has now agreed that there should be a review in 2015 of the internal security strategy and that there should be an overall review of the justice and home affairs strategic objectives, which we are debating this evening, in 2017, half way through the new programme period. That is a step forward and I hope the Government will be really vigilant in making these processes of evaluation more effective. Fourthly, we emphasised the critical importance of the adequate resourcing and the sound management of the European Union’s agencies: of Europol, Eurojust, the EMCDDA for drugs, ENISA for the internet, FRONTEX and the new asylum agency in Malta. Much of the success or failure of the EU and its member states in their fight against international crime will depend on the practical co-operation which these agencies can provide and engender.
I will say a word or two about the Government’s response to our recommendations. I am glad to say that this was broadly positive and I am grateful for that, even if the tone was, from time to time, just a touch grudging. However, there were a few points of misunderstanding which I tried to clear up. First, we never intended to suggest that evaluation should be entirely and solely in the hands of the Commission: it should not. However, we cannot possibly imagine these programmes being evaluated properly without the full and active co-operation and participation of the Commission, whose task it is to help to carry them out. That co-operation was not forthcoming during the evaluation carried out during the preceding Stockholm programme and it was, frankly, a pretty useless affair. Now that the European Council has mandated an evaluation process, the Commission must be involved. I am sure they will be and the Government should not find that problematic in any way.
Secondly, we made a proposal for an annual implementation scorecard showing—and naming and shaming—which member states had fallen behind on implementing justice and home affairs legislation. This could genuinely be helpful and could work to the UK’s national interest in securing a level playing field. We were not proposing, and we would not support, the much more ambitious type of scorecard championed by the former vice-president, Viviane Reding, which would involve evaluating the overall judicial system of the member states. That is not something the Commission is well placed to do and it ought not to be doing it. The sort of scorecard we suggest would be valuable and I hope the Government will have a further look at that now to see whether it is something they could push forward.
Thirdly, on the challenge of using the yellow card—the subsidiarity procedure—which is of great importance in such a sensitive area as justice and home affairs legislation, how can we make that more effective? The Government seem to have accepted our approach, under which the Commission could, without any need to change the treaty, give national parliaments 12 or 16 weeks rather than the current eight weeks to submit a reasoned opinion, agree to withdraw or to substantially amend any proposal that was the object of a yellow card, and accept that proportionality considerations could be properly raised in a reasoned opinion. Those three reforms would do a lot to make the yellow card work better. I trust that the Government will now be pressing ahead with these ideas. Perhaps the Minister could say how that is going to be carried forward.
In conclusion, I suggest that this inquiry and this report have demonstrated how your Lordships’ Select Committee can insert itself effectively into the shaping of EU policies by formulating and presenting its views upstream of formal policy proposals becoming set in concrete. That surely needs to be something that we try to do more often in the future. On the next occasion that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, presents himself here and unleashes one of his familiar tirades of complaint against the uselessness of the scrutiny procedure, I look forward to hearing him pay tribute to this report on the EU’s strategic objectives as having shown that we can be effective in that process. I may have to wait quite some time for that tribute but I will do so with patience and in hope.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, it is essential yet again to place on record the appreciation of members of the committee for the chairmanship and leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. As I have said on other occasions, he brings a wealth of relevant experience on the front line, which is invaluable as we try to discharge our duties. He is right also to praise the work of the staff of the committee. All the members of the committee found that work outstanding. It really was helpful.
I want to make just two points. First, my experience of the work of the committee has done nothing but strengthen my conviction about the indispensability of British membership of the European Union. The first reality that faces us on issues of security in the United Kingdom is that they cannot be dealt with satisfactorily simply on the basis of the United Kingdom operating as an isolated individual authority. All the challenges of the sinister and large-scale developments in international crime, to which the noble Lord has referred, and all the developments in international terrorism demand international co-operation. As soon as one begins to look at this work in any detail and break free of the superficial, melodramatic comment in the ill informed media, one sees that the safety of our people—the safety of our families—can be nothing but enhanced by the kind of work that is going on in the European Union and elsewhere. It would be absolute madness to jeopardise that in any way.
Of course there is room for improvement and of course it is absolutely right to insist upon evaluation. It is also right to be looking pragmatically at the cumulative effect of what is really on the agenda now as distinct from what was there in theory and how relevant it is. All these things matter. But the second point I want to make is that we tackle these things best and make the improvements that are necessary by the degree to which we can demonstrate our commitment to the institutions. If we are always apparently grudgingly allowing ourselves to continue to be members and always insisting upon saying, “Is this compatible with the British interest?”, it is not really a very constructive or positive approach to winning friends and increasing the strength of collective consideration of these matters at international level. We must work to improve that, but that is made possible by our membership of and commitment to the institutions being in no doubt whatever. That is why I have been so unhappy about the events of the past year, which have undermined our strength in this respect.
It is time that those of us who really care about security and the safety of our people started fighting back much more forthrightly and putting the at times almost neurotically ideological critics of the concept of such European co-operation on the defensive. They are the people who are jeopardising the safety of the British people. We ought to be saying that in no uncertain terms.
The other point I would make—and I understand the reasons for it—is that there is still a certain amount of cultural work to be done in the Home Office and elsewhere. I have terrific respect for the amount of work that is done by the Home Office. I sometimes think that it too easily becomes a whipping boy for all the criticisms and frustrations that exist. It is a tremendously important part of our administration. But there is a psychology which has not yet altogether been overcome, which is, “We do these things rather well, we do them better on our own, although some international co-operation is helpful in specific areas”. I think that is archaic thinking. My own view is that we have to adopt the psychology which I have been trying to describe and say, “There is no alternative to international co-operation. We can only be as effective as the weaker links”. Now, there are weaker links within Europe and we ought, therefore, to be putting all our time, energy and skills into strengthening the work, to shore up and improve the performance where there are such weaker links.
I am very glad that on this occasion the Government have taken the report very seriously—the noble Lord has dealt very fully with the responses of the Government. I am glad about that because I think the Select Committee work in this House matters. I would like to re-emphasise, before I conclude, a point that the Minister made in earlier debates. If the quality of our Select Committee work is to be as high as it should and could be, the greater the degree of priority given by departments—in this context, very much the Home Office—to ensuring the information available to the committee, as it goes about its evaluation and considerations, is as plentiful, as helpful, and as clear as it possibly can be, and the more that can become the prevailing discipline within the department, the better it will be. Papers that arrive without proper time for full consideration—let alone any suspicion that sometimes a department does not wanting papers to be available too soon for consideration—do not help the committee to do its work well. Things have been improving—particularly, if I may say, with the present Minister at the helm. But it is an issue that cannot be given enough attention. Either we need these Select Committees or we do not. I am convinced that we do. If we are going to have them, they need to be serviced by government departments as well as they possibly can be.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)
My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House to speak in the gap. This is a very well timed report; it is extremely thorough; and the response of the Government has been for the most part positive. Coming as it does before the Council meeting to consider the first full application of Article 68 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it could not have been better timed.
It seems to me that there are a number of important elements in this report which I am glad to note that the Government have broadly adopted. It is generally considered that the Stockholm programme was too detailed and too large to be implemented entirely in the five-year gap, but it has given some guidelines to what is now required. The new guidelines were needed since the Stockholm programme expires in December 2014. A number of the objectives were time-bound. I think also that it is right to recognise that the work that is being done in justice and home affairs by national Governments and the Commission in bringing forward legislation does need to be considered carefully, evaluated and to be evidence-based—a view that was expressed by the committee itself.
I am interested to see that the Government adopt the view of the committee that,
“transposition of existing legislation by all Member States”,
is necessary to enable full co-operation and full equality of approach to the growing problems of crime. It is also encouraging to hear them state:
“Without full and consistent implementation businesses, Governments and citizens cannot be confident that legislation that applies in one Member State will apply in the same way in another”.
That seems to be very much the essence of collaboration in dealing with the growing problems of international crime. It is highly sensible that that view has been taken.
The timetable for review expressed by the Council is encouraging for the evaluation and effective implementation of the measures proposed. As to the scoreboard, I agree with the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in suggesting that, to make sure that the work is done by other countries, it would be sensible to have such annual scoreboards.
The Government state in respect of drugs that they must operate within the budget, the MFF. I have to ask whether the budget is adequate for that purpose, because the drug problem is growing and spreading.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and his committee and its sub-committees—as well as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who has served on them—for the work that they have done in providing this report. We have another quite remarkable report in front of us. Having been to seminars that the committee has undertaken, I have found its work to be extremely helpful and useful in informing our debate and my own knowledge. I think back to the number of debates that we have had around these issues with the committee’s reports, specifically on the Government’s opt-out and opt-back-in on justice and home affairs measures, and they do a great service to your Lordships’ House. We have had some of the most informed debates that I have taken part in here.
Not only is the range of issues covered by the justice and home affairs brief extraordinarily wide but the seriousness of them and their impact on the public are enormous. I know that it is very popular with some parts of the party opposite, although none of them is in their place today—and UKIP is rarely seen in your Lordships’ House for debates on these issues—just to think, “National good, European bad”. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I thought somewhat tongue-in-cheek, referred to his optimism that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would at some point pay tribute to the committee’s contribution to the debates. He may well have to wait a very long time, because the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, despite his strong views on European issues, is rarely seen in your Lordships’ House to discuss them, but I am happy to pay such a tribute to the committee.
The issues that we are debating today reach into personal safety and security and national security, and have an enormously positive impact. That is not to say—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made the same point—that there is not room for improvement or that we do not seek changes, but it is essential to public and national security that we have international co-operation on these most crucial issues. Specifically referring to,
“asylum, immigration, border controls, judicial cooperation in civil and criminal justice matters, and police cooperation”,
the report states:
“These matters affect the day-to-day lives of European citizens and are of considerable importance”.
It also makes clear, in paragraph 4, that:
“The whole field is one of shared competence—that is to say, one where the Member States retain exclusive powers on some matters, such as counter-terrorism, but where the Treaty provides for the European Union to take legislative decisions on a limited number of issues”.
My next point, which was made eloquently—more eloquently than I shall be able to make it—by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is about a fact that we have discussed before: crime does not stop at Calais. We have heard numerous examples in previous debates in your Lordships’ House of cases where co-operation has been essential to bring criminals back to the UK to face justice, and cases where only by Europe-wide international co-operation can a complete picture be built up and effective evidence obtained of criminal activities.
The Minister and I have debated the Serious Crime Bill at some length over the past few weeks, and I know that he, too, is aware of how important it is that we do not try to tackle serious organised crime in glorious isolation in this country but work with other countries to tackle it. Indeed, it is a matter for some regret that normally when we talk about co-operation on such matters, the debate tends to centre around terrorism and national security. Again, it was the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who made the point that we do a disservice to the public by not being very clear about the benefits to the public of such Europe-wide co-operation. I am talking about human trafficking for slavery and prostitution, drug crime, and money-laundering, in which criminals are trying to hide the ill-gotten proceeds of their activities.
The report helpfully starts with a timescale and a narrative of the sequence of treaties, with an explanation of the issues and priorities. It also deals honestly with concerns about the effective implementation of legislation. Following on from the Stockholm programme, a decision needs to be taken on how to proceed. We also need to discuss and define strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning in the area of freedom, security and justice. The committee addresses the question of how this should be handled.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the subtitle of the report, Steady as she goes. It seems to me that that very phrase oozes responsibility; it inspires confidence. I have a picture of the noble Lord himself at the helm of a trusty seaworthy vessel: “Steady as she goes”. More seriously, the subtitle indicates the style and tone of the report and its recommendations. The noble Lord joked a little bit about it, but I think it is a very apt and helpful subtitle.
I shall pick up a couple of issues. One that leaps out at me is that of cybercrime. We have debated it in your Lordships’ House recently. Indeed, we are currently dealing with it in the context of the Serious Crime Bill. As noble Lords are aware, I think that the Government’s proposals on cybercrime should have been bolder. When we return to the subject on Report there may be an opportunity to see whether we have got that aspect right and whether more can be done. What strikes me about the whole area of cybercrime and cybersecurity is how fast technology moves, and how quickly legislation—and also our knowledge and understanding of the issues—becomes out of date. I refer back to the debates we had last week on the fast-track legislation on data retention. We were then debating a directive passed in 2009 that has been struck down by the European Court. We also debated the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which deals with intercept capabilities. That legislation is now out of date. It was clear in our debates on it how urgent and important it is that we do not just keep trying to make small changes and “sticking plaster” amendments to it, but have a proper, detailed, thorough review, and try to understand not just the issues we face now but how we might not exactly future-proof the legislation but at least make it easier to amend in order to deal with future developments in technology.
When we are looking at crime and threats in the cyber world, it is not just about Governments. In an increasingly global and technological world, the ability for cybercrime to damage companies and individuals as well as nations—damaging companies can have a huge impact on national infrastructure as well—is a growing threat. The use of technology has now intruded into some of the most heinous crimes. We have heard reports of them in the press involving child sex abuse, and there are new crimes that were not even invented or thought of 10 or 20 years ago, such as cyberstalking and revenge porn. Technology is available to enable new ways of committing offences and crimes against the individual.
The Stockholm programme recognised the challenges, and the European Cybercrime Centre was set up within Interpol in January 2013. There are issues about some of the work that it was doing, but the report highlights comments made at the Europol meeting that I found extremely useful and interesting.
In our debates last week on data retention, very little mention was made of the role of, and information held by, the private sector. Not only does the private sector hold enormous amounts of information about citizens but the advice from everyone in the industry and the recommendation of the report was that far greater emphasis must be placed on closer and more productive co-operation between the private and public sectors. There are common interests. There is a necessity for sharing expertise and good practice. A common theme throughout the report is its emphasis on consolidation and implementation. Specifically when we are talking about achieving that balance, co-operation between private and public sectors is important.
I was slightly disappointed by the Government’s response. If the noble Lord can clarify that, that would be useful. When I read the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendations, I expected to see strong agreement on the need for private and public co-operation on cybercrime. However, the Government’s response seemed qualified. I hope that that is just a misunderstanding on my part, but the Government’s response does not just say, “Yes, we totally agree. This is something we have to do. We want to co-operate. We want to ensure that we find mechanisms and support for public and private co-operation”. It starts by saying:
“As the Committee is aware, the Government’s policy objectives are”,
and then gives a list of policy objectives that do not include cybercrime. Only in the second paragraph does it come on to say, “Yes, we think that that is also an issue”. I would have liked to have seen something stronger to give greater confidence. Will the Minister place on record an absolute commitment from the Government on their determination to tackle cybercrime and ensure that essential private-public co-operation?
Another point to draw attention to in the report relates to serious and organised crime. I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that part of the report. It is not a recommendation, but the report draws attention to the point raised by Sir Hugh Orde and Rob Wainwright of Europol that:
“Further action to fight against drugs and radicalisation should also be priorities”.
They were not listed in the Government’s priorities. I am sure that the noble Lord can confirm that they are also a government priority. Rob Wainwright also said that,
“we should be arguing for a much more effective integrated response to organised crime within the EU”.
I hope that the debate that your Lordships’ House and the other place have had on the Government’s proposals to opt out of EU criminal justice matters and then seek to opt back in have not been damaging to our relations with Europe. We take that co-operation seriously.
I welcome the committee’s recommendations in “Chapter 3: Strategic guidelines for the Next Programme”, which include a recognition and acknowledgement that the priorities are implementation of existing agreements and consolidation. That does not mean that nothing new can be considered, but it means that a case must be made. I was certainly interested in the comments that any future programme should be more succinct, targeted and strategic—clearly, we do not want to fall into the trap of being vague or woolly—and have flexibility so that it can respond to unforeseen developments and trends. The noble Lord’s comments on that would be helpful.
Finally, the Government’s comments on passenger name recognition were interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also referred to this. It is not the first time that this issue has been raised; it has been raised for a number of years and, indeed, there was a previous report from the EU Committee on this. The Minister says that “good progress” is being made. I hope so. We were very concerned that the e-Borders programme was cut so significantly in 2010. A lot of money—more than £150 million—has been written off by the Home Office. As serious as these matters are, I do not want to go into whose fault it is; what I need to know from the Minister is what is happening, when is it going to happen and whether he can give a progress report on this, because it is crucial if we are to tackle terrorism and serious and organised crime.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and to my noble friend Lord Judd, who is also a member of the committee, for the work they do, and I hope that the Minister will address some of my questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I join in expressing gratitude to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate; fewer, perhaps, than might be considered enough to do justice to a very thorough report and a serious matter, but of course it is soon after we discussed matters last Thursday evening. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, in his place. I thank him and, through him, all members of the House’s European committee for their excellent work. They do great service to the House by the diligence with which they study these matters. I thank, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. A bit like Frank Sinatra, I cannot imagine that this is his last appearance, but this is, I am sure, his last appearance as chairman of Sub-Committee F. I am grateful to him and to his sub-committee for the work they have done on this report and I pay tribute, along with all noble Lords, to the work that he has done on a whole range of matters. It has been of great benefit to the House in European affairs and I am sure that that will continue. If not as chairman, I am sure that he will still be involved in other ways.
The sub-committee’s inquiry, to which my ministerial colleagues from the House of Commons, James Brokenshire and Shailesh Vara, gave evidence in February, was very thorough. Its subsequent report was of its usual extremely high standard and the Government were grateful for such a well considered contribution to the debate. As noble Lords will be aware, the new strategic guidelines in the field of justice and home affairs were agreed by the Prime Minister at the June European Council. The Government are pleased with the strategic guidelines, which reflect all our key priorities in this area. The Government were successful, as noble Lords will know, in securing a strong and clear reference to the need to tackle “misuse” of free movement and fraudulent claims. We welcome this and hope that it will lead to member states and the Commission being more proactive in addressing cases of fraud and abuse of human rights.
The new strategic guidelines also contain welcome references to the need to strengthen the EU’s external border, in particular through strengthening co-operation with countries of origin and countries used for transit. We were also successful in securing two explicit references to the need for action to tackle human trafficking, which reflect the importance we attach to the fight against modern slavery. Indeed, noble Lords will know that the Modern Slavery Bill is going through its Committee stage in the House of Commons at the moment. This is an area where the EU can and should be ahead of the curve and I hope that, in turn, so can we.
The overall messages of the new guidance are ones of implementation and evaluation of existing measures, and on strengthening practical co-operation rather than bringing forward new legislation. That is in keeping with the general tenor of the committee’s report. In a field where we have seen so much new EU legislation over the past few years, this is welcome. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government place particular importance on the full implementation of the prisoner transfer framework decision by all member states. We welcome the explicit reference in the guidelines to the need to improve cross-border information exchanges, particularly in relation to criminal records.
As noble Lords will know, the Government shared the disappointment of this House that a proper mid-term review of the Stockholm programme did not take place. We are therefore very pleased that we were able to secure a Council-led review mechanism in the new strategic guidelines. I think that was genuinely welcomed by all speakers when they referred to it. This review mechanism will give us an opportunity to work closely with the new Commission, and the current and forthcoming EU presidencies, to ensure that the Council continues to hold the Commission to account as concerns the proper implementation of the strategic guidelines. The Council now has a clear role in ensuring that the Commission’s future actions in this area are in line with the strategic guidelines agreed by the member states.
I will do my best to respond to all the points raised during today’s debate but, as usual, I promise to write to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to copy all those who have spoken in on that letter and to place a copy in the Library if there are any that I do not address at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked specifically about the implementation of the European supervision order. I can confirm that we are preparing legislation on this matter and I hope that it will be in force by the end of this year. He also asked whether the Government would carry forward raising the proportionality issues and strengthening the yellow card procedure. As we made clear in our response to the committee’s report, the Government would like to see the yellow card mechanism strengthened. We want to have the scrutiny period extended from eight to 12 weeks and to extend the scope of the yellow card mechanism to include proportionality as well as subsidiarity. We also want to lower the threshold at which the yellow card is triggered.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also asked whether the Government will have another look at the idea of a scorecard. I thank noble Lords for their further explanation as to how this matter would work. We will give the committee’s recommendation further reflection.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, in another of his excellent speeches, referred to Home Office culture and the need to support links in the EU where countries are weak and need support. The UK offers practical support to member states. For example, we have provided a wide range of support to Greece to assist with the implementation of its action plan on asylum and migration. It is obviously in our interests—is it not?—to make sure that the EU borders are secure and properly policed and that we do not have the difficulties at Calais which we do, simply because people have leaked through what should otherwise be secure borders.
It was nice that my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart was able to speak in the gap. He asked whether the budget was adequate for work on drugs, particularly for the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The UK benefits considerably from the information we receive from the EMCDDA; but, as with all these negotiations, this Government have stressed the importance of budget discipline. That means that EU agencies must operate within their budget. We are satisfied that they can still do good work within that budget.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, asked me a number of questions. I will do my best to answer what I can now but I will be writing to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, as I have said, and if she does not mind I shall copy her in on that. It is a good way of making sure that everybody knows the answer.
The noble Baroness was concerned that the Government were not sufficiently focused on cybercrime and co-operation between the public and private sectors. I am surprised at that, given that whenever I speak I try to make it clear that we see it as a very serious issue. We fully support programmes that bring together the public and private sectors to share information on threats and to take co-ordinated action against them. I am happy to confirm on the record that we seek co-operation on cybercrime matters across a whole series of things, not just matters of security or even serious crime, but beyond to domestic incidents of cybercrime, which aggregated together can become very serious crime very quickly.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness noted that the report was helpful, informative and useful. I agree with her; I felt that the report did justice to the issues. I agree with her also that crime does not stop at Calais and that there is a need for European-wide co-operation in dealing with crime. I hope that she can be satisfied that when we discuss the Serious Crime Bill on Report these matters can be made clear in debate. There is no conflict between the Government’s policy on the matters contained within the report and our policy in legislating here within the UK.
I hope that noble Lords will be happy that I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the points that have been made and not answered in the debate.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this reasonably short debate. In particular I thank the Minister for the considered way in which he has responded to all the questions that were asked. I am delighted that he will have another look at the scorecard idea.
I have two points. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the importance of the way that crime is dealt with in other member states as being part of our national security is one that is not terribly well grasped. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made that point, too. In the world we now live in, with a highly integrated European market, the fact is that the criminals are half way down the track before we have left the start line. Measures of co-operation of the sort we have been debating are the way in which we are going to catch up with them and, it is hoped, get ahead of them and catch them—because these things often happen elsewhere than in the UK, but then the criminals come here and continue their activities. There are many ways in which these cross-border crimes continue. The noble Lord and the Government have got the balance about right now and I hope that this will lead to what I was delighted to see was a commitment to Britain’s membership of the Justice and Home Affairs Council that goes beyond the fatal date of 2017. That was a welcome sign indeed. I hope that when the Protocol 36 negotiation is finally concluded—successfully, we must all hope—the Government will again become, after a year of necessary negotiation, a full participant in this field to which we have contributed an enormous amount over the years, and from which we have gained a large amount.
Women: Equality and Advancement
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and its impact on gender equality and the advancement of women in both national and international policy.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, the UN Commission on the Status of Women, known as CSW, first met in 1947, soon after the founding of the UN. Its work forms a close and long-standing relationship with a number of NGOs and civil society, and it advises the UN Economic and Social Council, known as ECOSOC. Throughout its history, CSW has been supported by various UN bodies. In 2011, all these bodies—DAW, INSTRAW, OSAGI and UNIFEM—merged to become UN Women. This now functions as the secretariat to CSW and, thankfully, is much less of a mouthful to pronounce.
From its inception, CSW forged new ground in its global assessment of the status of women and helped to draft the early conventions on women’s rights, including those on political rights, marriage and equal pay. The 1960s saw CSW draft the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: CEDAW. However, it was not until 1972, CSW’s 25th year, that it held its first World Conference on Women. For the past seven years, I have attended CSW as a delegate—as an NGO delegate and this year as a parliamentary representative—and it is this experience that prompted me to table this debate.
CSW is the second-largest meeting of the year held at the UN. This year, 6,000 delegates from around 850 organisations from all over the world registered. While sometimes referred to as the “Davos of Women”, unlike Davos it is hardly ever mentioned in the UK press and is little known to members of the general public. Each year, the conference is structured around a central theme, with a review theme also considered. Draft conclusions on the theme are published in advance and are then negotiated during the conference, hopefully culminating in agreed conclusions. I say “hopefully” because, two years ago, conclusions were not reached. This was somewhat of a wake-up call and an issue I will return to later.
UN Women is mainly funded by voluntary contributions from countries. I am pleased to say that the UK has so far funded UN Women to the tune of more than $10 million this year, the fourth-largest core contribution to date. Contributions are also raised by UN Women’s national committees and, last year, the UK committee sent an additional $66,020. Although unheard of by the wider public, CSW is well represented from the UK. This year, over 80 representatives from civil society and NGOs attended, as well as three Ministers and parliamentary representatives. I should like to put on the record the huge value and import of the work put in to support the UK at CSW by the UK Gender and Equalities Office—the GEO—so ably led by Helene Reardon-Bond. One of its roles is to liaise with civil society, and its work for CSW starts months before, when it convenes stakeholders to consult them on the theme.
Preparatory work is done in advance not only by the Government but also by the NGOs. For the past two years, there has been a UK NGO CSW Alliance convened by NAWO. The alliance, the INGOs and others send in briefings and also comment on the CSW draft conclusions, so the Government are very aware of the views of UK civil society. Once at CSW, the UK NGOs are the envy of the NGOs from other countries because of their relationship with the Government. A meeting is convened most evenings at the UK mission during the first week to brief delegates. We are very lucky in this country not only to have a Government who put so much work into CSW, but also to have such a committed civil society. I thank all those government officials for the effort they put in to try to ensure the best outcome from CSW, and also the NGOs which play such a sterling role, including backing up the negotiations by lobbying member states. Without doubt, it is of immense value to have an annual UN conference in the pursuit of gender equality. CSW has been a pioneer in influencing positive changes internationally.
This year’s conference was focused on the post-MDG agenda. Not only were significant issues not in the original MDGs, such as violence against women, highlighted, but the agreed conclusions also endorsed the imperative need for a stand-alone gender target and for gender to be mainstreamed. The issue of unpaid care work, first raised at CSW, now appears in the working document of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals. So CSW continues to play an important and vital role in pushing for gender equality.
However, I cannot help but feel that in these times CSW misses opportunities and could achieve so much more. My experience as a delegate is of a conference of two halves. While in the UN building member states are making their statements on achievements in their countries, across the road, in Church House, the NGOs are holding meetings which, in some cases, challenge their Governments’ assertions. There is very little interaction between the two. Perhaps more global progress could be made if there were more opportunity for transparent and informed discussions between the Governments and their civil society delegates.
When CSW took place this March, the headlines were full of crises in Syria, Afghanistan and Egypt, yet the CSW failed to make any statement on these issues or to highlight the horrific plight experienced by women in those countries: women being raped in Syria; refugees fleeing with their children; and the terrible fear of women in Afghanistan as the West withdraws its troops. Some might even go as far as to say that this was a failure to speak up. We cannot truly seek long-lasting and positive changes in gender equality in isolation of global events. A statement from CSW, supported by 6,000 women from around the world, would have had some clout.
It is a sad indictment of our times that the call for a fifth women’s world conference has faded away, not due to lack of interest but, rather, out of concern that, in recent years, there has been such a struggle to maintain the language of the last one, the almost 20 year-old Beijing Platform for Action.
I mentioned that two years ago there was a failure to reach conclusions. This had a domino effect throughout UN language and other agreements that look to CSW. Every year, basic rights that we here take for granted and are the cornerstone on which to build gender equality—especially sexual and reproductive rights—come under fire and a huge effort has to be made by activists at CSW just to hold the line, rather than progressing debate and action. For example, issues such as intimate partner violence are not addressed, because fundamentalists feel that to include this language is to condone relationships outside marriage. But IPV is a sad reality of our times and we need to be able to ensure that the expert voices at CSW are able to be loudly raised in the negotiations.
So I feel that I must ask your Lordships whether you think that CSW could be more effective. Can the Minister please inform me whether assessment has been made of its impact, nationally and internationally? How can we make the work and outcomes of CSW more accessible to wider audiences, those outside our CSW geeks, who do not fully understand how the sometimes dry language in the outcome reports can relate to them and what it means in practice? Surely, raising awareness should be a major outcome of CSW. Statements on burning topical issues would make headline news around the world and perhaps contribute to getting countries to campaign to stop some of the abuse.
We should be enormously thankful to have a global UN conference for women. Indeed, it is vital. I have said before that I am hugely grateful to the Government for all their diligent work for CSW. However, the present CSW structure seems to offer little room for swift movability and flexibility. From time to time, most institutions benefit from a little restructuring and a fresh approach. As David Cameron said in January, Britain is “leading the charge” to promote equality for women around the world and our Government should be applauded for all that they are doing. Following the enormous success of last month’s Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, and the wonderful Girl Summit today, together with the wider work the UK is leading on to end violence and gender inequality, would this not be a good opportunity for the UK—one of the key financial supporters and core members—to work with other founders to make CSW more effective and its impact felt more forcefully at national, European and global levels?
I thank noble Lords for giving me this opportunity to raise the issue of CSW today and I am looking forward to hearing contributions from those taking part and the response from my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for her stirring and powerful speech on the UN Commission on the Status of Women and work arising therefrom. I am pleased and reassured today to learn of Her Majesty’s Government’s new determination to tackle the double trauma of female genital mutilation and of forced, underage marriage for girls.
The Birmingham Trojan horse report, which your Lordships’ House received this afternoon, brings both crimes against young females inside the orbit of a narrow band of extremely restrictive Islam. Undoubtedly, from the evidence so painfully experienced, the cruel actions that result from forced marriage and FGM can—and do—claim that Islam’s teaching provides full justification for these brutal practices on helpless children. Indeed, the claim is regularly made that Islam not only authorises but demands them. Evidence of the strength of this view in some Muslim countries is easy to come by. Under the immediate past Egyptian President Morsi, ambulances with cutters roamed the streets, loud-hailing families to “bring out your girls”. Under Morsi’s brief reign the percentage of girls under five who were assaulted by bloodstained adults and had their genitalia sliced away without anaesthetic rose from 83% to over 90%.
Where is the verse in the Holy Koran that dictates such bloody and continuing sacrifice to Allah? It cannot be found, for it does not exist. What of the Hadith? Compiled some 400 years after the founding of Islam, the Hadith offers further Koranic interpretation, but there is no mention there, either, of child marriage or female genital mutilation. Therefore we must deepen the search and track back easily the FGM genesis from its common name; it is known as the “pharaonic practice”. There we have it—this was an ancient Egyptian custom, which perhaps predated even the union of Upper and Lower Egypt in 3000 BC or so. Therefore the evil that we tackle today is theologically unconnected with Islam or with any true Muslim practice. Instead, it is a vicious torture practised by certain societies to dominate their women by the use of carefully targeted and deliberately inflicted bitter and lifelong pain.
By no means all Islamic countries practice FGM. The Islamic Republic of Iran, a country I know well, allows none of it, and nor does her neighbour, Iraq. The pharaonic practice failed to spread far in the Arabian peninsula and the Persian Gulf, but its proponents from Egypt and parts of the neighbouring countries have successfully brought it to western nations, including —to our great shame—the United Kingdom. Today, our Government declared their wish to eliminate those practices from the British Isles, and from the globe, but how best to tackle FGM and its unhappy sister, forced marriage at an early age? A further horror to add to make up the trilogy of hatred for women is the concept of honour killing—another misery for young girls to fear and suffer. So there is much to do.
My own findings on tackling successfully these unhappy issues come from my grass-roots experience around the world. Small achievements led to my setting up and working through the AMAR International Charitable Foundation and Asociatia Children’s High Level Group. AMAR is a large charity that works exclusively in the Muslim world; Asociatia Children’s High Level Group is a smaller NGO that tackles the same problem of exclusion in the very different Christian Orthodox settings of central and eastern Europe. There, inside the boundaries of the European Union, a section of society persistently practices marriage of underage children, most often to older men, which it claims is an ingrained custom that will not be denied.
These practices are neither Christian nor Muslim. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes that plain. All nations have signed and almost all ratified or incorporated that most powerful of all UN conventions. Those community leaders who insist on child marriages, honour killings and female genital mutilation can now be persuaded, through an understanding of the convention’s articles, that their customs are outdated, irrelevant and destructive of the very same communities that they lead.
For example, the AMAR Foundation, which I chair, has worked in the Mesopotamian marshes, serving the marsh tribes, for 23 years now and continues to do so. Historically, the people of the marshes have carried out a small number of honour killings every year. As they track their ancestry to Sumerian times, the numbers of dead young people mount dramatically. By careful persuasion, explanation and teaching by AMAR staff over some years, these tribal leaders have discarded honour killings completely. In place of the blood revenge for the stain on family honour, AMAR and the tribal leaders have created a new deal of water buffalo, clothes and food—a huge achievement that the 300,000 tribal people highly appreciate.
AMAR has approximately 2,000 staff and works through capacity and institution-building in health and education across Iraq, from north to south and east to west. AMAR works in close partnership with central and local government in the KRG region. It now additionally serves the recently internally displaced people from Mosul and refugees from Syria, giving a catchment area of those whom AMAR cares for in the millions.
Some years ago, the AMAR teams planned and began work on gender-based violence. This great programme started in the Kurdistan Regional Government area in the north and is now countrywide. It successfully combats gender-based violence throughout Iraq by promoting a cultural discourse on gender. The programme provides protection against gender-based violence through support, training, outreach and publicity. AMAR professional staff give direct and social assistance to GBV victims through eight special centres in seven of Iraq’s 18 governorates. Through the creation of special GBV training workshops, AMAR’s team has now trained 1,000 police and 109 local NGO staff.
In-house lawyers have referred and handled nearly 2,000 cases of GBV, and thousands of students and schoolchildren, their teachers and professors are trained each month. By March this year, nearly 7,000 school classes, 3,000 classes in universities and 5,500 public workshops had been successfully delivered. There was continuing publicity of this groundbreaking two-year project through mainstream media and through the production and distribution of a monthly bulletin. These are the practical, core building blocks that I recommend for the creation of an enlightened society that does not inflict cruel and inhumane punishments on defenceless children and powerless women in imagined retribution for the ill luck that is assumed to have created the community’s poverty, alienation and distress.
The GBV programme’s focus on women’s empowerment and gender equality is matched by AMAR’s other projects for women across the nation. A network of 500 AMAR women health visitors visit more than 3,000 families each month as a part of the foundation’s comprehensive women and reproductive health programmes, which are carried out through 50 primary health centres in six governorates. The human rights and rule of law programme gives thousands of women key knowledge of basic rights and helps them use them. All this work meets the professional standards of the WHO and UNESCO, and is based on the UN conventions that today’s conference here in London, led by UNESCO and supported by Her Majesty’s Government, demonstrates so well. AMAR’s work takes place in the Islamic world with mainly Muslim professional staff, giving the lie to claims that the abuse of women is an Islamic requirement.
I strongly support our Government’s initiatives on gender-based violence, on female genital mutilation and on arranged marriages. I know that they will succeed. We in the AMAR Foundation stand ready to share our deep and powerful experience, which is succeeding.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, particularly when, as the only male Peer to be speaking, I am in the company of such distinguished noble Baronesses. Yesterday, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, what I should speak about. In her usual forthright and direct way, she said, “Speak about men”. When I first met her when she was Secretary of State for Health, that was how she dealt with me then too. It is a pleasure to see her.
I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, speak about her experiences on the CSW. It was informative but I was disappointed to hear that she felt that the CSW could do more than it had been doing. Having read the annual reports, including the most recent one, my impression has always been that the CSW was the driving force behind making sure that the MDGs progressed and achieved the outcomes described. I always believed that it was the CSW that made that happen, and I hope that that is the case.
As we have already heard, today in London we have had the Girl Summit, supported by UNICEF. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both made speeches on the elimination of FGM in our generation. The summit also addressed child marriages. We all know that female genital mutilation is violence against girls. It is child abuse.
I am going to speak about some of these issues but in the context of some of the millennium development goals. I shall reflect on the meetings that I recently had with some remarkable women in Africa and in this country. The story I am going to tell your Lordships about concerns a young lady whose name is Talanesh. I am involved with a charity in which I work to set up centres for the management of women with fistulas and to provide training for local doctors and nurses, teaching them how to repair fistulas to relieve women’s suffering.
Talanesh’s story—I saw her recently—is that at the age of 12 she was betrothed to a much older man. At the age of 13 she was married. At the age of 15 she became pregnant. She had a long labour lasting four days in a remote part of a mountainous region, and she delivered a dead baby. She was relieved because her pain and suffering had ended. Little did she know that two days later she would discover that she was wet all the time. She realised that something was wrong. She smelt, and her husband left. Her parents took her back but, because she smelt, she could not stay in their small hut, so she stayed in a separate one. Years later, the family discovered that it might be possible for her to be treated. They undertook a four-day walk—all this is absolutely true—to reach a hospital, where she was looked after and her fistula was repaired. She is now dry and has her dignity back.
Two million young girls are affected in this way. They are married early in their childhood when their pelvis is not developed. They become pregnant at a very young age and are lucky not to die in obstructed labour, but they end up with fistulas—sometimes double fistulas—and the tragedy is enormous. Some of them have had female genital mutilation carried out, which produces further problems in pregnancy. In sub-Saharan Africa, 250 million are married under the age of 15. Michelle Bachalet has called child marriage a violation of a girl’s human rights. It halts education and produces the health risks that I have just described. If we end child marriage by 2030, it will make it easier to deliver six of the eight millennium development goals.
The second lady I met was called Leymah Gbowee. Most noble Lords will probably have heard of her. She is Liberian and in 2011 she was the joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to stop the second violent war in Liberia. In the context of rape and violence, she was once asked to speak in Libya. She thought that she would be making the speech to women but found that 98% of the audience consisted of men, so she changed her speech. Her key topics were: acknowledge that there is inequality; help to promote working partnerships; and protect the victims of violence and rape. She told me that she suggested that women who were raped and then had a child ought to have legislation allowing them to choose the name of the father on the birth certificate, otherwise the child would not have a father’s name. I understand that Libya is the only country that has such legislation.
She told me something else that was very interesting. She saw rape and violence in a conflict situation as merely an extension of the violence, with a greater brutality because of the presence of weapons and the hype related to war that legitimised greater brutality. It was the same violence against women that existed in normal life outside of war. I thought that that was very telling. She made that speech in London.
However, there are other gender inequalities. I went to a school recently on the same visit when I met Talanesh in Africa. I was bitten badly by tsetse flies. I hope that none of them will infect me, but if noble Lords notice me dozing off it is a sleeping sickness. The school I visited was a secondary school. I thought that it was a boys’ school. It was a mixed school—I saw some girls afterwards—but because it was a secondary school there were very few girls there. I was told that they mostly leave after primary school. That is the problem. They have to pay a small fee, so the parents decide that they cannot afford it. Primary education is free but secondary education costs a small fee. We have to address that issue in the aid that we give, particularly as we will now have a law in this country that all our aid should be based on gender equality. We should promote gender equality in education, too
I believe that the UN report is right. The indicators monitoring the outcomes of MDGs are not desegregated by sex and other factors providing information about the situation of women and girls, so it is not possible to say whether gender inequality is being properly addressed. I hope that we will promote that. I also hope that the next goal, beyond 2005, will be a stand-alone one on gender equality underpinning all other goals. I hope that the Government will support that.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I am honoured to follow the noble Lord, with whom I have worked over many years. He may be male but no one can say he is stale or pale, and on that basis he is welcome as part of the debate. He was, of course, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists during the time I was in government, and we all welcome his enlightened and practical approach. I also commend his work as chancellor of the University of Dundee; I shall say a little more in a moment about Hull, where I am the chancellor. I also warmly congratulate my noble friend on raising this critically important subject.
I feel as though my lifetime has coincided with the Commission on the Status of Women, as it was started a year before I was born—my birthday is in March. I remember only too well when we finally got the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; the International Women’s Year in 1975, when I was a magistrate and working in a poor area in south-east London; and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. The CSW is also about the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. It is about participation and leadership at all levels and the encouragement of women and girls in education, training, science and technology. It is not only about an element of prohibition but a sense of promotion.
It was well said that, in many ways, last week was a great week for women, with the reshuffle and a remarkable number of women joining the Cabinet. For the first time we have a woman Leader and a woman Chief Whip in the House of Lords, and any number of other appointments over the last year which quite took me aback. We have Janet Yellen at the Federal Reserve in the US, the IMF managing director Christine Lagarde and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Time and again, we have had female firsts. That is a cause for celebration but it certainly is not sufficient.
When we look at the evidence of what is happening around the world we are witnessing extraordinary polarities. In the UK, as in the US and Hong Kong, female life expectancy is now 82 and has virtually doubled in 150 years. It is quite extraordinary what has happened to women and their health and well-being in the UK. However, in Sierra Leone, the Congo and Swaziland, women’s life expectancy is under 50 or hovering around 50. There is an appalling and unsustainable gap.
There is a similar picture with maternal mortality. In the UK, something like eight women die out of 100,000 live births. The figure in Sierra Leone is what it was in the UK 300 years ago—1,100 out of every 100,000 births are fatal—and the figure is only slightly lower in Chad, the Central African Republic and Somalia. In Sudan, the Congo and Côte d’Ivoire, the figures for women dying in childbirth are the same as they were in the UK 200 years ago. The issue of female health and reproductive medicine is extraordinarily serious and particularly intolerable as the disparities in different parts of the world are so strong. It is a similar story with perinatal mortality rates. Fortunately, in the UK it is very rare now for a child to die at birth, about eight out of 1,000, but it is five times that figure in Pakistan and many other countries. We cannot be confident until we have tackled those issues.
Much of this, of course, goes back to literacy. I remember long ago when I was PPS to my noble friend Lord Patten, when he was the Minister for Overseas Development. I commend particularly the work of many women who have held that job. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was at ODA, as was Clare Short, and now we have Justine Greening. Women in that role can make a particularly powerful contribution. Whereas in the West 100% female literacy is expected, in Afghanistan it is 12%, in Niger 15% and South Sudan 16%.
This refers back to the noble Lord’s point about schooling. One of the millennium development goals is to achieve universal primary education. In Uganda, the number of girls getting to the last grade of primary education is one in four—25%—while in Angola it is 27%, in Mozambique 29% and in Ethiopia 42%. In many countries, fewer than 50% of the girls get through to the last grade of primary school. This is an extraordinarily serious issue. Taking up the comments of my noble friend when she opened the debate, I believe that these are specific, practical issues which must be addressed. They cannot be avoided or ducked.
I return to the issue of evidence. I feel very privileged to be involved in the University of Hull, and of course William Wilberforce was born in Hull. During his pioneering work on the abolition of slavery, he said, rather wonderfully, that:
“You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know”.
We must address this, not only in this House but at the UN. We cannot say we did not know. We do know these facts and this evidence. Amusingly, William Wilberforce was highly criticised by some other humanitarians at the end of the 18th century. Elizabeth Heyrick and others regarded him as extremely unenlightened about the role of women and not very interested in the issue of poverty at the time. However, such is the way of social reform.
At the University of Hull, there is a particularly impressive centre for gender studies. It was the first UK university to have a mainstream department for the subject, building on the legacy of the Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery and Emancipation, which has recently developed a slavery index, suggesting that there are still 29 million in slavery in the world, so many of whom are female. The work at the centre, particularly that led by the most impressive Dr Suzanne Clisby, suggests that the evidence on abuse against women is still far from reliable. There has been a survey of 42,000 women across the EU and the evidence of self-reported, compared to reported, violence is hugely different. Until we can have reliable and accurate information, we cannot seriously develop effective programmes.
Apart from the issues in Europe, there are still harrowing situations in different parts of the world. In Haiti, there is an appalling situation where many of the older women lure children and young girls into people trafficking. Because they are older, grandmotherly types, the girls often feel they can trust them. Families give up their girls and young women into slavery, believing this will lead to a better life. In Mauritania in west Africa, there is deeply entrenched hereditary slavery and child marriage and human trafficking are a particular burden on women. In Pakistan, there is a very serious situation of slavery and exploitation of women. Another research project conducted by the University of Hull in Bangladesh concerned women on construction sites carrying rubble, cement and bricks to earn money. They are then cast out by the community because they are changing the norms of purdah. They are vulnerable to exploitation, and sexual difficulties are only too evident.
Finally—this relates to the noble Lord’s point about children in school—some work in Ghana is trying to avoid gender-based violence prevalent in the secondary schools there, where girls are often raped and abused both by male staff and by male pupils. They have to drop out of school because of pregnancy or shame or have to walk long distances to school, again being picked up by predatory men. There are schools where there are very few toilet facilities where the girls can have any privacy.
The situation around the world is extraordinarily ambiguous. I always take India as an example, where there is a 65% female literacy rate but, unlike anywhere else in the world, in India there are 10 female chief executives of banks, which is quite extraordinary. It is that contradiction that makes it all the more difficult for the international institutions to provide coherent programmes.
My noble friend talked about raising the status of CSW. She talked about NGOs, civil society and Governments. I believe that to achieve change in the world there is a very potent force that can be used to hugely positive effect, and that is the role of business. The global brands take the issues of corporate social responsibility, avoiding female exploitation, developing female health facilities and encouraging literacy in enlightened workplaces extremely seriously. If you talk to the people at Standard Chartered, Tesco, BT, BAT or Coca-Cola—many, many businesses—they can be a far greater force for good in many of the countries facing the most difficult circumstances than can their Governments, with all the difficulties that they face.
I warmly congratulate my noble friend and, like others, I am pleased about progress so far, but we are left with a vast amount more to do before the women of this world can live to have the expectations that they rightly deserve.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the gap.
As we are all aware, this year’s UN Commission on the Status of Women focused on the challenges and achievements in the implementation of the MDGs for women and girls. I wish to draw attention to its conclusions that relate to the progress towards MDG5, which is improving maternal health, and its two targets, which are reducing maternal mortality and achieving universal access to reproductive health. Work towards this goal and its targets has been particularly slow and uneven, especially for the poorest and rural sectors of the population within and across countries.
The number of preventable maternal deaths continues to be unacceptably high and adolescent girls face higher risks. Up to 343,000 women die each year in pregnancy and childbirth or soon afterwards, the majority of them in Africa and south Asia. Every minute of every day, somewhere in the world a woman dies from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth; 99% of maternal deaths occur in the developing world, making maternal mortality the health statistic with the largest disparity between developed and developing countries. For every woman who dies, at least 20 more suffer complications that leave them with lifelong disability and pain. Most of these deaths, disability and long-term illnesses are preventable.
The APPG on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, of which I am a member, produced a report in May 2009 entitled Better Off Dead?, which highlighted the devastating suffering and injury following childbirth that leaves women isolated, frequently abandoned by their husbands and excluded from economic and social life as a direct result of pregnancy and childbirth—as was so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. As many as 215 million women in the developing world want to delay or avoid pregnancy but do not have access to modern family planning methods.
Increasing access to modern family planning could prevent up to 30% of all maternal deaths and 20% of newborn deaths. The risk of a woman dying as a result of pregnancy or childbirth is about one in 30,000 in Sweden and about one in six in Afghanistan. Worldwide, as many as 50% of pregnancies are unplanned and 25% are unwanted. The unwanted pregnancies occur disproportionately among young, unmarried girls who lack access to contraception. Unless women and girls’ family planning needs are addressed, gender equality, the empowerment of women and the realisation of the human rights of women and girls cannot be achieved.
I congratulate our Government on hosting today’s landmark Girl Summit. I am proud to be a board member of UNICEF UK, which co-hosted the event. The aim is to end female genital mutilation—cutting—and child or forced marriages, which have been neglected issues for too long. Home Secretary Theresa May and International Development Secretary Justine Greening have together led today’s summit, alongside heads of state, survivors and charities.
In England and Wales, an estimated 66,000 women are living with the consequences of female genital mutilation—an illegal cultural practice where girls’ genitalia are cut—with more than 20,000 in this country at risk every year. I am delighted that the Government have announced measures on how we can change this here.
I was very pleased to attend this afternoon’s session and was impressed by the tremendous commitment and energy from so many enthusiastic, passionate young people determined to eradicate this barbaric practice. If that energy, enthusiasm, passion and commitment could be bottled, many of today’s global problems really would be a thing of the past. If these young women stay involved, maintain their passion and go on to lead their countries, the world has a brighter future than it seems to today.
As someone who has not attended the CSW, it may not be for me to criticise the fact that its work is not better known, when so clearly it should be. Better awareness would lead to higher impact. At a time when so many women are suffering in dreadful circumstances across the world, as described by noble Lords today, the CSW should be leading the way, shouting from the rooftops about the many and terrible injustices that are taking place. I hope that this debate, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Hodgson will help in some small way to encourage those decision-makers at the top to look again at its activities and see whether and how they could become more actively responsive to the many challenges women experience on a daily basis.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the subject of this debate and indeed on her speech. I followed with interest the discussions and debates that took place earlier this year at the Commission on the Status of Women. I am impressed indeed by its strong outcome. I would like to congratulate the noble Baroness as a delegate to it.
I suspect and imagine that there were some serious and frank discussions that took place at the time. Indeed, I have heard some accounts from the NGOs that were present. The document that resulted, for example, makes specific references to uphold women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights; there was an agreement to eliminate harmful practices, including child marriage and female genital mutilation, which, significantly, would in future not be referred to as “cutting”. There were also explicit references made to a woman’s right to access abortion services and for the development of sex education programmes for young women. And there was strong language around violence against women and girls. The document called for the elimination and prevention of violence and for the prosecution of perpetrators.
The Vatican was present at this convention and would certainly have much preferred that our fight against HIV/AIDS was done on the basis of abstention and not the use of condoms, but I am happy to say that its view did not prevail. The document also called on Governments to address discriminatory social practices, laws and beliefs that undermine gender equality. Efforts to weaken calls for increased funding were successfully resisted.
Françoise Girard, president of the International Women’s Health Coalition, said:
“By committing and investing in efforts to promote gender equality, governments can unleash the power of half the world’s population to build a more peaceful, just, and sustainable planet”.
She went on to say:
“Agreement to a standalone goal on gender equality was not a foregone conclusion here, given the small, but very vocal conservative opposition to women’s rights. It’s a major step forward to have the commission agree to it”.
Shannon Kowalski, director of advocacy and policy, added:
“The commitments made by governments at the UN are an important victory for women and girls. We have achieved what we came to do, against great odds and the determined attempts by the Holy See and a few conservative countries to once again turn back the clock on women’s rights”.
We should be proud as a country that this Government—and indeed my own Government—have been leading the world in the fight against FGM and violence against women. I would like to congratulate the Government on the two summits that have taken place in the last month or so—today’s and the one about violence in conflict. Both of those are very, very important.
I think that it is a great shame, but expected, that any mention of sexual orientation was removed from the final text of these considerations, as was an acknowledgement of the diversity of families. I hope that the UK Government will continue to push for these issues at the CSW in future.
The Commission affirmed that gender equality, the empowerment of women, their enjoyment of their human rights and the eradication of poverty are essential to economic and social development, and reiterated the importance of women in the progress to deliver the millennium development goals, as the noble Baroness and other noble Lords said in this debate.
I want to turn to our domestic performance, because the subject of this debate is not just international policy but our national equality policies and what impact they have. What of the UK? What progress are we making and in which areas?
I looked at the Fawcett Society’s global gender gap report from last year. Unsurprisingly, as a privileged, developed western democracy and a rich country, we scored overall rather well: 18th out of 136 countries, although we have dropped from ninth in 2006. Where we fall down is in some of the gender gap indexes to do with matters such as economic participation, childcare and political empowerment. Those seem to be the areas which have to be addressed by the UK Government.
Out of the 136 countries, we rank 70th for the gap between men and women on the professional index. This reflects the lack of women in top jobs across the piece. We are 49th in terms of wages equality between men and women. On childcare, we are 90th. We know the reason for that and that the matters are linked—the level of women’s economic participation and the availability and cost of childcare in the UK. My honourable friend Lucy Powell today issued a notice about the cost of childcare as we head into the summer holidays. It is worth looking at that as an example of the situation that we face in the UK. The cost of holiday childcare has increased by 16% since 2010—that is an extra £100 per child for an ordinary family. The cost of private, voluntary and independent holiday provision has gone up four times faster than wages, and is greater than that in places such as London. It is a great shame that more help is not available for women and families with their childcare. Childcare help with tax credits has been reduced, with some families losing £1,500 per year of help.
I turn to political empowerment. We rank 59th for women in ministerial positions—that was last year, so the position may have changed slightly—and 54th for women in Parliament, 23% of our MPs being women. Sixteen per cent of those are Conservative women and 14% are Liberal Democrat women. Despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, said, it is a fact that 13 out 85 policy tsars appointed since 2010 are women. Less than a third of those appointed to sit on departmental boards in Whitehall are women; fewer than one in five ambassadors appointed since 2010 are women; and only around a quarter of the Permanent Secretaries are women. When David Cameron reshuffled his Cabinet last week, he increased the number of women in it from three to five. In 2011, the number of women in the Cabinet was five, so there has been no improvement in real terms. If one includes the women who can attend Cabinet, the figure increases from five to eight.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister contributed to hitting two out of the three equality indicators all on his own last week with his reshuffle. I put it to noble Lords: what would you say to the boss who appointed a woman to do a job that a man had been doing but paid her significantly less and downgraded the seniority of the position? Let us think about it for a moment, and transfer that action to Marks & Spencer or to some of the companies that the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned, or indeed to a new head of the United Nations. It is less than impressive and a slight on someone who does not deserve it and has acted only with dignity and grace throughout, but it tells us something about the mindset of the Prime Minister and his Government.
I wonder what the Minister thinks the UK’s ratings will be in these matters next year. Will the burden of childcare costs be lifted? Will the Government bring more pressure to bear on companies in relation to the lack of women at senior levels? Will they bring forward more transparency? Will we find more women Permanent Secretaries or ambassadors? And, although it is a bit late to do this, will the Conservative Party select more women in the safe seats? Indeed, will the Liberal Democrats do the same? Then we will be able to increase the number of women in our Parliament.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. Looking at the list of speakers, it is not the least bit surprising that it has been so well informed and interesting. I am pleased to be here to answer this Question for Short Debate on the Commission on the Status of Women, which I shall refer to as CSW, if noble Lords will excuse me. The UK Government are committed to improving the lives of women and girls both nationally and internationally, and prioritise the advancement of women’s rights.
The Prime Minister has called for a special focus in 2014 on ending violence and discrimination against women and girls. We have heard today about two excellent conferences that have been held in short order on those issues. It has been an aim of the Foreign Office to address the greatest challenge of the 21st century—women’s full political, economic and social participation. We work tirelessly at both national and international level to improve the rights of women everywhere, and our involvement at CSW is one way to do this.
CSW is the primary forum of the United Nations for promoting gender equality and the human rights of women and girls. As such, participating in its annual meeting allows the UK to display leadership in gender equality, to campaign for women’s rights on a global stage, and to use its outcomes to inform our national and international equality policies. Our strong commitment to CSW demonstrates our belief that it is a crucial element in the campaign for global equality. We send a strong delegation each year. My noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger attends regularly, and this year three Ministers attended—the Minister for Women and Equalities, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development. I know that it is already in the diary of the Minister for Women and Equalities for next year.
Another strength of CSW is the role that civil society plays. My noble friend Lady Hodgson made that clear during her speech. Civil society organisations from around the world attend CSW to represent their constituencies and lobby member states. In the UK we have a very good relationship with our NGOs. We meet them regularly in the run-up to CSW, including at ministerial level. This helps to inform our position and our negotiating objectives. At CSW it is wonderful to see civil society come together from around the world, with people sharing their stories, their plans and their aspirations. Thousands of women from around the world come together at CSW: our own NGOs are well represented, and many hundreds of women from the UK attend.
CSW is co-ordinated by UN Women. We are fully supportive of the work of UN Women and were, until recently, its largest donor. CSW provides an opportunity to encourage support for better representation of women in decision-making. In both the political and the economic sphere we all need to do more to ensure that women are involved in making the decisions that affect us all. That point was raised by my noble friend Lady Bottomley. CSW enables us to ensure that gender equality becomes a reality not just for the UK but for women everywhere.
To best respond to the question about what CSW’s impact on gender equality and the advancement of women is, we should remind ourselves what it is that CSW aims to do. In 1995, at the UN’s Fourth World Conference for Women, 17,000 participants and 30,000 activists arrived in Beijing to lend their voices and support to the campaign for gender equality. The UK and 188 other member states created the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which laid out a series of promises by Governments to work towards the eradication of inequality.
The platform for action remains one of the most comprehensive and forward-looking texts on gender equality, and its manifesto underpins the UK’s work on empowering women.
Since 1996, the main focus of the work of the CSW has been the follow-up to the platform for action. Its annual gathering allows Governments to share their progress and ideas on gender equality, learn good practice from each other and, crucially, allows progressive member states, including the UK, to display leadership and influence global policy on equality, helping women everywhere to live better lives.
CSW-agreed conclusions are set global norms and recommendations for action by governments and intergovernmental bodies. They provide a benchmark that can be used to support other international negotiations and agreements. For example, the UK drew on the agreed conclusions from CSW 57—the one held last year—to inform the recent WHO violence resolution and UN Human Rights Council resolutions. The conclusions are also used as a lobbying tool by civil society at both national and international level.
This year’s CSW focused on the achievements and challenges of the millennium development goals, and was an important opportunity for the UK to help to shape the post-2015 development agenda. I am delighted to be able to say that in the agreed conclusions CSW called for a post-2015 development goal on gender equality and for women’s rights to be mainstreamed across the post-2015 agenda. That strong outcome was achieved despite determined efforts from some countries to roll back previously agreed positions on women’s rights. We were successful in securing strong language on UK priorities, including ending violence against women and girls, economic empowerment, leadership and participation in decision-making, strengthened data collection and disaggregation by sex and age, and ending harmful practices, including child early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation. That picks up on a point made by my noble friend Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne.
Next year, on the 20th anniversary of the Beijing platform for action, CSW will review Governments’ progress in fulfilling the promises made in the Beijing platform for action 20 years earlier in 1995. Moving to Beijing+20, member states are being called on to complete comprehensive national reports on their progress in the 12 critical areas for women identified in the Beijing platform for action.
The UK has today submitted its national report to UN Women, and we have some very good stories to tell on the progress that we have made in critical areas—particularly violence against women and women’s economic participation—but, guarding against complacency, the report has also shown that this is a good opportunity to identify where we need to do more to fulfil the promises that we made more than 20 years ago.
As noble Lords will be aware, 2015 also brings to a close the millennium development goals plan and marks the creation of a new strategy on global development. This is therefore a unique time to place the rights of women and girls at the heart of discussions on human development, and CSW has been an important means to achieve that. In 1995, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action called for the eradication of gender inequality. Twenty years on, that document remains forward looking, because we have yet to achieve a world in which men and women are treated equally. CSW plays a crucial role in advancing the rights of women and girls everywhere.
I will take whatever time I have left quickly to address points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, talked about reform of the CSW. We believe that the CSW could be made more effective. We are discussing with UN Women whether there is scope to reform the format of CSW to try to reduce combativeness and move away from entrenched positions.
My noble friend Lady Nicholson spoke about honour killings. The UK takes action to tackle honour killings both at home and abroad. We believe that challenging social norms requires long-term work with communities, working with men and boys as well as women and girls. We are supporting this work with communities at grass-roots level.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on joining this debate. I am sure that he was not at all out of place as the only noble Lord among us. I congratulate him on the work he has done on fistula. I have seen this in Zambia. A couple of years ago I was at a bush hospital where they were taking women in in their fourth and fifth month of pregnancy to try to help them through the pregnancy and minimise fistula. That work is progressing. We are training people in the UK, not in surgery, but just to do certain work in this area.
My noble friend Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone said that the empowerment of women is a key thread in the CSW. I do not think that anybody here would disagree with that but we need more third-world role models in this area. Perhaps the CSW needs to think about setting a challenge to first-world corporates working in the third world; perhaps we need to think about our own responsibility challenge and how that might be replicated elsewhere.
All noble Lords questioned the area of development. The UK is engaged in the development of the post-2015 development framework. We are clear that there must be a stand-alone goal on gender equality which will address many of the issues raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, threw down the glove on the political side of things. I was looking at women in political spheres, not in connection with this but with something else, and we are not doing too badly at local government level. On representation in the House of Commons, it is very much in the hands of political parties to ensure, as she says, that more women are selected to fight key seats and all major political parties are working their socks off to try to achieve that for the next general election. Looking at the pattern of appointments to your Lordships’ House since 1997, increasingly more women are selected with each tranche of new Peers.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington on getting in during the gap and on her enthusiasm and work with UNICEF, cohosting today’s Girl Summit.
This has been a fascinating debate. I have run out of time but the Government are certain that their support for UN Women and the Commission on the Status of Women are to be continued.