House of Commons

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

Friday 21 November 2014

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

New Member

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath required by law:

Mark John Reckless, for Rochester and Strood.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).

09:35

Division 88

Ayes: 1

---

Conservative: 1

Noes: 125

---

Labour: 88
Conservative: 27
Liberal Democrat: 4
Scottish National Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1
Alliance: 1

National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

09:49

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

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

Today we begin to restore the sovereignty of this House over our national health service. We begin to put patients at the heart of decision making. We will restore the responsibility of the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive national health service. We will tear the heart out of the hated Health and Social Care Act 2012. We will remove the health service commissioners’ obligation to put services out to tender. We will replace the 49% private patient cap, and allow the Secretary of State to set limits. We will prevent competition authorities from interfering in mergers that are in the interests of NHS patients. We will stop the sale of assets that are in the long-term interests of patients and our national health service. We will restore the powers of the Secretary of State to direct health commissioners. We will create a framework for national health service contracts that will put the interests of patients before competition. We will protect the NHS from the imposition of competition rules by the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, and give sovereignty to this House.

Through this House, the Secretary of State will be accountable for promoting a comprehensive national health service. If any Government dare to impose competition on our national health service in the future, they will have to come before the House and repeal this Bill, if it becomes an Act. We, as Members of the House, will be accountable to our constituents for how we vote in that debate. There will be no hiding place.

Some have expressed the fear that the Bill opens the door to further privatisation. It does not. I accept that the last Labour Government unlocked the door to competition, albeit in a modest and measured way. I voted against the creation of hospital foundation trusts, which introduced legally binding contracts with NHS commissioners; in retrospect it was a mistake, because it brought procurement law into parts of the NHS.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being so lucky in the draw. He has referred to competition. Does he not accept that Labour did much more than he is suggesting? The then Secretary of State, who is now the shadow Secretary of State, privatised an entire hospital in the east of England. That is privatisation. [Interruption.]

[Clive Efford]

It is not possible to compare what went on under the last Government with what has been introduced by the raw market mechanisms of the 2012 Act.

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

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend. Is he aware that in north Staffordshire, cancer and end-of-life care is going into the private sector on a 10-year contract worth £1.2 billion?

[Clive Efford]

There are numerous examples of contracts that are going out to tender, and the cost to the national health service of lawyers and accountants is increasing. The Government have made so much of the issue of bureaucracy in the NHS, but when I asked the Secretary of State about the cost of those lawyers and accountants to oversee the tendering process, what was the response? It was, “We do not collect those figures centrally.” I wonder why that is.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Clive Efford]

Ah! The hon. Gentleman is presumably getting to his feet to apologise for supporting the 2012 Act.

[Dr Huppert]

I have no need to apologise, because I voted against it. I was actually about to give the hon. Gentleman credit for introducing this Bill, which I look forward to supporting, and for his role in opposing some of the things that the Labour Government did. Does he welcome the fact that the £800 million tender for older people’s services in Cambridgeshire stayed within the NHS? Does he also accept the concerns that many of us had about the contract at Hinchingbrooke that was put out to private tender by the last Labour Government? I am sure he would agree that that was a problem.

[Clive Efford]

It is just not realistic to compare what went on under the previous Labour Government with what is going on now. Yes, the contract in Cambridgeshire, at Peterborough, was won by an NHS bidder, but what was the cost? How much money was diverted from patient care into running that tendering process? That is an increasing cost to the NHS that we cannot allow to continue. By the way, I unreservedly withdraw my accusation that the hon. Gentleman voted in favour of the 2012 Act, because that is a calumny I would not use against my worst enemy.

Through the House, the Secretary of State would be accountable—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Efford]

Yes, I will, because I have lost my place.

[Philip Davies]

I am delighted to help the hon. Gentleman out. Helpful as ever! He talks about stopping what he calls privatisation and about putting the Secretary of State in charge. At the moment, there is a cap on the amount of private income that a hospital trust can gain, but does he agree that clause 7 of his Bill would remove that cap, giving discretion to the Secretary of State? Does he acknowledge that the amount of private income a hospital could receive could actually go up under his Bill?

[Clive Efford]

There are a number of provisions relating to the Secretary of State which state that everything that is decided has to put patients first, rather than competition. That is the key difference in this Bill. The Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that every penny raised from private income serves the needs of patients. The Secretary of State will set the limit, which can be variable, but it will have to come down because this House will demand that.

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

Is it not true that, under this Government’s reorganisation, between £3 billion and £5 billion has been wasted as a result of tendering exercises?

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are too many examples of money being wasted on the tendering process.

Those who suggest that what the Labour Government did can be compared in any measure with what this coalition has inflicted on our national health service are completely misguided. When the Labour Government were elected in 1997, we spent 5.2% of our GDP on our health services. In 2010, we had increased that to 8.6%. We increased the number of doctors by 48,000. We increased the number of GPs by 5,000. We increased the number of training places for doctors, which had been cut by the previous Tory Government. We increased the number of nurses by 70,000. We had the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the national health service. We rebuilt or refurbished every accident and emergency department in the country. When Labour left office, the NHS had the highest satisfaction ratings from its patients that it had ever had in its history. The NHS was in crisis in 1997, and Labour saved it. It is in crisis again now.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Labour also guaranteed the private sector a fixed slice of NHS income in a way that the Bill does not do?

[Clive Efford]

The hon. Gentleman was on the Bill Committee for the 2012 legislation, and I wonder how many amendments he tabled to put those issues right. And he has the cheek to come here and ask questions about my Bill, which seeks to put right what he did not attempt to put right when he was on that Committee.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting this Bill to its Second Reading debate. The Government have been throwing all these facts and figures at us about how the number of doctors is increasing all the time, but these things started under Labour. It takes seven years for a doctor to be a decent practitioner, and we are the ones who made a start on this, not the Government.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the claim that this Government, whose top-down reorganisation has caused so much chaos in the national health service, are responsible for the standards of the NHS now is laughable. They claim to have turned the NHS around in a short space of time, but they are standing on the shoulders of the achievement of the previous Labour Government.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and another way of putting it is as follows: we dragged the national health service, between 1997 and 2010, from the depths of degradation that the Tories left it in and hoisted it back to the pinnacles of achievement. I have got a united nations heart bypass to prove it—it was done by a Syrian cardiologist, a Malaysian surgeon, a Dutch doctor and a Nigerian registrar, and these two people on the Bench behind me talk about sending them back. If you did that in the hospitals in London, half of Londoners would be dead in six months. Those are the facts about the United Kingdom Independence party.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this Bill. Does he agree that the Liberal Democrats have got a brass neck in making criticisms, given that not only did they sit on their hands during that Bill Committee, but the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) was the prime advocate who led the Bill during its passage through Parliament?

[Clive Efford]

And then led a campaign to stop his local accident and emergency department closing, having done that for the Government.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill. He also carries the congratulations of 1,924 people from across Chesterfield who have signed a petition asking me to be here to support it. He is not just speaking with people behind him here; people right across the country are saying, “Thank you very much for what you are doing.”

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words and for the support of all the thousands of people, particularly health service staff, who have supported the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Efford]

I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind, but I am going to make some progress.

Never before have we had market tendering of the health service as we have today, and it is breaking down our NHS. The Bill is not a solution to all the mistakes that this Government have made in their top-down restructuring of the NHS, but it is an important block on enforced privatisation. The argument can be simplified into two distinct sides. If people believe the NHS should be a pure market, open to competition regulations, where the interests of competition are put before those of patients, they belong on the side of the Government. If people believe the NHS is a public service that should be free of competition rules, where the interests of patients are put first, they should vote for the Bill today.

We know that No. 10 did not understand what was going on in 2012. The Chancellor was asleep at the wheel, and the Liberal Democrats, suffering from some form of terminal Stockholm syndrome, were led by the nose to turn the NHS from a public service into a free market. My Bill takes a scalpel to cut the heart out of the hated 2012 Act and put right the worst of the Government’s mistakes. It will remove the sections that require the tendering of NHS services for competition with the private sector, the result of which has been millions of pounds being diverted from patient care into the pockets of lawyers and accountants through the tendering process. NHS bodies are spending millions either bidding or managing bidding processes, and that is all money being diverted from patient care. That must stop, and this Bill will end it.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the Bill’s progress today. Does he agree with my constituent Julian Corlett, who expresses real concern that further privatisation would mean the NHS may be reduced simply to a brand and nothing more?

[Clive Efford]

Absolutely. It is the capacity of the NHS to continue to provide services in the future that is under threat. Eventually and inevitably, with continuing privatisation of all its services, the NHS will end up as just a patchwork of contracted-out services, and that will put us at the mercy of the private sector.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman talks about money being diverted away from patient care and about extended privatisation, but will he comment on the private finance initiatives that the previous Labour Government imposed right across the NHS, bankrupting many of its institutions and taking money away from patient care?

[Clive Efford]

There are issues about PFI, which we need to sort out. I must say, though, that the hon. Gentleman has picked on the wrong Member of Parliament. I have one of the very first PFIs in my local hospital. When was it advertised in the European Journal? In March 1995. It was a Tory PFI and it is one of the most expensive in the national health service; it is costing millions of pounds for my local hospital. Both Governments have something to answer for when it comes to PFI. There are issues that need to be put right, but people must understand that that will not happen under a Tory Government.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a good case. Is it not the truth that the one constant over the past quarter of a decade is that both Governments—they are equally matched in this—did not listen to the people who really knew about the NHS? I am talking about the people who work in the service. To be honest, our Government, to their shame, ignored the working people and those in the NHS who said do not go into PFI or foundation hospitals. Exactly the same thing happened in 2012 when the Tory party ignored the same voices of the people who were saying, “Don’t go ahead with this Act.” We should start listening to the people who know what they are doing—the people we rely on to deliver NHS services.

[Clive Efford]

All Governments have lessons to learn. This party is not saying that it has nothing to learn, but it wants to end the privatisation of the national health service. We must understand one thing: next May is when we have to fight to save our national health service. If we continue under this Act to keep privatising our services, we will not have a national health service as we understand it.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Like me, is my hon. Friend amazed by the faux indignation of some Government Members? Those Members will be the ones who will benefit from the donations of some of the private sector companies that are winning the contracts in our NHS service.

[Clive Efford]

We have seen the names—64 of them. We will see how they vote today, and then let the public know what they are doing with our national health service.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Clive Efford]

I should like to make some progress. The Bill is in four parts. Part 1 deals with the powers and duties of the Secretary of State. It reinstates the legal duty of the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive national health service. It gives powers of direction to the Secretary of State over NHS England and local commissioners. It also requires the Secretary of State to put the needs of patients above those of the providers, or the market within which providers operate. It also provides that all contracts will be deemed to be “NHS contracts”. The significance of that is that they will not be subject to competition rules. All complaints will be dealt with within the framework of the NHS, with the Secretary of State having the final say—not lawyers or the courts.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this private Member’s Bill. One urgent issue that we must address is that of the purchaser/provider split. Will he assure us that the proposals in this part of the Bill will mean that health services can be run purely on health grounds?

[Clive Efford]

The Bill does not attempt to rid the NHS of the purchaser/provider split. That would require a new top-down reorganisation of the national health service, which people in the NHS say they do not want. What I can say is that this Bill will create a framework in which NHS contracts are not open to competition rules. As long as the commissioners of services stay within the confines of the NHS contracts, they will not be open to competition. They will be compelled to do that by sheer cost, because if they step outside of NHS contracts they are then into European competition rules and will have to spend millions on lawyers and accountants to oversee the tendering process.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Clive Efford]

I shall make some progress before giving way again.

Part 2 deals with the private patient income. It empowers the Secretary of State to set the cap and reduce it from 49%. It also ensures that any income derived from private care is in the interests of NHS patients.

Part 3 gets to the core of the issue. It repeals the sections of the 2012 Act that require health service commissioners to put services out to tender, particularly the hated section 75. Clause 9 provides that no legally enforceable procurement obligations shall be imposed on NHS commissioners in relation to any arrangement that is proposed to take effect or takes effect by way of an NHS contract. It further provides that commissioners who place NHS contracts shall not be within the scope of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.

That provision ensures that article 168(7) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is given proper effect in UK domestic law. The article states:

“Union action shall respect the responsibility of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. The responsibilities of the Member States shall include the management of health services and medical care and the allocation of resources assigned to them.”

This provision prevents the market from interfering in mergers of services and makes it clear that the disposal of assets will require the permission of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will exercise his duties in the interests of patients.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making one of the best speeches we have heard in this Parliament about protecting our national health service. Does he agree that another way we could prevent private providers from competing in the national health service would be by persuading this Tory Government to exclude the national health service and other public services from the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations?

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend has guessed the next part of my speech. Part 4 of the Bill deals with TTIP. I have heard some criticisms that the Bill does not protect the NHS from TTIP. Clause 14 reads:

“No ratification… of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Treaty shall cause any legally enforceable procurement or competition obligations to be imposed on any NHS body entering into any arrangement for the provision of health services in any part of the health service.”

There are differing legal views on whether the proposed TTIP will or will not impose legally enforceable procurement or competition obligations on the NHS. However, without this clause the question of which set of highly paid lawyers is right will be decided only after the treaty is signed and will be a decision for the courts, not the elected Government. I am sure that is music to the ears of Government Members.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a tremendous speech. Will he confirm that clause 14 is absolutely crucial across the United Kingdom, including Scotland, given the potential impact of TTIP?

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; TTIP is a UK treaty, negotiated by the UK Government, and it will affect England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that in response to a question I asked him this Monday, the Prime Minister indicated that he thought the health service would not be affected. He seemed to be suggesting that he did not want it to be affected. If that is the case, surely his Government should be supporting this provision to ensure that does not happen.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that the Prime Minister has accepted it was a mistake, so the Government’s position on the Bill is a bit curious.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Clive Efford]

I will, but then I will have to make some progress.

[Albert Owen]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Second Reading debate. He made an important point about the provisions applying across the United Kingdom: Wales, where the policies are different from those operating across England, would still come under the TTIP agreement, so it is important that this clause is included.

[Clive Efford]

Absolutely essential. The question for the House is whether that policy issue should be decided by Parliament or the courts. Clause 14 is either unnecessary or essential, depending which set of lawyers ends up being proved correct. We say it should be a decision for Parliament, not the courts. Clause 14 puts the matter beyond doubt.

The public must decide whom they trust with the NHS. Do they believe the Tories who say they will protect it? After all, the Tories said there would be no top-down reorganisation, they said there would be no closure of A and E departments, and they said there would be no closure of maternity units except where local people agreed.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, in addition to my main function today, which is to provide a cordon sanitaire. [Laughter.] I am very pleased that my name appears on the Bill as one of its supporters because nowhere is it more apparent than in west London what the Tories mean for the NHS. Two A and E departments closed, and within weeks up to a third of patients were not seen within four hours at A and E. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless we get rid of all this Tory legislation, the NHS will not survive?

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is right. Before the election the Tories said that they would seek the agreement of local people in decision making, but in south-east London in 2007 my local health managers published a document called “A Picture of Health”. It was drawn up by doctors, nurses and midwives. They held a conference and reviewed all our services. They came to politicians like me and said, “We want you to behave sensibly. This is about improving the quality of care for patients, but at A and E it is also about saving lives.” Just before a general election, it is quite a thing for people to say, “We’re going to close one of your A and Es.” I differed with the health managers over which A and E should close, but when clinicians come and say, “We can save lives and improve quality of care,” we have to listen.

That is what the Government said they would do. What happened? The then shadow Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), came to the A and E proposed for closure in “A Picture of Health”, marched around the area and told local people, “We’re not going to close your A and E.” What happened then? The Tories got into Government and closed the A and E. In London they put nine out of 31 A and E departments under threat, then they attempted to force the closure of Lewisham A and E. When they were beaten off by local people, they took powers to themselves to close it over the heads of local people.

Now, my constituents who get in an ambulance are handed a leaflet that says, “If you come from SE9 or SE3, you can’t go to the local A and E at the Queen Elizabeth.” Where do they have to go? You guessed it: Lewisham. But Lewisham A and E would not have been there if the Government had had their way. On top of that, the Care Quality Commission has condemned A and Es in our area because of lack of resources and lack of capacity. At the same time the CQC commended the staff for their dedication in keeping the service running, yet the Government would have closed Lewisham A and E. So, what of their pre-election commitment not to do anything over the heads of local people or local health managers?

Do we believe the Tories when they say the NHS is safe in their hands? [Hon. Members: “No.”] To defend the NHS, one has to believe in the founding values that led to its creation. Our NHS treats everyone equally—from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Are these the values of the party that gave us the poll tax or the bedroom tax, or the party that plunges thousands of disabled people into poverty by denying them benefits and forcing them through an unending cycle of appeals to get what they are entitled to?

Throughout history working-class people have had to fight to assert the undeniable truth that all men and women are created equal. From the very first poll tax rebellions, John Ball asked:

“When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?”

He educated common people that they were all created equal. It is a theme that working-class people have been forced to return to throughout the centuries, whether through Christianity or a political fight for social justice from the Levellers to the Diggers, from Thomas Paine and the Chartists to the trade union movement today. These are the people who fought for the values that created the national health service. There is nothing in our society today that embodies those values more than our national health service. It is these values that cannot be defended by a party that talks about fairness while it justifies the bedroom tax and measures people’s worth. That is not what our NHS does.

This Bill will not solve all the problems in our national health service—it will take a Labour Government to rescue it from a crisis—but it is an essential step in rebuilding our national health service.

Mr Speaker, I do not beg to move that this Bill be read; I demand it be read, on behalf of NHS patients, on behalf of the staff—the nurses, the doctors, the support staff, the carers, the volunteers. On behalf of everyone who holds our national health service dear, I move that this Bill be read a Second time.

10:20

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on introducing his Bill and on the robust candour with which he did so. I am only sorry that he was displaced from his usual perch in the House. However, I am confident that when, after the next general election, the Labour party finds itself again in opposition on those Benches, Labour Members will not have to share them with the UK Independence party because we will have won those seats back.

I can understand why, when there was a coalition Government at the start of this Parliament, the Liberal party wanted, as a condition of the entering into the coalition Government, a five-year fixed-term Parliament. However, one of the difficulties and drawbacks of five-year fixed-term Parliaments is that we have some of the longest general election campaigns ever, and that makes it quite difficult to differentiate substantive and serious political points and what is essentially electioneering. I can just imagine the hon. Gentleman making that speech on a wet Thursday evening during the general election campaign in the trades hall somewhere on Eltham high street.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good to hear an authentic south London voice speaking up for Labour values rather than the snooty lot from north London who manage the party now?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Yes, but the first point I want to make is this. We need to be careful about what we say about the NHS in the run-up to general elections. The first general election campaign that I was seriously involved in was back in 1966. In every one since then, there has been a period when the Labour party has run around saying things along the lines of “24 hours to save the NHS.” That is very destabilising, as was evidenced today in a letter to a national newspaper by Dr Michael Dixon, the chairman of the NHS Alliance, and a number of other GPs, in which they say:

“As NHS doctors, we are deeply concerned about the misguided and potentially disruptive National Health Service Bill being debated today.

The Bill’s proponents claim it will remove competition from the NHS and guard against ‘privatisation’ by repealing key clauses of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.

We believe this would be a backwards step for patient care, reorganising the NHS in a top-down way at a time when it needs to be looking ahead to the huge challenges of the future. These were set out in the NHS England Five Year Forward View, and we urge all politicians to support it rather than using the NHS as a political football.

Suggesting that GP commissioners have a ‘privatisation agenda’ is an ill-informed attack on the clinical leadership which improves services and helps patients.”

I agree. It is disappointing if politicians use the NHS as a political football.

The NHS is an enduring part of the post-war consensus on the welfare state. That consensus was agreed on by everyone who had gone through the deprivations of the second world war, had lived through the blitz, and were determined that there would be a better Britain. The NHS was supported by everyone, including Archbishop Temple, a brilliant Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the person who first coined the phrase “the welfare state”.

I have always been interested in the NHS, not least because both my parents became part of the NHS on its very first day. When it came into being in 1948, my father was a recently qualified registrar and my mother was a theatre sister, having served as a theatre nurse during the Coventry blitz. My parents spent the whole of their working lives in the NHS: my father went on to become the research secretary of the British Tuberculosis Association and a chest and heart specialist, and my mother went on to become a sister tutor.

The other reason I have always been extremely interested in the success of the NHS is that, in the nearly third of a century I have been fortunate to be the Member of Parliament for north Oxfordshire, the most important issue in my constituency has probably been the position of Horton general hospital and the retention of its services.

I have left instructions in my will that my body should go to the anatomy department of the university of Oxford, partly because there is quite a lot of it for them to work on, but also because I feel that the liver of anybody who has been an MP for nearly a third of a century must be worthy of some anatomical research. I am also determined that when they open me up, they will discover engraved on my heart, “Keep the Horton general.”

What we heard from the hon. Member for Eltham was a litany of gloom in the NHS, but Horton general hospital now has more consultants than at any time in its and the NHS’s history. The Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust employs 11,598 staff, including 1,800 doctors and 3,600 nurses. It is important to make clear that, since 2010, the number of patients seen by the trust, including at Horton, has increased significantly. There has been a 19% increase in elected in-patient admissions, a 9% increase in emergency in-patient admissions, a 24% increase in day-care admissions and a 12% increase in out-patient attendances. Those are significant increases in just over four years, so the NHS continues to treat more out-patients and in-patients.

Over the past two years, the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust has managed completely to eliminate its financial deficit and increase the amount paid to the Oxfordshire clinical commissioning group, such that the group finished the year with a surplus. Most importantly, over the past couple of years the trust has managed to create 400 new jobs, almost all of them new doctors and new nursing posts. Sir Jonathan Michael and his team deserve considerable congratulations on managing to balance the finances of the trust and securing a large number of new medical and nursing posts.

[Clive Efford]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that all those things would have been achievable had the level of funding for the NHS continued at the rate we inherited in 1997 and had Labour not almost tripled the amount of GDP put into our health services?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Every Government have invested money in the NHS, and quite rightly so. This Government have invested real-terms increases in the NHS, as evidenced by the Commonwealth Fund, which compares health systems internationally. It found this year that, although the United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, it underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. The fund studied 11 nations: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The United States ranks last, but who ranks first as the best health care system in the world? The United Kingdom. We should all, wherever we sit in this House, be proud that we have the best health care system in the world.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The picture is not quite as rosy as my right hon. Friend paints it, is it? Even The Guardian newspaper reported that the Commonwealth Fund survey showed that the

“only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive.”

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am not entirely sure what point my hon. Friend is trying to make. The fact is that the Commonwealth Fund found that the NHS is the best health care system in the world. I hope that he and everyone in the House takes pride in that. The NHS has many challenges—we are all conscious that with an ageing demography and advances in medical technology, every health care system faces challenges—but we should take pride in being the best.

We also need to be honest about what has gone before. There was an enormous amount of rewriting of history and revisionism in the speech of the hon. Member for Eltham. For those of us who have been in the House for some time, it may be worth looking back and reminding ourselves about what happened in the not-too-distant past.

In the introduction to the NHS plan of July 2000, the then Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, wrote:

“This NHS Plan sets out the steps we now need to take to transform the health service so that it is redesigned around the needs of patients. It means tackling the toughest issues that have been ducked for too long.”

I do not think anyone would ever disagree with that as a statement of intent. He went on:

“For the first time the NHS and the private sector will work more closely together not just to build new hospitals but to provide NHS patients with the operations they need.”

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am big fan of the NHS. It is my NHS too. I was badly hurt in the Army in 1997, and the NHS sent me to get fixed as a private patient, because the NHS could not do it. I am very grateful to the NHS. That was under a Labour Government, and I hope such a scheme continues.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes his own point very well in his own way. It is important for all of us to remember that the NHS is our NHS and our constituents’ NHS. It does not belong to any particular political party; it is a national heath service.

Alan Milburn concluded that the “major reforms”, which included working more closely with the private sector, would

“deliver real benefits for NHS patients”.

Chapter 11 of the NHS plan of July 2000, on “Changes in the relationship between the NHS and the private sector”, said:

“The NHS is a huge organisation. Using extra capacity and extra investment from voluntary and private sector providers can benefit NHS patients… The time has now come for the NHS to engage more constructively with the private sector”.

Under the heading, “The basis for a new relationship”, it went on:

“Ideological boundaries or institutional barriers should not stand in the way of better care for NHS patients…By constructing the right partnerships the NHS can harness the capacity of private and voluntary providers to treat more NHS patients…Under our proposals a patient would remain an NHS patient even if they were being treated in the private sector. NHS care will remain free at the point of delivery, whether care is provided by an NHS hospital, a local GP, a private sector hospital or by a voluntary organisation.”

[John Pugh]

The right hon. Gentleman is outlining a thread of continuity very well. Is it not strange that the principal adviser to Alan Milburn has now been appointed by this Government as the head of NHS England? Does that not show that there has been continuity from one Government to another with the same policies?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I would hope, with an organisation like the NHS, that it would not become a political football—that there would be considerable continuity. The fact that the person now in post worked with a Labour Government on NHS proposals is a strong point rather than a weak one.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman supports or opposes the Bill, because he has been speaking for some time and has not made that clear.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The point I am making, which I shall develop, is that the Bill is completely unnecessary. I also want to make the point that all Opposition Members seem to wish to deny that there has been any involvement of the NHS with the private sector. It is important to remind the House of the fact that it was the Labour party, and a Labour Government, who introduced the private sector into the NHS, and the 2012 legislation in no way significantly changed that relationship.

[Philip Davies]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those people who support the Bill would be supporting the removal of the cap on the amount of private income that hospitals can receive? Does he think that, when 38 Degrees was encouraging people to write in about the Bill, it made that clear to the people who signed its petition?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think the Labour party will regret signing up to every 38 Degrees campaign, because if 38 Degrees starts drafting the Labour party manifesto rather than the Labour party, the Labour party will never sort out whether it is new Labour, old Labour or any other sort of Labour, which is why it did so incredibly badly yesterday in the Rochester by-election.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has just made a comment that cannot go unchallenged. He claims that the relationship that this Government have with the private sector is the same as that of the previous Government. That is absolute rubbish. When his Government’s legislation went through, he said that doctors would decide. Doctors throughout the country are now saying that they are mandated to put services out to the open market under section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012—his Government’s legislation. That was not the case under the previous Government. If this Government are just doing the same as the previous Government, why did they need a 300-page Bill to rewrite the legal basis of the national health service?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of a document published on 31 October 2000, under the last Labour Government? The printout that I have is entitled, “A Concordat with the Private and Voluntary Health Care Provider Sector”. It is headed, “Socialist Health Association—Promoting health and well-being through the application of socialist principles”. It was a concordat introduced by the previous Government with the private and voluntary health care sector. It says:

“Introduction. There should be no organisational or ideological barriers to the delivery of high quality healthcare free at the point of delivery to those who need it, when they need it. The Government”—

the last Labour Government—

“has entered into this concordat with the Independent Healthcare Association to set out the parameters for a partnership between the NHS and private and voluntary health care providers. It describes a partnership approach that enables NHS patients in England to be treated free in the private and voluntary health care sector.

The key tests for any relationship between the NHS and private and voluntary health care providers is that it must represent good value for money for the tax payer and assure high standards of care for the patient. The involvement of private and voluntary health care providers in the planning of local health care services at an early stage will enable the NHS to use a wider range of health facilities within their locality. To achieve this Health Authorities in their strategic leadership role will be expected to ensure that local private and voluntary health care providers are involved in the processes designed to develop the local Health Improvement Programme as appropriate.”

And it carries on. The document is headed, by the last Labour Government, “Socialist Health Association…A Concordat with the Private and Voluntary Health Care…Sector”. Indeed, the last Labour Secretary of State for Health signed a concordat with the Independent Healthcare Association on 31 October 2000.

The decision to make greater use of private sector facilities for NHS patients did not require new legislation and it was possible to undertake it within the existing legislation on the NHS, but for the avoidance of doubt let me quote the Labour party manifesto from 2001. In the chapter on NHS reform, Labour promised to

“work with the private sector to use spare capacity, where it makes sense, for NHS patients”

and to

“create a new type of hospital—specially built surgical units, managed by the NHS or the private sector—to guarantee shorter waiting times”.

In my constituency, we have an independent orthopaedic treatment centre run by the private sector and introduced under the Labour Government. We have a Darzi walk-in centre run by private GPs, which was also introduced during the time of the Labour Government.

[Mr Anderson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way in his long diatribe. He quotes the 2001 Labour manifesto, but it also said that any relationship with the private sector would not be at the expense of the terms and conditions of the staff working in the private sector who were transferred out. Today, Care UK people who work in Doncaster are facing a 40% cut in their take-home pay. Does he not see that that is one of the consequences of the Health and Social Care Act 2012?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman is seeking to avoid the point, which is that the 2012 Act did not fundamentally change the situation in the NHS between the public and private sectors. I draw the House’s attention to a debate that took place in Westminster Hall in 2002 on the subject of the private sector in the NHS that was initiated by the then Chair of the Select Committee on Health, the then Member for Wakefield, David Hinchliffe. The Minister, John Hutton, made a speech in response that could easily have been made in identical terms by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). John Hutton said:

“I do not want to repeat arguments that have already been made about the future of our relationship with the private sector, but I shall deal with some more specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield was concerned about whether reference costs provide a sufficient measure of value for money in the NHS. We accept that they do not, and we have tried to set out in our report several ways in which we can strengthen reference cost data.”

He went on to say:

“My hon. Friend also referred to the evidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the Committee. He set out four essential tests that we apply to each prospective partnership in the NHS and private sector. Is it in the interests of patients? Is it consistent with the local and national strategies of the NHS? Is it value for money? Is it consistent with public sector values, including that treatment is determined by clinical need and staff are treated fairly? Those are the yardsticks by which we will judge and develop our relationship with the private sector. Provided that those tests are satisfied, we should use the private and voluntary sector where it has a track record of achievement or where it can offer clear potential gains.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 354WH.]

I have absolutely no doubt that those are views that my hon. Friend the Minister would endorse today. It is an entirely sensible approach to how the NHS and the private and independent sector should work. The National Health Service Bill passed during the Session of 2005-06 further enshrined the relationship between the national health service and the private sector in statute.

The Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Eltham misses the point. The Health and Social Care Act did not and does not introduce competition into the NHS, it does not change the rules on when to tender competitively and there is no requirement to tender all services. What it does do is manage the competition that has been introduced.

[Clive Efford]

If the Act did not introduce competition to the NHS, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the following? Bristol hospital wanted to restructure its head and neck cancer surgery service. Monitor considered the proposal and concluded that it was likely to improve the quality of service to patients, but that

“the merger removes important competitive constraints for elective head and neck, ENT, OMF, urology and symptomatic breast care services in the absence of other competitors”.

In effect, it said that the restructuring could have improved the quality of care, but that because it would have removed competition, it could not go ahead.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my point. The Act did not introduce competition into the NHS because that competition had already been introduced by the previous Labour Government, who introduced greater private sector involvement in the NHS. Labour made binding rules to manage the competition, and the Act continued that approach with an expert health sector regulator working in the best interests of patients. Removing Monitor as the health sector regulator would merely leave commissioners facing actions through the courts under Labour’s own 2006 procurement regulations, which I do not think would be in the best interests of patients.

[Andy Burnham]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has undermined his entire speech with the ignorance he has displayed in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). For the first time in the history of the NHS, the Act gave a role to the competition authorities, under the Enterprise Act 2002, in taking precisely the kind of action that my hon. Friend referred to. I am very surprised the right hon. Gentleman does not know that; may I suggest that he does not know what he is talking about?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

We heard that argument during the passage of the Act, and it is simply wrong. It is wrong to suggest that somehow the Act opened the door to competition.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I wonder if my right hon. Friend shares my consternation at the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks, given that throughout the 2000s, all we heard from Labour, John Hutton and the other Ministers he has mentioned was the importance of value for money and tendering for things. They are going back to the days of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) being in charge.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. There is confusion about whether we have got new Labour or old Labour. The Labour party has to set out how it would undo the market it created without further top-down reorganisation. It could not do it simply by removing the health rules that manage it. There has been no change on when to tender competitively; the rules on procurement are the same as those used by the previous Government. The Act makes it clear that the Secretary of State remains politically accountable to the NHS. The changes in the Bill would restrict the greater autonomy given to the NHS and inhibit staff from making the innovative changes needed to secure sustainable, high-quality care for patients. In particular, it would tie the hands of clinical leaders on CCGs, which the NHS England five-year forward view says should have more powers, not fewer.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The right hon. Gentleman is engaging in a lengthy filibuster, in my opinion. I served on the Committee for the 2012 Act, and a plethora of organisations pointed out during the passage of that Bill the folly of what the Government were doing. They introduced a lengthy Bill; we spent 40 sittings in Committee; they tabled more than 1,000 amendments to their own Bill; it had 20 different sections; part 3 introduced Monitor. To suggest to the House that that Act introduced no change to the system operated under Labour is—well, it is not disingenuous, but it is not correct. I am not sure what term is best to use.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

During the passage of that Bill, the Labour party and certain organisations, including some trade unions, sought to rewrite history. Interestingly, when Labour introduced things such as the independent treatment centres, the Darzi centres and the 2002 concordat, the trade unions that rallied to support the hon. Gentleman in Committee were totally silent. I do not think it lies in the mouth of those organisations, which did not complain when the Labour party introduced a partnership and a concordat with the independent and voluntary sector when it was in government, now to complain, simply because it is the Conservative party in a coalition Government, that we are somehow “privatising” the NHS. It is simply not true.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) accused me, ungallantly and unfairly, of filibustering—even though everything I have said is relevant and to the point—I would like now to make a little more progress and come to my final point, or almost my final point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to filibuster, because if he was not in order, I would not allow him to continue speaking.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I know that; you know that, Madam Deputy Speaker; I just wanted to make quite sure that the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway knew that I was speaking relevantly.

I want to say something about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. This is another of those things that people run around saying will be the end of civilisation as we know it. The transatlantic trade and investment partnership will not change the fact that it is up to the UK Government alone to decide how UK public services, including the NHS, are run. Any assertion that TTIP will undermine the NHS is a complete red herring. The position has been confirmed by both the European and the US negotiators, and indeed the chair of the all-party group on European Union-United States trade and investment. Excluding health from the agreement would prevent our pharmaceutical and medical devices sectors from benefiting from TTIP.

As we approach the next general election, I hope the Labour party will not treat the NHS as a political football. I hope we will not see, as we have at every general election since I have been an adult, the Labour party running around saying that it has 24 hours to save the NHS or that the Conservative party is seeking to privatise it, which is completely and utterly untrue. We all have a collective interest in ensuring that our NHS continues to be the best health care service in the world. There are huge challenges ahead for health care in this country, with an ageing population and ever-increasing improvements in medical technology. We should be facing up to those changes in an adult and responsible way. The Labour party should not be reneging on the clear commitments it made in both legislation and policy when it was in government. This Bill is totally unnecessary and it should not pass.

10:52

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). He made an attempt to make a serious speech, but his 30 minutes were based on one argument that is fundamentally wrong, which is that this Government have made no changes to the basis of the NHS in this country. These 457 pages of his Government’s legislation show that that is wrong. If he looks at sections 72, 73 and 80 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, he will see that the Competition Act 1998, the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Office of Fair Trading are brought into play for the first time in our NHS.

So why no Tory apology to NHS staff, patients and the public? Why no Tory apology to NHS staff for forcing through the largest internal reorganisation in 65 years of NHS history and for forcing them to cope with increasing confusion, complex bureaucracy and wasted cost? Why no Tory apology to the public for an NHS that they now see has longer waiting lists and service cuts? Why no Tory apology to the public for breaking election promises and the terms of the coalition agreement to stop top-down reorganisations of the NHS, which have often got in the way of patient care? Finally, while we are at it, why no apology to this House for the way we were misled about the reorganisation and the legislation in 2010 and 2011, which became the 457-page Health and Social Care Act 2012?

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why there has been no apology: because there is nothing to apologise for. That is the simple reason. We have a better health service now than we had before; that is why there has been no apology.

[John Healey]

Patients say exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has just argued. However, I understand that he feels he has nothing to apologise for. If he fundamentally believes that the NHS should be a system based on full-blown competition, delivered by the private sector, then of course he would want to legislate in that way.

[Philip Davies]

While the right hon. Gentleman is going back to fighting some 1980s ideological warfare, I think most constituents are bothered about what happens in practice. Is he really asking me to apologise to my constituents for the fact that there are now 9% more professionally qualified clinical staff at Bradford teaching hospital and 42% fewer senior managers, or that there are 7% more professionally qualified clinical staff at Airedale NHS Foundation Trust and 14% fewer managers, or, I might add, for the brand spanking new, state-of-the-art A and E department at Airedale hospital? Does he really think that is something to apologise for?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman normally finds a common touch in the way he makes his points. I have to tell him that if he tries to trot out those sorts of figures on the doorstep in the next five months, he will find that they cut no ice with the public, because they know what is happening to their NHS day to day, and we will make sure they understand why it is happening.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

rose—

[John Healey]

I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman and then make some progress.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Why should I apologise for the £150 million of investment in Lister hospital in Stevenage or the £98 million in Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge—fantastic, world-beating facilities?

[John Healey]

We on the Labour Benches cannot wait for the debate on the NHS to be put right at the heart of the next five months of policy and political debate, and my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State will make sure that happens.

Let me return to my point about the way that we in this House were misled about the reorganisation and the legislation. I am disappointed to see that the man who led it, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), is not in the Chamber today to explain himself. He argued—it was completely wrong, but he argued it—in the debate on Second Reading in January 2011:

“It is about gearing the entire system towards supporting the relationship between doctor and patient”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 617.]

Of course, it was not and it is not. As I argued, at the time from the Opposition Front Bench:

“The reorganisation and legislation is designed to break up the NHS, to open up all areas of the NHS to private health companies, to remove requirements for proper openness, scrutiny and accountability to the public and to Parliament, and make the NHS subject to both UK and European competition law.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 378.]

The Government were and are driving free market political ideology through the heart of our NHS.

The arguments that those of us on the Opposition Benches made then are those that we make now, and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) makes especially strongly from our Front Bench. That is why the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has introduced is so essential and why I am so pleased and proud to be one of his sponsors.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My right hon. Friend made some powerful points when the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was going through Parliament, when Tory Members were denying the purpose of the legislation. He quoted the last Health Secretary, but the current Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), said in a book:

“Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public health provision, in effect denationalising the provision of healthcare in Britain”.

What could be a more succinct and clear expression of their intentions?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend has been a strong champion of the NHS and followed this issue from day one of this Parliament. To answer directly his question of what could be more succinct and clear, I suspect that when we hear from the new Member for UKIP, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) or his colleague, the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell)—given some of the things that they have argued should be the basis of the NHS in future—they will make the vision of the right hon. Member for South West Surrey look positively UKIP-lite.

This Bill is essential because it starts to correct the three fundamental flaws, brought about by the reorganisation legislation, that are now driving the NHS. We could call them the three Cs—cost, complexity and competition.

On cost, the scale of the reorganisation was simply huge. As the chief executive of the NHS said at the time, it was

“beyond anything that anybody from the public or private sector has witnessed”.

The cost of the waste has been huge. We reckoned beforehand that it was about £2 billion; we now reckon £3 billion. What is clear is that getting on for £1 billion has been paid out in redundancies, much of which was to staff who were paid off and then re-hired by our NHS.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Could my right hon. Friend say what steps were taken to publish the risk assessment during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill?

[John Healey]

I did not want to open up all the old arguments that we fought in 2010-11, though it was extraordinary to see the extreme lengths to which the Government went—seen before only on matters of military information—to stop the disclosure of the risk register about the potential impact and likely consequences of their policy. My hon. Friend was a great supporter of mine in trying to use the Freedom of Information Act to allow the public and this House to see the terms of what the Government knew could happen to the NHS if they passed the legislation.

My second C is complexity. NHS services are now so much harder to plan and so much harder to hold to account because of the changes the Government have made. We saw new national quangos responsible for tens of billions of pounds of spending of public money in each and every one of our local areas in England. The commissioning role, which was previously undertaken by one body, the primary care trust, is now fragmented with at least five different bodies trying to do the same job.

On the third C, competition, the Secretary of State has his foot lightly on the accelerator of privatisation for now, but let us make no mistake, if the Tories win the next election, he will press it hard down to the floor immediately afterwards. Even though they are soft-pedalling on the privatisation that their Act put in place, we have seen in the 18 months since it came into force 131 contracts won by companies such as Care UK, Virgin Care and BUPA. According to the NHS Support Federation, that is already valued at £2.6 billion. At that win rate, the contracts already currently advertised will mean another £6.6 billion in the private sector—getting on for 10% of our NHS run by private companies in private hands.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Has it come as any surprise and is it just a coincidence that the very companies securing these major contracts are six-figure donors to the Tory party?

[John Healey]

It comes as no surprise, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining that point. I was not planning to make that point, but I am glad that it has been made so clearly.

My argument is with the Prime Minister. So much for what he said, and so much for his word when he said back in 2011 that

“we will not be selling off the NHS”.

Perhaps the most serious consequence of this fragmentation, this privatisation and this contractualisation is the fact that the most important and fundamental value at the heart of the NHS—an imperative at its heart—is the ability properly to plan, co-ordinate and deliver services. That is being made much harder, as the Health Select Committee has said, and sometimes impossible by the operation of the Health and Social Care Act and competition law. If anybody doubts it, they should look at the case of the two NHS trusts—the Royal Bournemouth and the Poole NHS Trusts—whose merger made great sense to patients, but was prevented by this Government’s legislation.

Let me say a few words about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I have chaired the all-party group that has followed these negotiations for the last 18 months in order to try to encourage a better and more balanced public and parliamentary understanding and debate, as well as to put the Government on the spot and hold them to account for what they are doing. We are trying to ensure that if we get a deal, it will bring real benefits not just to British business, but to British workers and British consumers.

Two things have become clear. First, the NHS can be fully protected in TTIP. I am convinced of this, not just because other EU trade agreements have protected public services, but because if the Government want them, there are specific member state reservations to cover public services and because we have heard the confirmation, directly from the chief negotiator whom I have met twice about this, that even with ISDS—investor-state dispute settlement—provisions, which I do not support, nothing could prevent a future Labour Government from bringing parts of the NHS now in private hands back into public hands.

The second thing that has become clear is that these commitments have been secured despite, not because of, Government Ministers. It is clear that Ministers have done next to nothing to try to influence the negotiations and secure the full exclusion and protection we require for our NHS and wider public services. Indeed, rather as the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) observed, the Minister for Trade and Investment, Lord Livingston, who is responsible in government for leading the British position, has said that he would welcome the inclusion of health services in any deal. When the Minister gets up to speak, perhaps he will—formally, in this House—make the Government’s position clear. What is clear is that if we are properly to protect our NHS in any future TTIP, we must have a strong British voice in Brussels, which we do not have at the moment.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I gave the Prime Minister an opportunity on Monday to say that he would take specific action to ensure that the NHS would be protected if TTIP were successfully negotiated. He did not do so, but does my right hon. Friend feel that this debate provides an opportunity for that to be done in his name?

[John Healey]

I would expect these trade negotiations to stretch into at least the end of next year, so I hope and expect that the responsibility for making sure that this deal is good for Britain will become that of a Labour, not a Tory, Government and of Labour Ministers, not Tory Ministers.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

rose—

[John Healey]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before finishing on the issue of the Prime Minister, which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has just raised.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making a very important point about TTIP. I know that the Scottish Government want the Scottish health service excluded and I would hope that the Welsh Government would have the same position. Is there not an onus on the UK Government to make those representations on behalf of the devolved Governments?

[John Healey]

Indeed. There is an onus, a responsibility and, I would argue, a duty on British Ministers to make those representations and to secure those protections in any deal for the whole of the UK.

Finally, the Prime Minister made his most personal pledges before the last election to protect the NHS and to stop top-down reorganisations. He has broken those pledges to the British people, and the damage that he and his Tory Ministers have inflicted through this NHS reorganisation and legislation has been unwanted, wasteful and wrong. It will fall to a Labour Government, after May, to put right this damage and to rescue the NHS, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said in his opening speech, just as we did in 1997. This Bill—it is why I am pleased and proud to support it—is an essential step towards doing that, but the election of a Labour Government must follow if we are to do the job properly.

11:09

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), and I agree with most of what he said, but probably not the conclusion.

It gives me pleasure that we are having this debate. I think we all accept that the Bill will not go right the way through Parliament and end up on the statute book by 2015. We know what will happen: private Members’ Bills are lining up behind one another, and most of them will hit the buffers. However, the Bill moves the NHS debate up a notch.

It is fashionable at the moment to regard the Health and Social Care Act 2012 as a disastrous mistake. In fact, I believe that view is now shared in the Treasury. I did not support the Act, and not for the usual reasons—that it was not in the manifesto or the coalition agreement and was sprung upon Parliament. Those were good reasons, but they were not my main reason, nor was it because I am awkward or I thought it was a good career move. It was not because I did not see some of the upside, which I am sure the Minister will rehearse later—the emphasis on public health, clinical involvement, health inequality and mental health, and a smidgen of democratic accountability.

My main reason for opposing the Lansley Bill was that I saw it as the logical conclusion of a trend that began under Mrs Thatcher, was carried on by Blair and survives to this day. That trend, fundamentally, is an attempt to run the NHS as a market—not a real market, of course, but an internal market; a funny sort of Alice in Wonderland market with none of the advantages of a real market and most of the downside. It is one where everything is free, but prices, wages and policies are set by the Government; where NHS bodies compete not just against the private sector but against one another; where, as others have said, integration and real efficiency often go out of the window; where strategic leadership just does not seem to exist, as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne said; where we struggle to deliver not products, as in ordinary markets, but entitlements; and where half the NHS, which we call commissioners, is billing the other half, which we call producers—that point has already been made—and bean-counters proliferate on either side and lock horns over bills.

In my view, the Health and Social Care Act was not so much about privatisation, or private industry helping to deliver NHS services—that was already happening under Labour—but primarily about marketisation. Some of course see that as a conspiracy—marketisation as the prelude to total privatisation—but I have to tell hon. Members that marketisation as a faith is still very much around, including on the Front Benches of most political parties, and is supported by practically every health think-tank we talk to.

The market, external or internal, tweak it as we may, simply cannot deliver entitlements and the moral objectives of the NHS in anything like an efficient manner. It cannot deliver to people the care that they need regardless of their means. Worse still, it solves none of the current problems of the NHS, which were largely parked in 2010—the financial pressures on the acute sector, which have come back to haunt us recently; the poor integration of services, which we have still not got right; and the separation of health and social care, which is unfinished business.

If I have a proposal to put to the House, it is that I would like to see the commissioner-provider split ended. That has been mentioned already. We moved an amendment at the Liberal Democrat conference to try to see whether and how that could be permitted. I would like to see the creation of local health boards, charged with integrating services and running them efficiently.

[Dr Huppert]

The amendment my hon. Friend is talking about was proposed by Cambridge Liberal Democrats, and I pay particular tribute to Councillor Kilian Bourke, who chairs the health committee in Cambridgeshire. It suggested allowing NHS commissioners and providers in a local area to form an integrated health organisation if that was what they wanted to do. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would achieve the benefits that he and I seek without the need to force through a massive top-down reorganisation? Would he urge the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) to accept such an amendment if the Bill made progress?

[John Pugh]

If the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) wished to talk about that, we could happily move away from the internal market where local circumstances required and demanded it. That would be an entirely sensible policy. I see no reason, though, why health boards should not procure goods and services based on simple best-value principles without all the competition legislation that has been vilified in the debate. They should be funded—as most services are—by capitation and according to local need, and they should be in some way democratically accountable, and I think we can get a genuine public service element back into the NHS. However, not every political party is advocating that at the moment, and some are steering in quite the opposite direction.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, as is typical of him. Does he agree that what we are dealing with today is an Opposition party in desperate straits that knows exactly what it is doing in using the word “privatisation”? It knows that people out in the country associate it with having to buy private health care, but actually nobody is proposing to change the fundamental ethos of the NHS, which is that treatment is free at the point of need. The Labour party is conflating the two as a desperate political tactic.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman is not altogether wrong, but if we are to continue to deliver, in stressed circumstances, a service that is free at the point of need, we cannot run the NHS as an internal market for ever. In fact, the NHS is already trying to morph into something different. We now have health and wellbeing boards, which mean that commissioners and providers get together to try to agree a local plan. They are struggling in every way to behave like a health board, but they do not have the executive powers to do so. There has been the move away from tariffs, which have been used to try to adjust the market, and we are now talking about whole-treatment costs. There is also talk about integration.

What is clearly entirely disruptive, though, is the intrusion of competition where it is not needed—where it is simply dogma; where it is seen as a panacea for producing good results, whether or not there is a good case for saying that; where it derails sustainable services; or where it becomes a central operating principle of the NHS. None of those things is particularly helpful.

I do not want to comment on TTIP, because I do not think it is well understood at the moment, but we will certainly need to look at how it plays into the competition agenda.

[John Healey]

If the hon. Gentleman or any other Members want to know a little bit more about TTIP, particularly the potential impact on the NHS and public services, we have a meeting of the all-party group on European Union-United States trade and investment at 2 o’clock on Monday, at which the EU chief negotiator will be on the panel alongside Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison. The hon. Gentleman might like to come along.

[John Pugh]

If the right hon. Gentleman reminds me, I will endeavour to do so. What I am really hoping for, though, is a change in the conversation about the NHS so that we stop talking about the internal market—Labour Front Benchers have in a sense reneged on their involvement in that—and instead talk about how we should organise NHS services that will efficiently deliver the moral entitlements that people expect.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for introducing this opportune Bill.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem with an internal market is the sheer complexity of tendering, which means that smaller organisations such as some in my constituency are simply not capable of matching up with the organisations that decide to tender for some of the contracts that are available?

[John Pugh]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. For those who are unsure about the benefits of the internal market, there is a way of addressing the problem, which is to allow individual health economies, in whatever area—Eltham or wherever—to opt out of the internal market if they can prove that there is a case for doing so. That could be put into legislation in a permissive form, so it would not be a top-down reorganisation, and it would allow people objectively and sensibly to test the benefits of the internal market against a more normal model of public service delivery, which I support, as I hope the hon. Member for Eltham does.

11:18

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this Bill.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

On this side of the House.

[Mark Reckless]

And indeed on this side of the House.

It is a particular pleasure to speak on a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), because I have spent time in the past few weeks defending myself following allegations from the Conservative party that I grew up in his constituency, in SE9.

[Clive Efford]

You should be proud.

[Mark Reckless]

Indeed, I am proud, and many people in my constituency have moved down from Eltham and the surrounding areas, and I am delighted that they returned me to the House in the early hours of this morning.

I found the hon. Gentleman’s speech compelling. At half-past 4 this morning or thereabouts, I was extolling the virtues of the Levellers and the Chartists. I can only think that I had a premonition of the speech that the hon. Gentleman was to make in the House this morning.

The other reason for my presence here is that, in the by-election I have just fought, we had in Naushabah Khan a Labour candidate who made—quite eloquently, I thought —the case against fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS, and she and others in Medway Labour commended the Bill to me.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I was not in Rochester last night. I joined a vigil outside Parliament by groups who are campaigning to save our NHS, and I had a conversation with a consultant oncologist on that very issue of fragmentation. He said that the only competition we should have in the NHS is the competition to defeat disease. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

[Mark Reckless]

That sounds a good statement. I myself feel a certain degree of scepticism, as the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) said, about internal markets in the NHS and other public services. Much depends on the circumstances of the service provided, and an ideological predisposition either against or in favour of internal markets is probably not wise.

The Labour candidate in the by-election opposed fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS, and the Bill appears to do so as well. I have discovered that this is now the Labour party’s position. I had assumed that the Labour party was in favour of fragmentation and privatisation in the NHS, because that was my understanding of what the record had been.

[Andy McDonald]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to clarify, for the benefit of the House, whether his party is in favour of a private insurance-backed approach to health care or whether it actually believes in the NHS.

[Mark Reckless]

My party believes in the NHS as a service that is free at the point of delivery. My father is a doctor, and my mother is a nurse. That belief is core to my values, and to the values of my party. [Interruption.] That is our policy. Our policy is determined by our party, and it is to support an NHS that is free at the point of delivery.

[Mr Anderson]

When did the hon. Gentleman come to that conclusion?

[Mark Reckless]

I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to the answer to a question that was asked two years ago, which is now being taken out of context. Our party is not quite like the Liberal Democrats with their federal policy executive, but we have formal measures for the making of policy, and UKIP has decided—

[Mr Anderson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Reckless]

I will continue, if I may.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mark Reckless]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Huppert]

Although I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on many things, I welcome him back to the House. He has talked about the history and the evidence. He might be interested to know that, according to the House of Commons Library, the amount spent by NHS England on buying health care from outside the NHS rose from £1.1 billion in 1997-98 to £7.5 billion in 2009-10. Those are the facts, according to the Library.

[Mark Reckless]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. There was a great deal of privatisation and, indeed, fragmentation of the NHS under Labour, and I do not deny that there has been more of it under the current Government. I think that it is a problem that has afflicted both main parties.

[Mr Anderson]

rose—

[Mr Donohoe]

rose—

[Mark Reckless]

I will continue for a bit, if I may.

Let me explain how I view the issue from a local perspective. As far as I can see, Darent Valley hospital, which is near my constituency, was privatised under Labour in one of the most disastrous private finance initiatives experienced by the NHS. Medway NHS Foundation Trust became a foundation trust on the basis of what was largely a box-ticking exercise, which focused on finances and appeared to ignore the fact that by that stage the hospital’s standardised mortality rate was some 10% above the norm: one in 10 more patients were dying that should have been expected.

[Mr Donohoe]

I know that the hon. Gentleman had a late night, but can he tell us what is his party’s view of the health service in Scotland?

[Mark Reckless]

I will clarify the view of my party on the NHS in general, but I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to give details of its policy on the NHS in Scotland. I should be happy to seek to assist the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.

What happened in Medway was fragmentation. The hospital was cut loose by the Department of Health, and is now essentially run by an independent board. When there are problems and it is in special measures, there is now a potential for greater intervention, but we have in Monitor what appears to be a backstop regulator, rather than a regulator that is able to come in and run the hospital and turn it around. It can get rid of the chair and the chief executive, but it cannot make constructive improvements.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Reckless]

I will continue, if I may.

The independence of such hospitals, the inability of the House or the Secretary of State to drive improvements, and the decision to allow a hospital to become a foundation trust although one in 10 more people were dying than should have been the case, constitute an indictment of the last Government’s policy. I was delighted to hear from the Labour candidate whom I have faced in recent weeks that Labour is now against fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS. I welcome the Bill, and I am pleased to be able to support it.

[Clive Efford]

I welcome support for my Bill from all quarters, but why should anyone believe what the hon. Gentleman says about the NHS? Does he accept that the Government were elected with no mandate to introduce the 2012 Act, and that he voted for it?

[Mark Reckless]

I think that that is probably correct. I may be guilty of having believed the undertakings I was given by those on the Government Front Bench.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

It might be helpful for the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the words of his colleague, the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who said:

“Never one to slavishly support the party line, I would be quite prepared to oppose these reforms”—

the 2012 Act—

“if I felt they were a step back. But I won’t. These changes are necessary—and contrary to much of the mainstream media coverage, in my experience they are quietly supported by many doctors too.”

Does the hon. Gentleman support what his colleague said, or does he not?

[Mark Reckless]

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) was right in saying that some doctors supported the Bill that became the 2012 Act. During the early stages of that Bill, a number of representative bodies supported it, or were presented as doing so. As the Bill proceeded, however, some of what had been claimed to be support from organisations such as the British Medical Association seemed to fall away. I believe that the Bill ran to 460 pages.

The problem was the way in which legislation is made in the House. The coalition agreement promised us a House business committee, but no such committee deals with the allocation of time for legislation. We have a Committee of Selection, but it is run by the usual channels—the Whips on either side of the House—and people with expertise such as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who might actually have improved the Bill, were excluded from it.

[Dr Poulter]

I feel I should quote further from what was said by the hon. Member for Clacton, when much of the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Bill had been completed. He went on to say—on 11 February 2012, on his TalkCarswell.com website—

“If these proposals were defeated, it would be a setback for all those of us who would like to see public service reform. We need to keep our nerve.”

That rather contradicts what the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has just said, does it not?

[Mark Reckless]

That is an excellent website, which I recommend to all Members. The Minister has said that my hon. Friend made those observations when most of the Committee stage of the Bill had been completed. Was that during the “pause” that had been invented as a new mechanism for Parliament? My hon. Friend is not here at the moment, but I think he would agree with me that the 2012 Act is not as it was billed to us by those on the Government Front Bench. It has led to an extraordinary degree of additional complexity in the NHS, and the introduction of competition bodies—and, in particular, European competition law—into the NHS is not welcome.

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Reckless]

No, I will continue for a bit, if I may.

I do not think that the extent of the difficulties that doctors and others would encounter as a result of section 75 of the Act and the bureaucratic, market-based—or quasi-market-based—commissioning rules that it requires was any more apparent to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton than it was to other Members, although some Opposition Members may have had premonitions of it. I thought that the Bill was intended to allow the various local bodies to get on with running the NHS in their areas. Some would run it better than others; there would be local decision-making and discretion, and people would learn from each other. Now, however, there are centrally determined rules that force everyone into, in particular, commissioning or contracting behaviour, but do not make sense in the context of the service that is being delivered.

[Philip Davies]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his victory in last night’s by-election. It was an excellent result for him and it would be churlish not to point that out. I know that he is a long-standing believer in localism. Is he not worried by the British Medical Association’s concerns that the Bill would give much wider powers to the Secretary of State, thereby centralising powers and taking the day-to-day running of the NHS away from clinical staff and putting it in the Secretary of State’s hands? As a champion of localism, is he not worried by that?

[Mark Reckless]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations; that is very decent of him. I am not a fan of quasi-autonomous bodies, of great amounts of regulators or of overlapping layers of bureaucracy; they rarely work. Given the degree of complexity that has now been brought into the NHS, I think it is possible—although I am not certain—that the centralisation of power in a single Secretary of State who is at least accountable to the House might be better than the current diffusion and fragmentation of powers, which does not seem to be working effectively. My party would like to replace the alphabet soup of regulators and the overlapping layers of bureaucracy with a single, elected health board for each county area. That would give a degree of clarity to the oversight and management of the NHS.

[Mr Donohoe]

Why does the hon. Gentleman not think that health boards should be taken back into local authority control, where a democratic ticket is already involved, rather than creating a separate vote for stand-alone health boards?

[Mark Reckless]

There is an argument for doing that, and a judgment has to be made. It might be possible, depending on the different areas of the countries—particularly in the devolved Administrations—that the solution to that question might be different. My general view is that it is much better to have democratic accountability than not to have it, and in many areas I would prefer that to be local. My party wants to see health boards elected on a county basis.

My party also wants European competition law to be taken out of the NHS, and the Bill is exemplary in that regard. I strongly support that provision.

I have signed a pledge on TTIP, along with most other candidates in the by-election, except for the Conservative—[Interruption.] No, not the Liberal one—that was not a good one to sign—although I did vote against tuition fees, along with most Opposition Members. I would like to see the NHS excluded from TTIP. There are arguments as to whether it will be or not, but those arguments should be settled in the House as per this Bill, rather than being left to the unpredictability of future legal actions.

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Reckless]

I am just reaching my conclusion, if I may.

The hon. Member for Eltham made a mistake in talking about the UK negotiating on TTIP. That is an area of exclusive competence for the European Community, and it is therefore the EU Commission that will negotiate with the United States on that matter. When I first heard about TTIP, it sounded as though it would be all about free trade and I thought that it would be broadly a good thing. The more I looked into it, however, the more it seemed to be not about free trade but about the creation of a single set of transnational regulations between the US and the European Union, and that it would be illegal for anyone not complying with them to sell goods and services. I am therefore very sceptical about TTIP and I am not sure it is something that I would want to support. I certainly do not want to see the NHS included in it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham on his Bill, and I look forward to supporting him in the Lobby.

11:34

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to my Front-Bench colleagues that I might not be here for the wind-ups because I have to be in Hinckley for the switching on of the Christmas lights, which is something I always look forward to.

I should like to follow a long tradition in the House in which the speaker who follows a Member making their maiden speech—even though I am told that, technically, it was not one—says something nice about them. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on winning his by-election last night, and I further congratulate him on getting to the House this morning. I imagine that he has been up all night. I simply offer him this warning. I was thinking of Dave Nellist, a former Member for Coventry, who defected to another party and then disappeared. I have to warn the hon. Gentleman—my former hon. Friend—that the history of those who defect in this place shows that they do not remain here for very long after they come back. We expect to regain his seat at the next general election, but well done to him in the meantime.

I should also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on introducing his Bill. I once had the honour to stand for the Greater London council in the constituency adjacent to his. It was then known as Woolwich East, so I know his area and his hospitals a little. He has certainly done well to get his Bill to the House, and I note from the Division this morning that he has 100 additional Members here today, so he is no doubt hoping for a closure motion at some point. If his Bill progresses, I would be happy to serve on its Committee. I have a long-standing interest in health matters and I have been a member of the Health Select Committee since it was set up in this Parliament, as well as of the Science and Technology Committee in this Parliament. I am also the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on integrated health care.

This is a wide-ranging Bill. I hope to address some of the things that are not in it, although I will not talk about all the things that are in it as time is short and I do not want to occupy the stage for too long. I want to look at three areas. The first is the hon. Gentleman’s proposal to change the arrangements that allow trusts to generate half their income from private sources. Secondly, I want to look at whether mergers should be dealt with by Monitor or whether that area should be reclaimed. I want to focus on mergers and integration, because the integration of services in the NHS is of fundamental importance. He might be able to improve his Bill in that respect. Thirdly, if time allows, I want to talk about the proposal to exempt the NHS from the transatlantic trade and investment partnership.

I have been listening to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), and I believe that Labour’s whole strategy is based on something that is fundamentally untrue. It is based on trying to persuade the electorate that we are setting out to privatise the health service and thereby reduce the health care available. It is regrettable that Labour is taking the Goebbels-esque approach of saying something that is fundamentally untrue and then repeating it and repeating it in the hope that the electorate will buy into it. I put it to Labour Members that that might be a populist approach, but it could be hard for them to defend as we get nearer the election.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman says that he does not believe creeping privatisation is taking place as a result of the changes that the Government have introduced, but does he not see it as an inevitable consequence, even if it is not the Government’s stated intention?

[David Tredinnick]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The Government have made it possible for trusts to generate half their income from private sources, but it is not true to make out that we are in some way privatising the health service in a way that is detrimental to patients. We have made it possible for trusts to generate more income. In an ideal world, it would be wonderful if we could pay for all health care through general taxation. However, the Health Committee has examined the Nicholson challenge and seen the tremendous demand on resources. We have managed to maintain a flat-line budget in this Parliament, but demand is such that it is difficult to pay for everything through general taxation. One way to do it is by getting the private sector to contribute to the health service. The original arrangements were increased to this figure of nearly half. The thing to remember is that all the money generated from these sources is reinvested in patient care.

I had some freedom of information requests made, and wish to refer to the effect of these arrangements on four NHS foundation trusts in the midlands. They are not from Leicestershire, because those figures did not come through, but I do represent a midlands constituency. The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust received £68,000 in 2010-11, £50,000 in 2011-12 and another £80,000 in 2012-13 in funds that can go directly into patient care. The figures for the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust are £559,000 in 2009-10, another half a million in 2010-11, a bit more in 2011-12 and nearly £532,000 in 2012-13, and there has been an increase to £628,000 in 2013-14.

My FOI request to the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust elicited the following response—it is a short paragraph, so if I may, I will read it out:

“The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust gains substantial income from Apley Ward and Clinic. Where private patient work is carried out in an NHS hospital, it is carried out in addition to and not in place of regular NHS treatment. Profits from this private facility make a considerable contribution to the running costs of the hospital for the benefit of all patients and staff.”

The hon. Member for Eltham made a passionate speech, but this point goes to the heart of the issue: privatisation is not about reducing resources, but increasing them. I gave notice to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) that I was going to mention the other figures I received, which are from the Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and which show that over the past four years it has gained between £14,000 and £50,000 a year. The figures illustrate clearly that this approach is helping, and that is very welcome.

[Mr Nuttall]

The point my hon. Friend has just made is key in showing the dangers of this Bill. People have been writing to say that they are concerned about the risk of privatisation, but what is actually happening as a result of the 2012 Act process is that there is more money in our NHS, rather than less.

[David Tredinnick]

The Act is complicated. It is a big Act and it landed with a thump when the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) dropped it on the Opposition Benches. I think he did so intentionally; and it was very theatrical and effective. It is true that there is more money there, and it is clear that the Government pledged at the last election to maintain the funding of the health service and have done so. We also have in place the Nicholson challenge, a phrase coined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell)—formerly the Member for Loughborough—when he was Chair of the Health Committee, and we now face even greater challenges.

Let me set out to the hon. Member for Eltham what he could include in his Bill if it goes forward. He could examine the next stage of bringing together health and social care. On Tuesday, the Health Committee heard from Dame Kate Barker, the chair of the Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care in England. We were examining the transitional costs of bringing health and social care together, and looking ahead at the savings that can be made. The hon. Gentleman might apply his mind to the complications arising from the different streams of funding represented in health and social care, whereby health is funded by general taxation and some private support, which I have already discussed, whereas social care is the subject of means tests and other constraints. We are therefore talking about completely different funding stream. I do not know how the Health Committee will report this, but I was struck by Dame Kate Barker’s determination that there should be one person running health and social care. That is essential if we are going to bring those two things together.

The other point the hon. Gentleman should take on board as we look at the Bill is the high profile that the Secretary of State and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), have given to patient choice. The Government have said time and again that patient choice is at the heart of the health service, and we have already seen the benefits. The personal budgets now available for people who are seriously ill have had three benefits. First, they enable the patient to choose whatever treatment they want, be it tai chi, yoga or piano therapy—I believe that there have even been cases where tickets to a football match have been given. This is not something regulated by double-blind placebo controlled trials, as some of the other access arrangements for health care are. Secondly, the personal budgets enable the carers to go out into the world and get jobs, so freeing them up. Thirdly, when the personal budget money is given, it is spent responsibly by the patients. We have a whole new paradigm of health through personal budgets, and that should be examined through this Bill.

I have always felt that the 2012 Act and the reforms that were made produced something that put in place two legs on the stool, not three. The third leg comprises the vast and diverse multiplicity of support services that are not used in great depth in the health service now. Using them would considerably reduce costs and increase choice. The choice of these other support services will inevitably come to the fore as patients demand what they want, and we really have to bring this into the health service.

I have had many conversations about these things with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—the Minister on the Front-Bench today. He has entrusted me with being vice-chair of the herbal working group, which is trying to sort out herbal medicine regulation. When we examine the support services that are not now part of mainstream health care, we see that we have a fundamental problem relating to the insistence that we rely on evidence-based medicine. I do not know where that phrase came from—it has not been around for a long time. Various bodies protect the public, and all new drugs are carefully scrutinised, by the pharmacists and the Herbal Medicines Advisory Committee, which has put together a list of what are, in effect, poisons and bans the use of some herbs. The public are protected in that way, but it is very difficult to use normal measurements to assess the effectiveness of, for example, acupuncture, which the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has approved for treating lower back pain. A lot of evidence shows that acupuncture can reduce the effects of lower back pain and save the NHS a lot of cost. With homeopathic medicine, which I have long supported and advocated, it is impossible to run trials on every dilution: some are so dilute that they do not show up.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Tredinnick]

I am always glad to give way to the hon. Gentleman—I am sure he will agree with my every word.

[Dr Huppert]

My hon. Friend will be well aware that there have been many trials of homeopathic medicines, and the fact is that none of them has shown that they work better than a placebo. He is right that they are very dilute; that is why they do not work.

[David Tredinnick]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point. I remember when some of his friends went to Boots in Kensington high street and consumed the entire stock of homeopathic medicine. They saw that as a huge triumph, as they felt it illustrated the fact that homeopathic medicine was not effective. Of course it did nothing of the sort; it proved that it was absolutely safe to take these preparations under any circumstances, and that the only time they work is if they are in the right preparation and are taken in the right amount, as prescribed by a professional.

I say to the Minister—I hope he will tune in to what I am saying—that we must move away from this insistence on evidence-based medicine and look at evidence-based practitioners. This is an area that has been overlooked for a very long time. There is much evidence that practitioners are well regulated, and we do not need to insist on checking every single preparation that people consume. Five areas of regulation already exist. The hon. Member for Eltham might want to think about that, as it is a matter that could be put into the Bill if it goes to Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that I am watching very carefully the matters that he is addressing in the House right now. He must speak to the Bill. We are discussing whether the Bill should have a Second Reading and go into Committee.

[David Tredinnick]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are kind to draw that to my attention. I simply say this: there are different regulatory bodies—not just Monitor—that we should consider. We should be taking on board the fact that osteopaths, chiropractors and homeopathic doctors are regulated by separate Acts of Parliament, yet the Health and Care Professions Council regulates clinical scientists, paramedics, physiotherapists. The Professional Standards Authority, which is another regulatory body, provides oversight of nine statutory bodies. Then there is the umbrella body, the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council. I will leave it at that, as I do not wish to stray. On the safety aspects of those bodies, I understand from Balens, which has been insuring support services for 10 years, that there has not been a claim against a herbalist for more than 10 years.

The Bill partly addresses the issue of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Across the world, there is a whole mass of new thinking that could be incorporated in our health service. I am nervous that if we take out TTIP—if an exemption for the NHS is proposed—it will not be in our interests. In America there are a lot of integrated practices, in which a range of different health disciplines are brought together to reduce costs.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and the European Commission have made it clear that decisions on the provision of public services will continue to be made by the Government here in Westminster?

[David Tredinnick]

We are agreed on that. It is a case of the extent to which we derogate the powers of the Secretary of State. We have a whole lot of new bodies, including clinical commissioning groups, which have been a great success.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham on securing this slot today. I wonder whether he still has 100 troops in the Tea Room waiting to come in for a closure motion, if Madam Deputy Speaker is gracious enough to grant it. I am happy to serve with him in the future on his Bill.

11:54

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Tuesday 20 March 2012 was a black day for the NHS and for this Parliament. A Bill with no mandate from the British people was allowed to pass through this House and to place market forces at the heart of our health service. It allowed this democratic House to be bypassed when it comes to decisions affecting the country’s most valued institution. In other words, it was a crime against democracy and the national health service. Ever since that dark day, the damage has been mounting: NHS services worth billions of pounds—including blue light 999 ambulance services and cancer services—forced out to open tender; millions of pounds thrown at competition lawyers and consultants to run those tenders; and NHS hospitals, freed to earn up to 49% of their income from treating private patients, doing just that and letting NHS waiting lists get longer.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the unique deal between Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust and the Labour-led Northumberland county council in which the council bought out the PFI deal, which means a better deal for the taxpayers in Northumberland and a much better deal for the NHS trust and the patients?

[Andy Burnham]

Yes, I am aware of the deal, and it is a great example of how a Labour council, working with the NHS, can take steps to improve funding for front-line patient care. It happened because of the deal that was struck in the latter stages of the previous Labour Government.

As a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, NHS hospitals can earn more money from treating private patients, while NHS waiting lists get longer. Those same hospitals have now been told by competition authorities that they cannot collaborate any more because it is “anti-competitive.” How did it come to this? That is not the health service that we have known for 66 years. Every day that this illegitimate legislation remains in force is a day closer to the demise of the national health service.

[Jonathan Edwards]

In response to an FOI request, I was told by my local health board that between December last year and July this year, 373 ophthalmology patients, 90 pain management patients, 165 neurology patients and 264 orthopaedic patients were transferred to private sector providers at a cost of nearly £600,000. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s message to his Labour colleague, the Health Minister for Wales?

[Andy Burnham]

I will give the hon. Gentleman my message now: the Labour Government in England and in Wales have taken steps to bring down NHS waiting lists. When we left office, they were at the lowest ever level. I make no apology to him for those improvements.

The 2012 Act has put the NHS in danger, which is why it has to go. Back on that March day in 2012, I pledged that the party that created the NHS would repeal that Bill at the first opportunity, and today we honour that promise. The Bill before us, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), restores the right values at the heart of the NHS: collaboration over competition; integration over fragmentation; people before profits.

[Angie Bray]

Will the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the letter in The Daily Telegraph today, signed by a number of doctors and led by the chairman of NHS Alliance, asking people not to support this Bill, as it would be a backward step for patients?

[Andy Burnham]

I am sure that Tory central office has been ringing around for a few days trying to find some doctors who are still in favour of the 2012 legislation, and they found 11. Well, I think that is probably about the limit for the number of people prepared to put their name to it. I can tell the hon. Lady that thousands of doctors lined up with the Opposition and pleaded with her party to call off its reorganisation, and that included the British Medical Association and the royal colleges, but it would not listen. The Government ploughed on regardless, and the NHS has gone downhill ever since.

That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham gave a stirring speech of the kind this House needs to hear more, full of conviction and passion, standing up for the national health service that he believes in. He has brought before the House a Bill that reaffirms the words of Nye Bevan’s original National Health Service Act 1946 on the democratic accountability of the NHS to the Secretary of State and, by extension, to this House. The Bill abolishes the compulsory tendering of NHS services and removes market forces. It reduces the private patient income cap back down to single figures. Once and for all, it fully exempts the NHS from EU procurement and competition law, as is our right under the Lisbon treaty. It sends the Government an uncompromising message that the NHS will never be touched by any TTIP treaty.

In particular, I commend my hon. Friend for saying that it is about time this House regained full sovereignty over the national health service. They gave it away—the Eurosceptics sitting there on the Government Back Benches—when they mandated open tendering of services. By doing that, they placed the NHS in the full glare of European competition law. [Interruption.] They do not like to hear it, but that is what they did.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Is the right hon. Gentleman the same man who used to talk about an end to the polarising debate on private and public sector provision? Is he the same man who, when Secretary of State, privatised the services for an entire hospital at Hinchingbrooke? What is he doing today? It is buff and blow party politics.

[Andy Burnham]

I told the hon. and learned Gentleman earlier that that was incorrect and that he should withdraw the suggestion, because I did not do that. The contract for Hinchingbrooke was awarded under his Government. I will tell him who this man is. This is the man who, when Secretary of State, introduced the concept of NHS preferred provider, because I believe in the public NHS and what it represents, unlike him. I believe in an NHS that puts people before profit, unlike him. That is the man he is talking to, and that is what I will always stand up for.

[Dr Huppert]

The right hon. Gentleman correctly says that the contract for Hinchingbrooke was let under this Government, but does he not accept that it was he who, when Health Secretary, reduced the list of bidders to five, none of which were NHS bidders, and then to three, all of which were private companies? Does he accept that he could have left NHS bidders in the process, rather than only private bidders? Then he complains when one of the providers that he shortlisted got the contract.

[Andy Burnham]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has to get his facts right, because they are wrong. When I was Health Secretary and Hinchingbrooke needed to find a new operator, I asked local NHS trusts in his area to come forward, and at the time none of them wanted to do that, so we had to find an operator—

[Sir Oliver Heald]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I may have inadvertently said that the contract was let, but I do not believe that I did. The true position is that it was the right hon. Gentleman who took the decision to privatise the services in that hospital, and it is wrong for him to seek to deny it. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to ensure that the record is set straight. He has attempted so to do, but it is not a point of order for me to deal with.

[Andy Burnham]

“Attempted” is the operative word, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that it was my decision, but it was the decision of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). He did it when their Government came in, and the hon. and learned Gentleman should have the good grace to withdraw what he said.

I was in the middle of answering the intervention from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—the hon. and learned Gentleman should listen to this, because he will get his answer. I said that the process should go forward under the NHS preferred provider principle, which I introduced—he seems not to understand that. To correct him, when the previous Government left office there were three bidders, one of which was an NHS provider, so he really needs to get his facts straight—

[Dr Huppert]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

No. The hon. Gentleman needs to get his facts straight before he tries to shout the odds in my direction.

The Bill gives back to this House sovereignty over the national health service, which millions of people will welcome. The Bill means so much to so many people who are concerned about what is happening to the NHS right now under this Government.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend says that the Bill will mean so much to so many people. He will recall that in 1997 the waiting lists at Northwick Park hospital were the highest in the country, with people having to wait for 21 hours on trolleys. He will also know that the people in Brent and Harrow who rely on that hospital today are now enduring the highest waiting lists in the country again. Waiting lists came down on his watch, but they are back up again. What message does that send to the people of Brent and Harrow?

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that in 1997 people were spending years on NHS waiting lists, and even dying while still on them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) said, we brought those waiting lists down, and by the time we left government in 2010 this country had the lowest ever NHS waiting lists and the highest ever level of public satisfaction in the NHS. That is Labour’s record, and we will not let the Government forget it.

What is happening now? NHS waiting lists are back at a six-year high. That is the result of the reorganisation that the Government ploughed through, which nobody wanted. The country did not want it. There are millions of people out there who are concerned about what the Government are doing. It will not have escaped their notice that scores of Government MPs have failed to turn up today to defend what was one of their flagship Bills. What a shower! There are people who kept a vigil outside the House last night, in cold temperatures, imploring Members to be here to pass this Bill because the issues it raises matter so much to them. Then we have the spineless MPs of a disintegrating Government, some loaded up to the eyeballs with links to private health care, who do not have the guts to come here today to argue for what they have done. Is it any wonder that people are losing faith in this place?

[Dr Huppert]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman claimed earlier that one of the bidders at Hinchingbrooke was an NHS provider, but according to the National Audit Office there was Circle, Serco and Ramsay. Can he now either correct the record for the House, or let us know which of those three he believes is an NHS provider?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point of debate, but it is not a point of order.

[Andy Burnham]

We have spineless Government MPs who will not come here today to argue for the Act.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on his victory and on being here today, despite being up all night—I cannot imagine that he managed to get any sleep. His party leader has said that when the hon. Gentleman is tired he says things that he does not mean—I think that he just nodded there. Given that he has been up all night, I can only conclude that he does not actually believe what he said in the speech we just heard. In three days he has gone from being in favour of the repatriation of European citizens to being against the privatisation of the NHS. That is a pretty big political distance to cover in just three days.

[Mark Reckless]

I have only ever argued for European citizens to be able to stay; any other words came from others, not me. It is the right hon. Gentleman’s party that has reversed its position, having previously privatised the Darent Valley hospital and fragmented the Medway Foundation Trust, but it now seems to have a better policy, which I am happy to support.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman said that he could not understand Labour’s position, but surely he remembers 2012, when Opposition Members spoke with force against that legislation, which he then voted for in the Lobby. I know that it has been a long night, but he really should try to remember these things, because they are quite important.

[Mr Anderson]

Is it not also true that the hon. Gentleman went through the Lobby not once, but 18 times, despite being told time and again that what has now happened would happen? The people who had their finger on the pulse were telling us what would happen, but he ignored them.

[Andy Burnham]

It is a tiring business being an MP and it is possible to forget things, particularly when one drinks as many pints as UKIP Members do, but they should try to remember. Their party leader once said that he would give the NHS budget to insurance companies; apparently, he does not believe that now. The deputy leader, a Mr Nuttall, said that the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was to be congratulated on bringing a whiff—just a whiff—of privatisation to the NHS, and the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), whom the Minister quoted earlier, described the Lansley reforms as “fairly modest”. He chided his Tory colleagues who were sniping against him at the time and said that the reforms must not be derailed. The party says it is anti-politics in the way things are done. This is sheer opportunism and dishonesty.

[Mark Reckless]

I recall much of what the right hon. Gentleman said from the Dispatch Box in 2012, and I would like to credit him because a lot of it has come to pass. He was perspicacious in much of what he said and many of the assurances that I was given from the Government Front Bench have been found wanting.

[Andy Burnham]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says—it would be churlish for me to say otherwise—and I am grateful for the way he said it. The things Opposition Members were saying back then have happened, and we can see the effects of the Government’s reorganisation in the NHS. With the new figures that came out this morning, we see that A and E has missed the Government’s target for 70 weeks in a row. The A and E figures are the barometer of the health and care system. They are the best place to look if we want to see whether there are problems in the health and care system. The fact that the target has been missed for 70 weeks in a row tells us that severe storms are building over the NHS.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I am glad my right hon. Friend raised that. It takes us back to pre-1997, when people who could not get beds were lying on trolleys. I am sure he remembers that. I can remember a hospital in Coventry that was falling down. As a result of the Labour Government, we got a new hospital.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is right. The Labour Government inherited a situation where almost three quarters of the NHS estate was built before 1948. We transformed that, as well as bringing those waiting lists down. He is right to remind us.

I cannot believe that Government Members have not had the guts to be here today to argue for their own policy on the NHS. Or is it that under the shambolic regime of their new Chief Whip, who is now inflicting the same chaos on the parliamentary Conservative party as he did on England’s schools, the Government did not think they could win the vote today, so they did not dare to bring their troops here to hold it? I do not know what the reason is, but they clearly do not believe in their own legislation and the catastrophic reorganisation that followed. An unnamed senior Cabinet Minister has been quoted in The Times as admitting that it was their single biggest mistake.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell]

Will my right hon. Friend touch on the fact that 71 coalition Members of Parliament are being paid by private companies involved with the national health service?

[Andy Burnham]

It is one of the biggest scandals of recent times that people in this House who have links to private health, and many more in the other place, put through legislation that did not have a mandate from the British people and from which they would benefit financially. The story of that will one day be told in full.

The reorganisation has dragged the NHS down and left it on the brink. A reorganisation that was meant to put GPs at the heart of the NHS has left patients waiting days or even weeks to get a GP appointment. This week, there was news that the NHS has missed its cancer standard for the third quarter, leaving thousands of cancer patients waiting more than two months for treatment to start. It is a reorganisation that has systematically run down the NHS and opened the door for it to be sold off.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The reorganisation was unnecessary. My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware that in Staffordshire a £1 billion cancer contract has been put out to tender. The newly rebuilt local hospital is concerned that that will destabilise its finances. Does he agree that we should be very careful about going down that route without proper consideration?

[Andy Burnham]

The example that my hon. Friend quotes is the best example of the fact that the Government see no limit at all on the scale or extent of privatisation in the NHS, both in terms of the monetary value— £1 billion—and the fact that they are prepared to put cancer services out on the open market.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that some of us supported his opposition to the Health and Social Care Bill, which purported to be England-only legislation? By its marketisation and altering of the public service ethic for the health service, it was going to be predictive legislation with severe implications for devolved services. For similar reasons we support the Bill today, because it offers a bulwark against TTIP hazards for devolved health services.

[Andy Burnham]

The Bill before us deals comprehensively with that threat from any proposed TTIP treaty. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman in his place today.

[Robert Flello]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the companies on the list of preferred bidders to provide cancer care in north Staffordshire include CSC computer services, which was responsible for the £10 billion IT failure, the Lorenzo system, and Interserve Investments, which was fined £11 million by the Office of Fair Trading for anti-competitive bid rigging? These are the sort of firms that our cancer services might go to.

[Andy Burnham]

Those examples will alarm people. In Greater Manchester, a bus company has been running ambulance services. We had news this week that an arms manufacturer is bidding for a GP contract. These are the things that are beginning to happen to the NHS. Nobody’s constituents have ever given their permission for any of this to happen.

We heard speeches from the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who said that nothing had changed and what was happening in the NHS now was just a continuation of what the previous Government were doing. No, it is not. The right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said in a speech on 9 July 2005:

“The time has come for pro-competitive reforms in…health”

and he help up the example of utilities and rail. That was the specific inspiration for his reorganisation. He sold his Bill on the basis that doctors would decide, but doctors tell us that they have no choice but to put services out to the market. Section 75 says that commissioners may not run a tender if there is only one available provider. That is never the case, which is why CCG lawyers conclude that they have no choice but to put services out to tender.

That is why we see, according to figures from the NHS Support Federation, that 865 contracts for NHS services, worth £18.3 billion, have been offered to the market. Some 67% of the contracts awarded so far have gone outside the NHS. It is this decision to mandate the tendering of services which places the NHS in the full glare of EU procurement and competition law. Because Ministers have refused to exempt the NHS from the TTIP treaty, we could soon have private US health care providers ringing up CCGs to challenge them on their commissioning decisions.

This Bill legislates to remove that threat. It repeals section 75 and it really does let doctors and local commissioners decide. It restores the role of the Secretary of State and brings much needed ministerial accountability back to this House. No longer will Ministers be told to write to NHS England when they have concerns. Instead, there will be answers from the Government Dispatch Box about the service that matters most to their constituents. It removes the role of the competition authorities that the Government’s Act introduced. It stops the ludicrous situation where hospitals such as Bournemouth and Poole are not allowed to collaborate. Importantly, it stops hospitals devoting half their beds and half their facilities to the treatment of private patients.

[Mr Slaughter]

Since Hammersmith and Central Middlesex A and E departments closed two months ago, we have had people waiting in ambulances and waiting rooms with every seat taken. We have even had people waiting on floors. The Government’s answer to that is to close two more A and E departments, those at Charing Cross and Ealing in west London. Is that not just preparing the NHS for failure and for privatisation?

[Andy Burnham]

What is happening in west London should send a shiver down the spine of every community in the country. The NHS is being torn apart, which is damaging patient care and leading to the consequences that my hon. Friend outlines.

This is how the character of the NHS is changing under this Government and before our eyes. With every year that the Health and Social Care Act stays on the statute book, the private sector will be more embedded in the NHS and the public NHS weakened as a result. The Government have undermined the “N” in NHS. They are letting our hospitals become part-privatised and they must be stopped. If the Government continue on their current course, in the next Parliament the NHS will be overwhelmed by a toxic mix of cuts and privatisation.

If the Government stop this Bill receiving Royal Assent, it will form the basis of the repeal Bill that the next Labour Government will lay before the House in May next year. But it will do more than that: it will remove the competition role to allow the full integration of health and care to build and lay the foundations for a 21st-century NHS.

One final thing needs to be said. Before we vote, there is a simple truth that all Members in all parts of the House must confront: nobody here has permission from their constituents to put the NHS up for sale. Today is their last chance to put that right before they face their constituents in six months’ time. The people of this country value and trust a public NHS that puts people before profits. This Bill restores that. The party that created the NHS is proud to support it, and I urge all Members to vote for it.

12:21

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

I shall begin by returning to the founding moment of our NHS, when a national health service was created which remains to this day a world-class health service where care is available to all, irrespective of ability to pay and free for all at the point of delivery. These fundamental principles of our NHS have been cherished and protected by each and every Government throughout its proud history, and were in 2012, for the first time, put on to statutory footing by this Government through the Health and Social Care Act.

[Angie Bray]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Poulter]

If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I am going to make a little more progress and then give way later on.

Those who believe that our NHS has always been run solely through public providers are of course very wrong. From its very inception, the NHS that Nye Bevan created has comprised providers in the public and the non-public sectors. In 1948, independent GPs, community pharmacists and dental practitioners contracted with our health service to provide primary medical services to patients, and they continue to do so to this day as part of the public-private partnership. It is worth reflecting on the fact that Tony Blair’s former political secretary, John McTiernan, said only this August that

“an NHS without private providers is unimaginable. For one thing, no one—even on Labour’s extreme left—is arguing that we should nationalise general practice. But GPs are private providers, acceptable to opponents of the ‘private sector’ because most encounters with the NHS are visits to your local doctor”.

We also take for granted the key role played by charities and the voluntary sector in providing NHS care to patients across the country, notably Macmillan Cancer Support and Marie Curie Cancer Care.

In opening my contribution to this debate, I reaffirm this Government’s commitment to the founding principles of our NHS, a health service free at the point of delivery, and recognise that since its creation by Nye Bevan in 1948 our NHS has always been a public-private partnership. For public services to be equitable and free at the point of use, they did not all need to be provided on a monopoly basis within the public sector, controlled in a rigid way by local bureaucracies often deeply resistant to innovation and genuine local autonomy.

“The aim should be to change fundamentally the way the NHS was run: to break up the monolith; to introduce a new relationship with the private sector; to import concepts of choice and competition”.

Those are not my words, but those of Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair about the reforms to the NHS that he introduced under the previous Labour Government.

[Angie Bray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most damaging thing for the NHS—patients and staff alike—is a lot of misleading scaremongering? I am afraid that we have heard more of that in the Chamber today. Will he correct the record to make sure that it is very clear that the pledge made by the Secretary of State for Health that the A and Es at Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals will both remain open for the long term still stands, and that they will allow themselves to be directed by Bruce Keogh’s report such that whatever recommendations he makes on A and E, they will make sure that they meet those requirements?

[Dr Poulter]

I am happy to confirm and to put on the record the points that my hon. Friend has made. It is important that the NHS is not used as a political football, and that services are always designed and delivered in the right way for patients. There is often too much scaremongering in these debates. I reiterate that what she said about the local A and Es is absolutely correct.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dr Poulter]

I have just dealt with it, and I am going to make a little progress.

I want to deal with the contribution made by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). He failed to address the issues that I had raised earlier about the support that the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), his party colleague, gave to the Health and Social Bill—now the Health and Social Care Act. In fact, as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said, the hon. Member for Clacton thought that the reforms did not go far enough. Indeed, the leader of his party is on record as talking about the need, in effect, to privatise our NHS. I would like to reaffirm the commitment that that will absolutely never happen under this Government or any Conservative Government.

Another important point needs to be made. Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood expressed frankly unacceptable and distasteful views on repatriation. We must of course bear in mind that 40% of staff in our NHS come from very diverse, multicultural backgrounds. We very much value the contribution that doctors, nurses and health care staff from all over the world make to our NHS. I do not want to see those people repatriated; I want to see them continuing to deliver high-quality care for patients in our NHS—something that UKIP clearly opposes.

[Mark Reckless]

I have made absolutely no such remarks; I have said only that we wanted such people to be able to stay. The disgraceful remarks were actually made by the Conservative candidate, who juxtaposed the issues of unlimited immigration and fear of crime.

[Dr Poulter]

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s remarks are very clearly on the record, and I am sure that NHS staff, many of whom come from very diverse, multicultural backgrounds, will be very aware of them. In this Conservative-led Government, we are very proud of the contribution that people from all over the world make to our NHS, and I believe that that needs to continue in the future. As we have seen from the hon. Gentleman’s leader, his party makes it up as it goes along on things to do with the NHS. It is in favour of privatisation and does not value the contribution—[Interruption.]

[Sir Tony Baldry]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is so much noise coming from the Opposition Bench below the Gangway that it is impossible even for someone who is as near to the Minister as me to hear what he is saying. Given that Labour Members appear to support this Bill, it would be a courtesy for them at least to listen to the Minister with some attention.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that all Members exercise their right to speak loudly, quietly, in stage whispers and in other ways in this Chamber. I am listening very carefully to the level of noise, and if it reaches much higher than it already has, I will ask Members to be more courteous to the Minister. However, I am quite sure that the Members present will wish to be courteous to the Minister and to hear what he has to say.

[Dr Poulter]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House—although perhaps not the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood—would like to reaffirm their commitment to and the value they place on all NHS staff, no matter what background or culture they come from. We want those staff to continue to practise in and work for our NHS to the benefit of patients.

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Dr Poulter]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has said quite enough already, and I need to make some progress.

Let me move on to the second, substantive, point in this debate, on which I hope there will be a large amount of agreement. It was articulated—

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Minister is not giving way.

[Dr Poulter]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The point was articulated very well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) in one of the best and most accurate speeches of this Parliament in an NHS debate.

[Mark Reckless]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has made a false allegation to which he has not given me the right of reply. Of course I welcome all those immigrants in the NHS. They are very welcome and we want them to stay as much as he does.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

There has been much discussion this morning about who has said what about what. My concern in the Chair is that the Bill should be discussed. That is the matter before the House, and we will discuss it.

[Dr Poulter]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the tone of that point of order made my point for me better than I could have done.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said in what was one of the best speeches on the NHS I have heard in this Parliament, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 did not introduce competition into our NHS. To say that it did is factually incorrect, scaremongering and distracts the NHS from addressing the key issues it faces. It was the creation of a mixed health economy, implemented by the previous Labour Government, that exposed our NHS to competition law, not the introduction of the Health and Social Care Act.

[Andy Burnham]

That is a very important point that goes to the heart of this debate and that really needs to be cleared up for those listening and watching. The Minister said that the Act did not introduce competition. Will he confirm that it gave, for the first time, a role to the competition authorities under the Enterprise Act 2002 and that since then they have intervened, for the first time ever in the history of the NHS, in Bournemouth and Poole?

[Dr Poulter]

What I will confirm is that it is factually correct, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury made clear, to say that it was the previous Labour Government—Tony Blair’s Government—who introduced competition into our NHS. At the end of Labour’s time in office, I believe that £6 billion a year was going to NHS providers. The right hon. Member for Leigh was quite happy to pay private sector providers 11% more than NHS providers for providing the same service. That was Labour’s commitment to the private sector, which we have cleared up and put right in the 2012 Act.

Let us remember what the Labour party said in its last general election manifesto. I am sure Labour Members will remember it well—the right hon. Gentleman may well have written it. It said:

“All hospitals will become Foundation Trusts…Foundation Trusts will be given the freedom to expand their provision…and community care, and to increase their private services”.

That is from the manifesto that every Labour Member stood on at the last election. The facts are clear: competition in our NHS was introduced well before this Parliament and well before this Government came into power. It was introduced by policies made by Members who now sit on the Opposition Benches—the policies of the previous Labour Government.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury reminded us, it was Labour that introduced the use of independent treatment centres in 2003, the “any willing provider” policy and the advent of patient choice in 2006, and it was Labour’s policies when in government that brought NHS commissioning under the scope of European competition law through the Public Contract Regulations 2006.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

There is an interesting argument taking place between the two Front Benchers about who is responsible for bringing competition into the health service, but the fact is that, no matter who is responsible, the health service could now come under the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Why will the Government not specifically exclude health services from TTIP before it is negotiated?

[Dr Poulter]

I will come on to TTIP later, and I hope I will be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman.

The previous Labour Government attempted to make commissioners compliant with the law by publishing the “Principles and rules for cooperation and competition” in 2007 and establishing the competition and co-operation panel in 2009, to oversee Labour’s NHS marketplace. Let us be clear: it was the previous Labour Government who chose to introduce private providers into our NHS and it was the previous Labour Government who set up the legal framework to support private providers in the health service.

It has been said that

“the private sector puts its capacity into the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients, which I think most people in this country would celebrate.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 251WH.]

Once again, those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Leigh when he was a Minister in the previous Government. That is a fitting memory of the previous Labour Government’s expansion of private providers in the NHS. Let us remind ourselves of the right hon. Gentleman’s words again: he said that most people in this country would celebrate the private sector in the NHS.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell]

The Minister talks about Labour privatisation, but why is it that so many Conservative Members are being paid by private companies? What are you getting money off them for? What are you doing?

[Dr Poulter]

I am just a doctor who still works in the health service and I practise medicine for free. Of course, we could go into the fact that I am the only Front Bencher present who has front-line experience of looking after patients. Professional politicians on the Opposition Benches are outlining a case that is incoherent with their record in government. We could also talk about the huge union funding that goes towards many Labour policies, but time would forbid us from doing so and I am sure that the Deputy Speaker would not want me to digress from the subject of this debate.

Let us come on to what the Health and Social Care Act actually did. First, it stripped out an entire layer of management from what was at the time an overly bureaucratic NHS. This is an important point that hon. Members would do well to listen to. The reforms will save our NHS £5.5 billion in this Parliament alone, and £1.5 billion every following year. That money is being put back into front-line patient care. In addition, as I notified the House in an answer to a recent written question, spending on administration as a proportion of the total NHS budget has fallen under this Government from 4.3% in 2010-11 to 2.9% in 2013. More money is going into front-line patient care because we have stripped out bureaucracy and administration and freed up that money to look after patients.

Between 2010 and July 2014, the number of infrastructure and administration support staff in the NHS has reduced by 10.3%, which is about 21,000. That includes a 17.7% decrease in managers and senior managers combined. Savings from reducing bureaucracy in this manner are being ploughed back into front-line patient care. For instance, we now employ 8,000 more doctors and 5,600 more nurses on our wards than in May 2010, and our NHS can do nearly 1 million more operations every year.

[Clive Efford]

The hon. Gentleman is taking us through a very detailed list of bureaucratic costs. Obviously, the Government are paying close attention to that, but why is it that when I asked them about the cost of overseeing the tendering process—the cost of lawyers, accountants and other advisers—they said that they do not collect that information?

[Dr Poulter]

I will come on later to the costs that the hon. Gentleman’s Bill would directly create. The point is that we should be proud—the Labour party should be supporting the Government—that we are reducing administration and bureaucratic costs, because that money is now being spent on patients. Why cannot Labour for once accept that a good thing has happened and that more money is now going into front-line patient care?

The second effect of the 2012 Act is that it empowered local doctors and nurses, as those closest to and most able to determine the needs of their patients, to design and lead the delivery of services around the needs of those patients. Thirdly, the Act placed great importance on and sought to drive increased integration across our NHS, a point clearly articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick). Commissioners had duties placed on them by the Act to consider how services could be provided in a more integrated way, and we have since built on the Act by supporting a number of integration pioneer sites, which will trail-blaze new ideas to bring care closer together, particularly for frail elderly people and people with complex care needs. They will be leaders of change—a change we have to see in the health system, if we want to offer the very best quality of care to patients.

We are also supporting the health and care system through the £5.3 billion better care fund, with commissioners working in partnership with local authorities to deliver more integrated person-centred care. Offering seven-day services and delivering care that is centred on patients’ needs will encourage organisations to act earlier to prevent people from reaching crisis point. That is the sort of clinical leadership that the Act has fostered. It will refocus the point of care towards more proactive community-based care, for the benefit of so many patients.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The Minister is defending fragmentation, but may I, as a former member of the Health Committee, remind him that Sir David Nicholson, the former chief exec of the NHS, summed up the situation last year by saying:

“You’ve got competition lawyers all over the place, causing enormous difficulty. We are getting, in my view, bogged down in a morass of competition law which is causing significant cost in the system”.

Is the Minister saying that the chief exec is wrong in his assessment?

[Dr Poulter]

The chief executive makes exactly the point. It was of course the Labour Government who introduced competition into the NHS. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem, he should take it up with his colleagues further along the Front Bench who they introduced competition into the NHS. Monitor, as the sector regulator, must now have regard to having better integrated services, reducing fragmentation and putting more emphasis on the best interests of patients.

The fourth effect of the Health and Social Care Act has been to provide clarity about existing NHS practices on patient choice and competition that were introduced by the previous Government. Under the Act, nothing changed from the rules laid down under Labour on how commissioners should behave when they procure services. That has been borne out, despite the myths and scare stories surrounding the Act. Simon Stevens, a former Labour special adviser under Tony Blair and now head of NHS England, said to the Health Committee that

“if the claim was that CCGs have to start putting all of their health service purchases out to public procurement, that is clearly not true and it isn’t happening”.

That was the current head of the NHS making it clear and putting the record straight on the Opposition’s scaremongering. The NHS agrees: the NHS Confederation stated in its briefing on the Bill:

“The current rules are clear that no-one can pursue competition in the NHS if it is not in the interests of patients.”

Our NHS finances bear that out. In the last financial year, spending on independent health care provision by commissioners was shown to be about 6%, compared with 5% under Labour in 2010. That is hardly evidence of the sweeping privatisation of NHS services, but it is evidence of clinical commissioners making informed, clinically led choices for the benefit of patients.

Dr Steve Kell, chair of the NHS Clinical Commissioners, has made it clear that there is not a clinical commissioning group in the land that has any kind of “privatisation agenda”. What CCGs all share is clinical expertise and an unflinching desire to improve local health services for their patients. This Government will not stand in their way or play party politics with the judgments of doctors and nurses who are making the right choices in the best interests of their patients. Indeed, Dr Michael Dixon, chair of the NHS Alliance, and others wrote in The Daily Telegraph this morning:

“As NHS doctors, we are deeply concerned about the misguided and potentially disruptive National Health Service Bill being debated today.”

Working with other key health care organisations, NHS England—I hope that Labour Members will agree with this uncontroversial point—has set out how the health system must change over the next five years, looking at new models of care delivery and taking a more integrated approach to the delivery of health and care. Earlier in the year, the head of NHS England, Simon Stevens, made it clear that if the procurement, patient choice and competition rules stood in the way of delivering the required changes, he would say so. Clearly, he has not done so.

Let me be absolutely clear: the NHS England “Five Year Forward View” did not call for further legislative change—that is what the Bill proposes—or for structural upheaval or a return to Whitehall control of our NHS. I am sure that we can all agree that NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View” was an important piece of work that deserves to have broad cross-party consensus.

Politicians now need to leave the NHS to get on with the job: let the doctors and nurses run the NHS as we have freed them up to do. We can support leaders in the system, and help to free more money for front-line care through improved NHS procurement, better estate management and reduced spending on temporary staff. However, making top-down legislative change to the system, as the hon. Member for Eltham proposes, would be disastrous at a time when we should focus on supporting our NHS to deliver better care for patients.

It is important to look at what the Bill would do. It is quite simply wrong to believe that removing the parts of the 2012 Act that relate to the competition will stop competition law applying to our NHS.

[Mr Anderson]

Is the Minister happy that, because of competition, groups such as Care UK have cut professional health workers’ pay by between 35% and 40%? How does he expect those people to feel motivated to go to work every day when they cannot afford to pay their mortgage or to look after their kids properly? Is that really what we should expect in this day and age?

[Dr Poulter]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Care UK provides a lot of the care in the social care sphere. I understand that much of the social care commissioned by local authorities is already provided by the private sector. The big idea of the right hon. Member for Leigh is about driving further integration. Under the integration plans that he has outlined, more power would of course be given to companies such as Care UK. We support integration, but it must be done in a way that always meets the best needs of local patients, and it must be evolutionary change rather than revolutionary change, working with front-line professionals to do the best for their patients.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Poulter]

Let me make a little progress on the damage that the Bill might do. As I have said, the belief that removing the parts of the 2012 Act that relate to competition will stop competition law applying to our NHS is simply wrong. That important point goes to the heart of what the right hon. Member for Leigh has said.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

rose—

[Dr Poulter]

If the hon. Lady will let me make some progress, I will come to her shortly.

The fact that such a belief is wrong was recently made clear in correspondence from Simon Stevens to the right hon. Gentleman—from one former Labour special adviser to another—which stated:

“We are, as appropriate, required to observe European procurement regulations, originally introduced in 2006, and related UK law. In everything we do we are also required to exercise our functions effectively, efficiently and economically. As a result we are advised that a blanket contracting ban would not be permissible.”

It would not be permissible because of regulations introduced by the previous Labour Government. That is another reminder that Labour introduced competition into the NHS.

As I explained earlier, under changes introduced by the previous Labour Government, health commissioners were subject to EU competition law for several years prior to the Act, and they would continue to be subject to it even if the Act was repealed.

[Dr Whiteford]

The points the Minister is making about competition take us back to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. He must be aware that the NHS across these islands is developing in very different directions, and competition has not been at the heart of what has happened in other parts of the UK. I want him to give us cast-iron guarantees today that there will be no obligation on the NHS in Scotland to open up because of that trade agreement, even if the UK decides in its favour. What opportunities are there, if the treaty exposes the Scottish Government to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady must sit down.

[Dr Poulter]

I will come to TTIP shortly, and I think that I will be able to reassure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).

The Health and Social Care Act put in place an alternative route to the courts, through Monitor, to address abuses of the rules around procurement. The Bill would remove that alternative route, meaning that future complaints under the law would result in hugely costly legal processes for health care commissioners, and complaints would be considered by the courts, rather than by Monitor, a health expert regulator. That cannot be good for patients. The Bill would result in more money for the lawyers, and much less money for our NHS and the patients that it looks after.

Another important point is that by favouring NHS over non-NHS providers, the Bill would be a move against the voluntary and charity sector providers, such as Macmillan and Marie Curie, who have done so much to help care for patients for many years.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned Macmillan. At the moment, Macmillan is in the middle of tendering for end-of-life and cancer care in Staffordshire, which hon. Members have mentioned. Although the integration that the tender requires is absolutely vital—I think that it is supported by all Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) in a recent article—one of the real problems involves the mechanism. The fact is that the integration seems to require the tender to be for the entire service, rather than for just a small contract, say, to help with integration. Will my hon. Friend comment on that, because this is one of the problems at the heart of the matter? We do not want large private companies to run our cancer and end-of-life services.

[Dr Poulter]

In a moment I will address in a little more detail a couple of the points that were raised. I reassure my hon. Friend that the section 75 regulations that underpin the 2012 Act, which are almost identical to regulations that the previous Government were involved with, outline very clearly, under regulation 10, that integrated service, or encouraging co-operation between providers in the interests of patients should not be seen as anti-competitive. Regulation 15 makes it clear that Monitor cannot direct a commissioner to hold a competitive tender. There is strong support throughout those regulations, as there is throughout the 2012 Act, for integrated service delivery in the best interests of patients, where that is appropriate.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Poulter]

I am going to make some progress—I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me—because Mr Deputy Speaker is looking at me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Yes, I am looking at you.

[Dr Poulter]

Points were made about the voluntary and charitable sector supporting innovative new models of care. Through the Newquay pathfinder project Age UK has provided volunteer support to vulnerable older people considered at risk. Under the home scheme the British Red Cross provides volunteer support to patients in their homes, which is aimed at preventing admission to, or facilitating discharge from, hospital. The charity has care in the home contracts with more than 30 NHS trusts and social services departments, and the scheme enables reduced admissions, increased convenience to patients, and many other associated benefits.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) mentioned Macmillan. I like to talk about Macmillan, which has long provided vital support to patients right across the UK. It is collaborating with doctors in Staffordshire to transform cancer care and end-of-life care, and together they aim to commission care right across the patient journey. In cancer, that means commissioning prevention and health promotion, ensuring early diagnosis and prompt treatment through survivorship and improving end-of-life care.

In reality, the only route proposed in the Bill for recourse against unfair treatment by commissioners is to take us back to the previous Labour Government’s competition laws in 2006 and open up legal challenge through the courts. Only private providers with enough resource behind them are likely to be able to afford to exist in that court-based system, to pay high legal fees, and to invest in providing NHS care to patients, and smaller providers, especially charities, will lose out. Surely we do not want to see that in our NHS—an NHS in which, I hope we all agree, charitable and small local health care organisations have something important to contribute for the benefit of patients.

Before I conclude, I must briefly address some of the misleading commentary that has surrounded TTIP, which is serving only to distract from the real debate about our NHS. First, may I state that there is absolutely no agenda whatsoever to privatise our NHS through the back door? TTIP cannot force the privatisation of public services by EU member states. This position has been made explicitly clear by us and by the relevant negotiating parties. To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous and, frankly, wrong. I encourage Members to look at the recent negotiating mandate published by the European Commission, where this position is made absolutely clear. I note the comments of Ignacio Garcia Bercero, EU chief negotiator, on the record at the end of round 7 negotiations—

[Dr Whiteford]

rose—

[Dr Poulter]

I am addressing the hon. Lady’s point, so I hope she will let me do so. Ignacio Garcia Bercero said:

“I wish…to stress that our approach to services negotiations excludes any commitment on public services, and the governments remain at any time free to decide that certain services should be provided by the public sector.”

That is a very clear reassurance, and I hope it will be accepted by all hon. Members. I will give way just once more, because I do not want to test Mr Deputy Speaker’s patience as I come to a conclusion.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am grateful to the Minister, but my understanding is that the Commission has said that if one part of the UK market is opened up through privatisation—perfectly democratically, as it could be—then all parts will be opened up. I want his assurances that Scotland will not be forced, by the back door, to privatise its NHS on the coattails of this House.

[Dr Poulter]

I believe I have given the hon. Lady those reassurances.

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Dr Poulter]

The Government’s health care reforms ensured that, as under the last Labour Government, day-to-day decisions of care delivery became the responsibility of clinically led NHS commissioners. It is for the local NHS to decide which providers, whether from the public, private or voluntary sectors, can best meet the needs of their patients and deliver high-quality care.

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Dr Poulter]

I will give way one more time in a moment, and then that really will, I am afraid, be the lot, because I know that Mr Deputy Speaker would like me to come to a conclusion.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not know what is going on with this speech. I know that the Minister is a distinguished medical person, but he is presenting the speech with so much jargon and such technical terms that very few people out there will understand the main thrust of it. The only thing many people have understood in the last few minutes is the back-door privatisation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is absolutely not a point of order, but we will hear from some other speakers if we can get to the end of this speech. We might then hear some other parts of the debate.

[Dr Poulter]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I have mentioned the benefit to patients many times in my speech, because that is, after all, what I care about as a doctor and what I care about as a Health Minister, and what I hope all hon. Members care about; I know that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) does so.

Additionally, and contrary to claims made by some, TTIP will not prevent any future Government from changing the legal framework for the provision of NHS services. Neither will it prevent the termination of the private provision of such a service in accordance with the law or contracts entered into, as is already the case today. The reassurances that we and the European Commission offered were sufficient for the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), a previous shadow Health Secretary, when he stated:

“On the NHS....my direct discussions with the EU’s chief negotiator have helped produce an EU promise to fully protect our health service including, as the chief negotiator says in a letter to me, so that: ‘any ISDS provisions in TTIP could have no impact on the UK’s sovereign right to make changes to the NHS.”

If it was good enough for the right hon. Gentleman—

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[John Healey]

rose—

[Dr Poulter]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Eltham and then I will conclude.

[Clive Efford]

That really will not wash. The Minister is saying that we must trust the Government and that they will not allow TTIP to apply to the national health service. The Bill says that this House will be sovereign; this House will decide whether TTIP applies to our national health service. Does he support that?

[Dr Poulter]

I was simply quoting the reassurances that his right hon. Friend had given to all hon. Members, which was that

“any ISDS provisions in TTIP could have no impact on the UK’s sovereign right to make changes to the NHS”.

If TTIP is good enough for the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne , it should be good enough for everyone in the Labour party.

[John Healey]

Would the Minister be good enough to concede that that has absolutely nothing to do with what the Government have been arguing; that is to do with the EU and their negotiation. The Trade Minister in charge has said that he does not want the NHS to be excluded in the way that we want.

[Dr Poulter]

No; I am simply quoting what the right hon. Gentleman has already put on the record about reassurances that he has received from the EU about an EU trade settlement. Surely, if the reassurances were good enough for him when he wanted to communicate them more broadly to his colleagues, and more broadly to members of the public, they are good enough now. It is very difficult to climb down from those reassurances, which he has previously given, and in the remarks I have made I have further reassured the House about the protection that this Government have made for the NHS in TTIP.

I am immensely proud of the way our NHS has already responded to the challenges of a growing and ageing population, meeting increased demand through a purpose and drive to improve the quality of patient care. That is why our NHS was recently ranked No. 1 in the Commonwealth Fund’s assessment of 11 global health care systems. This is at a time of unprecedented challenge to public finances across the globe, and testifies to the incredibly hard work of NHS staff and a very tough choice by this Government to protect our NHS budget and increase it by £12.7 billion between 2010 and 2015—a decision that the right hon. Member for Leigh called irresponsible but one of which we are very proud.

I remind the House of the words of the right hon. Member for Leigh when he was a Health Minister defending Labour’s record on introducing private providers into our NHS:

“I think the NHS can finally move beyond the polarising debates of the last decade over private or public sector provision”.

I agree: it is definitely time to move on. Our NHS focus needs to be on delivering for patients, so let us put distractions aside and let our hard-working doctors, nurses and health professionals get on with the job.

12:58

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on his excellent opening speech—I think it was one of the best speeches I have heard in the House—and on introducing his Bill so that we can review and reform some of the more pernicious effects of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. One of the worst was to force market tendering of services, meaning that millions of pounds are wasted on the process, money that should be spent on improving front-line patient care.

As a member of the Health Committee, I am very concerned about the increasing role that private companies are paying in providing NHS services. We recently looked at what is happening in Stoke and Staffordshire. There have been a few references to that in this debate and I will talk some more about it, but we looked at it under the label of the integrated care pioneers pilot. I want to talk more about that development as an example of just what can happen under this Government’s market framework—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are a lot of conversations and I am struggling to hear the hon. Lady. If we need to have the conversations, can we turn them down a little?

[Barbara Keeley]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The clinical commissioning groups involved plan to tender by summer 2015 a £1.2 billion contract to deliver cancer services and end-of-life care for 876,000 people across the area. The witnesses we heard from made it clear that commissioning on a disease-specific basis like this is risky. There are only a few small-scale examples of that being done anywhere, and nothing on the scale of this project. Despite the risk, we heard some worrying things about local people or local MPs not being listened to and about a lack of consultation with or involvement of hospital-based clinicians. The Minister has just referred a number of times to letting doctors get on with running the NHS, but the CCGs involved in driving this pilot are not even involving or listening to local clinicians. I and other colleagues on the Committee found that bodies such as Healthwatch England and Macmillan Cancer Support were cheerleaders for—and in Macmillan’s case, a funder of—development work on a project that could end up privatising cancer and end-of-life care for almost a million people. I for one found that disturbing. I felt, and I know that some of my colleagues did too, that there was a conflict of interest. Healthwatch England was meant to be the consumer champion of health and care.

By contrast with what Government Members have said, there was also a fair amount of concern among Committee members about the role of Macmillan Cancer Support in funding the development work when many believe that the money they give to Macmillan goes directly to cancer care. Indeed, the example I saw on the Macmillan website yesterday was that a donation would pay for a Macmillan nurse for a period to help people living with cancer and their families receive essential medical, practical and emotional support. It does not appear to be a selling point for that charity that funds would be used on a project to privatise end-of-life and cancer care in Staffordshire and Stoke.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

As I have already said, I have major concerns about the form of the contract. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) wrote, and I say this in defence of Macmillan:

“This is the context for our new cancer contract and we should not pass knee-jerk judgments upon new ideas which aim for better outcomes and efficiency.”

That is what Macmillan is after.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, but the point is that Macmillan Cancer Support is using money fundraised by the public in ways that I do not think the public would approve of. That was the key thing we explored. It is not at all clear, if we look at the Macmillan website, how it is using approaching £1 million of the public’s money, donated on that basis.

[Valerie Vaz]

My hon. Friend mentions conflicts of interest. Is she aware that one of the companies bidding for the privatisation of cancer services is UnitedHealth Group, which was advised by the chief executive of NHS England?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. Now that the shortlist for bidding has been announced for end-of-life care, we find that five of the shortlisted bidders are private companies, with only two NHS trusts on the list. For cancer care, there are three private companies and two NHS trusts. Given the seemingly headlong drive for change we found in those commissioning this large and risky contract, a great number of questions were left unanswered. For instance, despite the key role that GPs play in end-of-life care for patients choosing to die at home, the prime provider of end-of-life care will not have control over the actions of the GPs involved in that care unless a specific contract is drawn up and GPs are paid for extra tasks.

The contracts for cancer and end-of-life care are to be placed in early summer 2015, and I invite anybody with an interest in this to review the evidence and, in particular, the unanswered questions in the session the Health Committee held on 14 October. I have yet to find assurances in the evidence I have heard that the profit motive of private providers can be squared with the objective of improving cancer care and end-of-life care for patients.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Cancer care for north Wales is provided by bodies in the north-west of England. MPs on the Government Benches are saying that I, as a Welsh MP, should not have a vote on this matter. What does my hon. Friend think about that? Should I be concerned about standards of care and the privatisation of the English health service? My constituents will suffer if it is hollowed out and privatised by the Government.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend absolutely should be concerned and I know that he is.

One of the elements of cancer and end-of-life care given to us as an example of where improvement is needed in Staffordshire and Stoke was patient transport. However, we know in the north-west that going to new private providers does not tend to help. We have already had a negative experience since patient transport was contracted out to the bus company Arriva.

A number of my constituents have had problems with Arriva’s patient transport. One contacted me following a wait of more than three hours for ambulance transport to be arranged for her husband. He has terminal cancer and needed to be transported back to Salford Royal after oncology treatment at the Christie hospital. That was the second time in three weeks that this terminally ill patient had to wait two or three hours for transport. Staff at the Christie hospital told my constituent that such long waits were common, despite the fact that many oncology patients are very sick.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly because the Minister did not in the course of his very long speech. Of course, that might have been because the main emergency hospital in my constituency, Charing Cross, is being demolished, losing all but 24 of its 360 beds, losing the best stroke unit in the country and losing its A and E, which, according to board papers, is moving from the site. There will be no emergency consultancy services at all. Is not what is happening on the ground very different from the jargon-filled rubbish we heard from the Minister today?

[Barbara Keeley]

Absolutely, and I am saying what is happening on the ground to a terminally ill cancer patient.

In her letter to Arriva, my constituent told the company:

“Your company should not have this contract if it displays such a lack of concern for very ill patients causing distress to both them and their relatives”.

Not only was the delay unacceptable to a terminally ill patient, but the reply to my constituent’s complaint was one of the worst I have ever seen, as we are talking about gobbledegook. For instance, the explanation for the long wait included the following sentence:

“When an outpatient booking is made, the expected outbound blocking is automatically populated, using the throughput assumption.”

The jargon that starts at the top permeates down even to the complaint handling. It took a lot more letters to get an apology for such appalling service and such a poor reply.

Another constituent has told me of unsuitable transport and untrained staff—we have heard about this happening across the country—sent to the home of a patient who needed to use a wheelchair. That meant that the patient missed their appointment and an important investigation of their health was delayed by a number of weeks. I trust that the commissioners driving the privatisation of cancer services in Staffordshire and Stoke are aware of just how wrong transport services can go with a private transport provider.

This Government’s measures have put competition and privatisation above the needs of NHS patients. The Health and Social Care Act has put pressure on regulators to make clinical commissioning groups and NHS trusts adopt tendering processes that are not in the best interest of patients. That means wasted money, resources and time. This Bill would remove these damaging reforms, and patient care would be prioritised instead of unnecessary competition. The Bill would not prevent competition within the NHS, but it would prevent competition at the expense of patient care.

Our national health service is different from other sectors and needs a different approach. Integration to improve patient care needs collaboration rather than competition. It is a great pleasure to be in the Chamber today to speak and vote in support of the Bill.

13:08

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a few short remarks. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) is right to be concerned about any problem that occurs in the NHS, but I am sure she would accept that it is an enormous organisation and that the key point is that when things go wrong, the lessons are learned and things are put right. Most of the life of the NHS has been under Conservative Governments, and we on the Government Benches are as proud of the NHS as Labour Members are.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on being a strong voice for Labour principles, but I am concerned that the effect of his Bill will be to undermine the operational independence of the NHS, cause disruption and introduce unnecessary bureaucracy. Putting powers back with the Secretary of State through the re-establishment of powers of direction is going in the wrong direction. Preventing illness, diagnosing and treating patients are not political activities. They should be in the hands of professionals and the operational independence of the NHS means that clinical considerations are paramount. When I was a health spokesperson, I went to look at health systems in Europe, and the key point I took away was that the best systems were those with a lot of clinical input in management.

It is not necessary to rewrite the Act. Instead, the changes we have made need to work their way through. The shadow Secretary of State said that the competition element is dominant in the Act, but that is not true. The procurement policy is set out to secure the needs of patients and improve quality and efficiency. I want to give an example from my constituency of how the reforms are working. Royston is part of the Peterborough and Cambridge CCG. Before that was so, we had a proposal for the redevelopment of Royston hospital. A Royston hospital action group was formed, while the friends of Royston hospital were concerned about the proposals, which were top down. However, Tom Dutton, the CCG strategic lead, has worked tirelessly with the NHS and the local community, as has the local chairman, Dr John Hedges, a GP in Royston, and they understand local needs, so we are now getting tailored provision that suits the needs of my constituents.

I meet the CCG, councillors, local groups and other stakeholders every six weeks, and I believe that we are now getting a service for Royston and a proposal that meet local needs. The £1 billion tender for older people’s services was in our CCG area. The hon. Member for Eltham criticised the cost, but we had a consultation meeting in Royston that 150 local people attended, while 250 local people filled out the questionnaire. The proposal and consultation will have cost money, yes, but the end result was that the tender process was won by the Uniting Care partnership, an NHS partnership involving Addenbrooke’s hospital and the Cambridge and Peterborough NHS trust, and it is now delivering more joined-up care.

[Dr Huppert]

I was delighted with that outcome. One of the successes I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will mention is the better joint working between acute care, mental health care and community services to avoid delays in the transfer of care. This could be a very good outcome for the NHS and patients.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

That is exactly the point I was going to make. The process, which involved local people, has resulted in a reform that gives us the sort of joined-up care the hon. Gentleman mentions.

To conclude, the Bill seeks to prevent privatisation that is not happening on the ground, while some of the changes we have made are bringing positive benefits for people in my constituency.

13:13

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

I would like to offer my support for the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on bringing it to the House.

Members will be pleased that I intend to keep my comments brief. Our NHS is a monumental achievement and one that my party remains deeply proud of. There are many people alive today who remember what life was like before the NHS and who would never go back to a time when the poor could not afford treatment for preventable illnesses. That is the generation that truly understands what the NHS means and why we must protect it.

That is not to say that people today take the NHS for granted. In fact my inbox, like those of other hon. Members, has been overflowing with e-mails from constituents worried about the future of our health service. They want the principle of free and equal access protected and the needs of patients put before profit, as they should be. I and those people are afraid of the direction the NHS is heading in under this Government. We see the Tories wedging open the door for private companies to come in and deliver services, and we see hospitals encouraged to take on ever more private patients.

People do not believe the Government’s spin: they know that the changes are part of the creeping privatisation being encouraged by the Tories and that the reorganisation in the 2012 Act was all about Tory ideology, not patient care. The reorganisation wasted £3 billion and has seen millions more spent on tendering exercises and competition lawyers which could have been spent on treatment for those who genuinely needed it. They also know that they cannot trust a Health Secretary who has previously backed calls to dismantle the NHS or a party that brought the NHS to the brink of collapse the last time it was in power. Back then, it took a Labour Government to save the NHS, and now history is repeating itself.

The constituents who have written to me, the people I was proud to join on the NHS march earlier this year and those I joined last night for a vigil outside Parliament understand what is at stake. The NHS is more than just a service; it is a principle of fairness. Illness and accidents strike us all at some point, often without warning and leaving us little time to plan, and before the NHS, this kind of misfortune could destroy lives and condemn families to extreme poverty. Now we have a service that says nobody, whether rich or poor, should have their life ruined by misfortune. That is the principle that my hon. Friends and I are standing up for today.

13:15

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on introducing it; I shall be supporting its Second Reading today.

My support derives mainly from my and my constituents’ experiences over several years of some of the workings of the Health Act 2006, introduced by the previous Government, and the 2012 Act, introduced by this Government. In particular, two matters have been, and continue to be, of great significance: first, the two Francis inquiries into cases of dreadful care in my constituency, and secondly, the reports that have had such a major influence on the entire NHS. Just yesterday, my wife was giving a lecture to medical students on aspects of the Francis reports. It is vital that these lessons, particularly on patient safety and zero avoidable harm, are not forgotten, which is why I introduced a Bill on the subject two weeks ago.

The second concerns a more recent matter referred to already today: the review, supported by Macmillan, of cancer and end-of-life services in north Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and Cannock, which has resulted in a tender of all these services to be managed through an integrator. Just to correct the record, it is not just private companies on the tender—NHS organisations are also on it—but I still have major concerns. I am looking at this through the eyes of patients everywhere. The NHS must not be about structures or be in thrall to political dogma of any kind; it must be about safety and quality of care for all patients. I hope the Government might see the Bill in that way and use it as an opportunity to make improvements to both the 2006 Act and the 2012 Act.

I welcome clause 1. During the trust special administrator process that we had to go through, the inability of providers and commissioners to speak to one another—in some cases because of so-called commercial confidentiality —was ridiculous and without doubt delayed the process. At certain points, the whole process cried out for someone, if necessary the Secretary of State, to put everyone in a room for a day with instructions not to leave until everything had been sorted out. However, everybody was walking on eggshells in case they did something that might result in a judicial review and a reversion to square one. That was not in the interests of patients. That is not to be critical of those involved: for the most part they tried very hard and we got a better result than at some points we feared.

I want to make a serious point about clause 1 and the desire for the Bill to place the running of the NHS firmly in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is vital that there should not be too much hands-on running of the NHS by the Secretary of State—the British Medical Association, which has some very positive comments about the Bill, says that as well.

I am short of time, so let me conclude by talking about cancer and end-of-life services, which have been raised today. The problem is the way in which the NHS is funded and the fact that the tender is for all services involved in those pathways. It would have been much more sensible for the tender to help the work of integration, which would have involved a much smaller amount, rather than the full amount of services.

[Clive Efford]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

13:19

Division 89

Ayes: 239

---

Labour: 218
Liberal Democrat: 6
Scottish National Party: 6
UK Independence Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Conservative: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 20

---

Conservative: 20

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

13:34

Division 90

Ayes: 241

---

Labour: 218
Liberal Democrat: 7
Scottish National Party: 6
UK Independence Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Conservative: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 18

---

Conservative: 18

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63.)

[Clive Efford]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that, in order to go into Committee, this Bill requires a resolution from the Government. Given the overwhelming number of people who turned up on a Friday to support it, would it not be churlish of the Government not to pass that resolution and make sure that this Bill goes into Committee forthwith?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As you pointed out, it is something for the Government, but not me, to take on board.

Zero Hours Contracts Bill

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

13:50

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

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

In politics, it is said that there are no final victories and no final defeats; that each generation must fight many of the same battles that the generation before have, and that the generation after may have to fight as well. Today, I am fighting for the same thing that people of every generation have fought for: the right to decent and secure conditions and terms of employment.

It is not a great ask. A well-paid and steady job is the bedrock on which people build their lives. It is the starting point for planning for the future, and the platform of stability needed to pay the bills, meet the rent, pay the mortgage and start a family. Those are not extravagances, but the minimum that should be available to any person who is prepared to work to pay their way in a wealthy nation such as ours. Yet that stability and security is denied to millions of workers in this country. Increasingly, people are finding themselves plagued by job insecurity, not knowing from one day to the next whether they will be working or earning.

In recent years, the rise in the number of those feeling insecure at work has been startling. In 2011, 6.5 million people surveyed said that they felt insecure in their work. By this year, that number had almost doubled to 12 million people.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Mearns]

Let me make some progress. What we have witnessed is not so much an economic recovery as an economic transformation. Almost daily, the Government boast about job creation in the private sector, but the truth is that the jobs that were lost due to the global economic crash and the Government cuts have been largely replaced by low-skilled, low-waged and, sadly, insecure jobs. It is leaving large swathes of the work force living on, or just above, the breadline.

As they are so keen to remind us, the Conservatives have a long-term economic plan, but it is not one for the working person. Nowhere is that clearer than in the explosion in the use of zero-hours contracts. As recently as last year, the coalition was claiming that slightly more than 200,000 people were employed on zero-hours contracts. The true figure, as revealed by the Office for National Statistics, was in fact seven times higher than Government Ministers admitted—a staggering 1.4 million people engaged in zero-hours employment contracts.

Zero-hours contracts—if they are used at all—are supposed to be used for short-term or seasonal work, occupying a niche in the labour market, but the reality is that they have become the norm across many sectors.

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Gentleman makes reference to the number of zero-hours contracts that exist at the moment. Back in 2000, the ONS estimated that there were 225,000 people on zero-hours contracts. Why is it all right for people to be on a zero-hours contract under a Labour Government, but not under a Conservative- led one?

[Ian Mearns]

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me point out that Ministers in his own Government were admitting to 200,000 such contracts only three years ago, but there are now 1.4 million of them, which is a massive burgeoning in the use and exploitation of workers through the abuse of zero-hours contracts.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on the use of zero-hours contracts, but is not the proof of the pudding always in the eating? Although unemployment has gone down in this country, the tax-take to the Treasury from income tax has stayed flat, despite the Treasury predicting a huge increase. That shows that we have under-employment and a massive explosion in zero-hours contracts.

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Government Members celebrate the fact that 3 million workers have been taken out of tax completely, but they are also celebrating the fact that 2 million of them are earning £200 or less a week. I do not think that is anything to celebrate in this day and age.

Given the variety of employers now using zero-hours contracts, from Sports Direct to Buckingham palace even, it is clear that they are not just filling a niche; they are also being exploited by unscrupulous employers looking to dodge their responsibilities to their staff.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about employers exploiting their workers by giving them zero-hours contracts. I presume that within that group he includes all the Labour councils that employ people that way. Has he done any investigations into why so many Labour councils employ so many people on zero-hours contracts?

[Ian Mearns]

As a matter of fact, I have. I would ask colleagues engaged in public service provision up and down the country to think very deeply about their employment practices. I do not condone it, but I know that for some workers zero-hours contracts are a handy way of gaining part-time employment, but only part-time employment. Many find it very difficult to sustain an ordinary family life on a zero-hours contract.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is not the fact of the matter that the Bill, if we manage to pass it, would prevent anyone, whether a Labour council, a Tory council or even a Tory MP, from employing people on zero-hours contracts? They would be abolished entirely.

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Bill seeks to curtail the use of zero-hours contracts severely.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He is making a powerful case for how morally repugnant that kind of employment is, but does he also agree that more enlightened employers say that it is actually a lazy form of employing people and that, with more thought, those employees could have proper contracts and proper hours?

[Ian Mearns]

I will be developing that point in due course.

The gross weekly average wage for a zero-hours contract worker is £236, which is a full £246 less than the average wage for those in regular, full-time employment. We really need to think about the fact that in a nation such as ours, and in this day and age, so many people are employed on irregular hours and earn a mere £236 a week. Workplaces that utilise zero-hours contracts have a higher proportion of staff on low pay, and those employed on zero-hours contracts also work fewer hours—they work an average of 21 hours a week—than those in other part-time jobs who are not on zero-hours contracts, who work an average of 31 hours a week.

Zero-hours contracts are an employer’s paradise. In fact, they are a one-way street, because they demand total flexibility and commitment from individual employees but offer very little in return from the employer.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he accept that while those employers want it all their own way, they often penalise young people, in particular? For instance, when people cannot agree to work an extra shift, they find that they are offered no shifts the following week.

[Ian Mearns]

Absolutely. It is that sort of intermittent work pattern that is often exploited, because sadly in many parts of the country there is a surplus of labour, with many people either unemployed or underemployed.

Employees must agree to make themselves available for work but receive no guarantee of work in return. Workers find themselves being called into work at the drop of a hat or having their shifts cancelled with only a couple of hours’ notice or, in some cases, after they have already incurred the expense of travelling to work or arranging child care. They turn up at their place of work, only to be told, “We’ve nothing for you today.”

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that putting people in that position limits their ability to be economically engaged, because they cannot plan or apply for mortgages and all the rest of it? That might be to the benefit of the exploitative employer, but it does nothing to help the economy or people by giving them security of employment.

[Ian Mearns]

I could not agree more. I do not see the benefit to a local economy of having so many people on low pay. A low pay, low disposable income economy is not good for other small businesses in the area that are trying to sell their goods and services in the local market, which is deprived of disposable income.

Employees are expected to perform all the roles of a regular employee but have no entitlement to sick leave, holiday pay, overtime payments or many of the hard-won rights and protections that have been gained by work forces over the years.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way; I realise that he is struggling to maintain the flow of his speech. Will he join me in celebrating the work of our citizens advice bureaux? Mine in Musselburgh highlighted in its annual report the case of a man who had gone from five days a week on a zero-hours contract to two days. His employer would not pay him statutory sick pay or paternity pay, and then it turned out that the employer was not even paying him the minimum wage. It is just not good enough.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend’s example exemplifies the exploitative practices and abuse by some employers. For Government Members to deny that this is happening is unbelievable.

These are employment practices from another era, which is where they should remain. Zero-hours contracts are a new manifestation of the casualisation of the labour market, a race to the bottom in wages and terms and conditions, and a return to the bad old days of workers queuing at the factory gates, the shipyard or the pit and hoping to be picked to be employed for the day.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The growth of zero-hours contracts, together with other practices such as the appearance of payroll companies and umbrella companies, and the growth of bogus self-employment, means that in certain sectors we are seeing the virtual abolition of permanent and full-time work.

[Ian Mearns]

I could not agree more. As was pointed out earlier, it is about sloppy planning on the part of employers. If they looked at the way they employ people, they could rationalise the way in which their production and output work, and it would be better for the company if they did so.

Dockers—I meet old dockers, and sons and daughters of dockers—remember queuing for work every day, and being told to “sling their hook” when there was none. When sufficient men had been selected for work on a particular day, the rest were told to go home. The same practice has acquired a modern veneer. Rather than queuing at their place of work, people simply receive a text a couple of hours before a shift starts saying, “No work today.” This creates a desperate and easily exploitable work force.

I am sure every Member is aware of the horror stories we have heard concerning adult social care, where 307,000 workers are employed on zero-hours contracts. Employers frequently use such contracts to circumvent their obligation to pay the national minimum wage.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Fast-food companies such as McDonald’s spend thousands and thousands of pounds in this place, providing hospitality to right hon. and hon. Members at receptions. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking colleagues who feel it necessary to go along and sup the wine of people who are profiteering from zero-hour contracts for young people either to refuse to go to such a reception or, if they do go, to ask how many workers are employed by the company on zero-hours contracts?

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In our community leadership role, as Members of Parliament representing constituencies throughout the country, we should be giving the lead on this by not giving succour to companies which, as he says, are engaged in these exploitative practices.

[Mr George Howarth]

My hon. Friend mentioned the old dock employment practices, which were known in Liverpool as the “pen system”, for all the obvious reasons. Is it not instructive that it was a Labour Government, when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister, who abolished that system? Who abolished that in its turn? The Thatcher Government.

[Ian Mearns]

That comes as no surprise. The deregulation of workplace practices is the stock in trade of Members on the Government Benches.

Anyone who has had any experience of the hospitality sector will be familiar with workers being too frightened to turn down shifts or to make a complaint at work because of the fear that they will be “zeroed out” and employed for zero hours per week—in other words, no work this week and no work next week. Since the recession, there have been countless stories of employers who have fired their staff only to rehire them on zero-hours contracts, meaning that their workers are no longer entitled to sick leave, holiday pay, and other rights and protections.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. He mentioned adult social care workers. A constituent who came to see me highlighted just how little economic sense zero-hours contracts make for the taxpayer as well. From one week to the next, he may or may not be able to pay his rent and may need housing benefit support. That creates a total mess for the systems that have to provide support to these people on very insecure work contracts. The cost to the taxpayer of sorting out that mess is adding to the problem. Employers need to step up to the mark.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

With regard to people working in the adult social care sector, it is right that we want the very best quality of care for the most vulnerable people in society—the elderly, the frail, the disabled and so on—who rely on these social care contracts, yet we expect people who are being paid next to nothing to conduct that high-quality care. I find that bizarre.

[Ian Lavery]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation at HMP Northumberland, where Sodexo, a French catering company, has privatised the prison and sacked or made redundant more than a third of the work force? It does not have enough people to make the prison safe, but it is bringing in people on banked-hours and zero-hours contracts. That is an outrage.

[Ian Mearns]

I could not agree more.

I was talking about the hospitality sector. Whether we allow this exploitation and abuse to continue is a question not just of whether these contracts are fair on the employee but of what type of society we want to live in and what type of economy we want to work in. Do we really expect our sick and elderly to get the care they deserve when those we trust to care for them live in fear and trepidation, not knowing whether they will earn enough to keep the heating on or buy the weekly shop? Do we really think that we will reduce the benefits bill—the frequently stated intention of the Government—when only state subsidies for employers paying poverty wages are keeping our work force’s heads above water?

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

My hon. Friend is making a terrific speech, and I am proud to support his private Member’s Bill. I completely agree with his points about the hospitality sector. May I also draw his attention to very profitable companies where there is no real excuse for the employer to switch from existing contracts of employment to zero hours? I am thinking of JD Sports, for example, where 90% of the work force were switched from standard contracts to zero hours. It is sheer exploitation so that the workers cannot be paid pensions and other benefits.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and powerful point.

Given that there is an inextricable link between job security and consumer confidence, do we really think that workers with little or no job security, living in a climate of fear, are the foundation of a successful Britain in a globalised world? In the previous two centuries, tremendous and hard-fought-for progress was made on workers’ rights and conditions of service, and it is madness to spend the 21st century going into reverse.

The principle enshrined in the Bill is simple: if someone works regular hours they should have a regular fixed-hours contract, along with all the rights and protections afforded to regular workers. It is unacceptable that a person who works as a full-time employee, sometimes for many months, or even years, remains on a zero-hours contract.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that this system does not work for the people who receive these services? Many constituents have said to me that they have people, particularly in the social care sector, coming into their homes and carrying out very personal tasks for them, and that they need consistency. They want to know that the same person is coming in and that they can trust that person, and that does not happen with zero-hours contracts.

[Ian Mearns]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I repeat that if we really want to care for the most vulnerable in our society, we should have people in professional positions doing so on a regular basis. The familiarity of seeing the same person time and again is the bedrock of a care system.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill, which is going through the other place at the moment? It has been described as “utter tosh” by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the previous Attorney-General, and is designed to increase the number of volunteers. The big society seems to be an idea whose time has gone. The Bill is designed to push people not into zero-hours contracts, but into zero-pay contracts.

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I have the greatest admiration for many people up and down the country who devote their time freely to volunteering for a whole range of charitable and local causes. At the same time, however, I detest the fact that those volunteers are replacing full-time, paid jobs, because that is not good for the local economy.

My Bill states that if someone has been in a job for 12 weeks, they will become a regular employee entitled to a fixed and regular-hours contract with all the conditions of service that go with it. We will not prosper as a society or grow the type of economy we need as long as more than 1 million workers go to sleep at night not knowing whether they will have the much-needed earnings from the next morning’s shift. The Bill would allow workers to escape from the financial limbo in which many of them find themselves.

The Bill states that if someone’s employer requests or requires them to work without giving reasonable notice of three days, they should be paid time and a half for a shift ordered within those three days. It also states that if their employer cancels their shift at the last minute, they should not be plunged into financial instability but paid in full for the period in question.

That will take a measure of improved work force and production planning by employers, but that is not a bad thing in itself; it is actually good for companies to rationalise the way in which they engage people. The Bill would return a degree of mutuality and fairness to the employment arrangements with which many of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society find themselves.

I am delighted that Labour Front Benchers have pledged to stamp out the abuse of zero-hours contracts when they are elected to government in 2015, but I do not believe that underpaid, insecure, zero-hours contract workers—our constituents—should have to wait until then.

People outside this place see zero-hours contracts for what they are: Victorian-era employment practices that have no place in a modern, 21st-century economy. Those employed on them know only too well what a zero-hours contract means: low pay, insecure work and zero rights in the workplace. If the Government will not support our plans, it will yet again fall to a Labour Government to protect the interests of ordinary working people doing a decent day’s work in workplaces up and down this nation.

14:13

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on promoting his Bill and on his speech. I very much enjoyed the time I spent working with him on the Backbench Business Committee and I would like to think that everybody would agree that he is one of the nicest people in this House. I wish him well personally, even though I cannot particularly guarantee that I will support his Bill. I hope he will realise that that is not meant personally in any way, because he is a good guy and I certainly do not doubt his sincerity in promoting the Bill. Anyone could tell from his speech that he clearly feels very strongly about it, and I am all for people who stand up for things they believe in. The hon. Gentleman believes in this Bill and more power to his elbow for that. [Hon. Members: “But?”] There is a “but” and it would be quite a lengthy one if I had the time.

To be perfectly honest, I must say, and we need to get this on the record before the clock counts us out, that it is a bit rich for the Labour party to come here en masse to pretend that they are massively opposed to zero-hours contracts, when if one believes what one reads in the press—I am one of those who does, rightly or wrongly—it appears that some of the worst offenders are not only Labour councils, but Labour MPs. I do not know whether any of those in the Chamber want to fess up today, but perhaps those who skulked out quietly at the start of this debate are the guilty parties. I read somewhere—so it must be true—that 62 Labour MPs, which I reckon is about a quarter of them, actually employ their staff on zero-hours contracts, which I cannot believe.

[Andy McDonald]

That was a very nice attempt at a smear. Will the hon. Gentleman say where that was published and where the information is, and how about naming some names? He cannot just cast that out on to the water as if it were true.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman’s problem and mine is that the unnamed Labour MPs do not, for some reason, admit to it. They do not come out and say that they use zero-hours contracts.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I will in a second. We can all understand why they do not want to draw attention to the fact.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will give way when he is ready. The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) does not have to remain standing. I do not want her knees to give way while she is waiting, because it could be a long time.

[Philip Davies]

I would be perfectly happy for us to have some way of admitting whether we employ our staff on zero-hours contracts. I do not, and I have no intention of doing so, but perhaps there might be something that we all sign.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The issue is not about which councils or which MPs use zero-hours contracts. If the hon. Gentleman and the Government supported our Bill, everyone would be banned from using them. Surely the issue is about stopping the use of zero-hours contracts.

[Philip Davies]

I understand that point, and it was made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) during the opening speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead. I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Wansbeck, but I am a big fan of his as well. He is also a good guy, and he stands up for what he believes in.

[Jim Sheridan]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a second.

My problem with such an argument is that no law currently makes it compulsory to employ somebody on a zero-hours contract. Nothing forces any Labour council to employ somebody on a zero-hours contract; it is their choice. My point is that if the Labour party genuinely wanted to end zero-hours contract, the best thing to do would be to start by smartening up their act and to make sure that no Labour MPs or councils employ people on such contracts.

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

There is not much time left, but I will do my best to squeeze in the hon. Gentleman.

It is not just any old Labour councils that go for zero-hours contracts. I know that Bury council, the council of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), is one of the worst offenders, but so is the council in Doncaster, my home town. People in Doncaster have the honour, the privilege or the misfortune—I do not know which, but we can all choose an appropriate adjective—not just to have the Leader of the Opposition as one of their MPs, but to have their three local MPs in the shadow Cabinet. They are blessed with highly talented people, including the Leader of the Opposition, as their local MPs. If the abolition of zero-hours contracts was so important for the Labour party, one would think that its leader, who is the Leader of the Opposition, might just have enough clout in Doncaster, with an elected Labour mayor and a majority Labour council, to encourage it to get rid of zero-hours contract. There are two things at play. Either the Labour party really has no intention of getting rid of zero-hours contracts and does not really care about them, or the Leader of the Opposition has so little clout within his party, and so few persuasive skills, that he cannot even persuade a Labour council and an elected Labour mayor to do it.

[Jim Sheridan]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I am going to call the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) my hon. Friend, because he is a great man, a fellow member of the Select Committee. I know that has probably finished off his career for good, but he is a great man. I give way to him, because he has been waiting patiently.

[Jim Sheridan]

I am sorry I stood up. First, I plead not guilty to employing people on zero-hours contracts—not guilty, your honour. I would also quite like to exonerate my local authority from engaging people on zero-hours contracts. Not only does it not engage people on zero-hours contracts, but it pays them the living wage.

[Philip Davies]

I very much welcome that intervention. To be honest, I would never have thought that the hon. Gentleman was one of the people who used zero-hours contracts. He is a good man and he does not only stand up for what he believes in; he practises what he preaches. I take my hat off to him for that.

We have a good process of elimination going on here. If we could just get every single Labour MP before us, we could go through them one by one and find out which have been using zero-hours contracts.

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Ian Lavery]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I will give way in a second.

However, I think what we have safely also found out today is that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North has much better powers of persuasion than the leader of his party. If only he were leader of his party the party might not be in the dire straits that it is in at the moment.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I do not want to indulge this atmosphere of—

[Philip Davies]

Go on—admit it!

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am not admitting it; I absolutely do not use zero-hours contracts. I think part of the problem is that many local authorities do not have tight enough procedures with subcontractors; I would encourage them so to do. The point I wanted to make is this: is not what we are all concerned about in-work poverty and the 59% increase in such in-work poverty?

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful. We have had a second Labour view. I think, if I heard correctly, the hon. Gentleman said that he does not employ anybody on a zero-hours contract. That is two down—plenty more to go.

[Ian Mearns]

I am aware that colleagues from all parties occasionally employ people on a task-and-finish basis—a fixed fee for doing a particular task, using the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority payments system. That may have been interpreted by the Daily Mail as employing people on zero-hours contracts.

[Philip Davies]

We are getting nearer. I fear that if we go much further, we will get a full confession at some point.

[Ian Lavery]

This is a really serious debate, but we seem to be trivialising it, suggesting that the problem is perhaps the fault of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) hit the nail on the head. I think it was in 2000 that only 200,000 people in this country were on zero-hours contracts. As we sit in the Chamber today, there are 1.4 million people on zero-hours contracts. That is the real problem. I stand for the total abolition of zero-hours contracts for every single person, regardless of where they work.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There is a certain amount of dispute over the actual number of people who are on zero-hours contracts. The labour force survey, which collects data on individual workers, not on the number of contracts, and asks employees and not workers for the information, has an estimate for the fourth quarter of 2013 of 583,000 people on zero-hours contracts. There is clearly a dispute over the figures. I am not necessarily saying that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are wrong in their figures; they have obviously sourced those figures from somewhere. Those who compile the labour force survey have different figures.

I genuinely do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s logic. He seems to be saying that it is absolutely fine for 200,000 people to be on zero-hours contracts, but that it is an absolute scandal for 1.4 million people to be on those contracts. Either zero-hours contracts are a good thing or they are a bad thing. Surely it cannot be a question of, “Because there were only 200,000 people on zero-hours contracts when Labour was in office, that was fine; that was a reason to do absolutely nothing about it and bury our heads in the sand, but now there are a few more of them, it is a massive scandal and we need to do something about it.” Either zero-hours contracts are right or they are wrong. The number of people who are on them cannot be the determining factor.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I give way to the hon. Lady first.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The public might be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman favours or opposes zero-hours contracts. Throughout everything he has said, he has not made that clear. Since he is attempting to criticise certain councils, that might mean that he is against zero-hours contracts. Perhaps he would like to support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) today?

[Philip Davies]

If Labour Members were not so enthusiastic in standing up to admit whether they employ anyone on a zero-hours contract or otherwise, I might get around to starting my speech. If I were able to do so, we might get into the nitty-gritty of the debate, but I am afraid that all of my time thus far has been taken up in dealing with excitable Labour Members which means that we cannot have the debate that the hon. Lady wants.

[Graeme Morrice]

I just want to follow up on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). I appreciate that we only have about five minutes left and I know that the hon. Gentleman has said that he has yet to start his speech, but perhaps to save a bit of time he could tell us whether he is in favour of zero-hours contracts or not. If he is not, will he give me an indication of whether he will support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)?

[Philip Davies]

I would like to think that I made it clear at the start of my speech that I do not support the Bill. For many workers, particularly students, zero-hours contracts are a good thing. They suit their patterns, they help them and they are a good way into the employment market. It suits their lifestyle to have zero-hours contracts. Some people have zero-hours contracts through choice; they are not all awful. I do not want to ban something that many people have by choice. So no, I do not agree with the Bill.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. When is he going to get on to that part of the Bill that makes it clear that those proposing it are not against zero-hours contracts completely and do not wish to outlaw them? They just wish to limit them, yet all their rhetoric has been about outlawing zero-hours contracts.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I would have liked to have humoured him by going through all this in as much detail as he would want, but it appears that time is against us. He is right to draw attention to the fact that once again—the situation is very similar to the previous debate—the Labour party is trying to give an impression to its voters, perhaps running scared of UKIP in its constituencies, that its Members believe in something. Yet the Bill proposed is nothing like the rhetoric that accompanies it.

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one can always make improvements to zero-hours contracts? This is the first Government to have consulted on zero- hours contracts, we have got rid of the exclusivity clauses and we are bringing in transparency to ensure that people know they are on zero-hours contracts.

[Philip Davies]

I have no doubt that the Government are moving towards the Labour party on this issue; they tend to move towards the Labour party on most issues. The Minister’s confirmation of that fact comes as no surprise to me and I do not think it will come as much of a surprise to anybody.

[Mr Vaizey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is always dangerous to try to get him on side and that it can often backfire on a Minister?

[Philip Davies]

That is probably true.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman was complaining about the direction in which his party is moving, so I wondered in which party’s direction he was moving.

[Philip Davies]

I am not moving in any direction. As I have for the past 10 years, I am staying where I am in every possible regard. I do not move my views and policies based on what the latest opinion poll says or what the other parties might say. If there is one thing the people might be able to agree about it is that I stick to what I believe in, no matter how popular or unpopular it is or whatever the passing trend or fad. I stick up for what I believe in, which is something I have in common with the hon. Member for Gateshead. He does much the same.

In the limited time left, I want to pick up on one more point. It was unfortunate, as I do not think the hon. Gentleman intended to say this, but he seemed to indicate that zero-hours contracts were linked to quality of care.

[Ian Mearns]

indicated assent.

[Philip Davies]

He is nodding in agreement. I think that is unfair on those people who work in the care sector on zero-hours contracts. There is no evidence that they give any worse care than other people—

14:30

The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).

Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 28 November.

Business without Debate

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

Local Government (Religious ETC. Observances) Bill

Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Public Services (Ownership and User Involvement) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2015.

Carers Bedroom Entitlement (Social Housing Sector) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 9 January 2015.

Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 5 December.

Road Traffic Regulation (Temporary Closure for Filming) Bill

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (7 November), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 28 November.

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (24 October), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 28 November.

House of Lords (Maximum Membership) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November.

EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November.

Wild Animals in Circuses Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November.

A1(M) (Hertfordshire)

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

14:32

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the issue of Hertfordshire’s roads and the widening of the A1(M), which is an important concern for my constituents, Hertfordshire and the UK economy.

Each morning and evening on the A1(M), between Welwyn Garden City and Stevenage, there are long tailbacks, and this bottleneck is affecting several constituencies and our national infrastructure. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), the trunk roads Minister, for agreeing to meet me, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), to discuss in more detail what improvements might be possible.

Given that the Minister agreed to this meeting, it might be helpful if I set out some of the main concerns. Hertfordshire is one of the most productive of revenue-raising counties in the country. Its geographical location and the nature of its economy make it suited to sustainable business growth. It has world-beating industry, such as Johnson Matthey in Royston, and major companies, such as MBDA and GlaxoSmithKline in Stevenage. Watford is a business success and the county is a centre for the cultural industries: it is home to Elstree studios, and many film and television programmes are shot on location in the county. Letchworth garden city, in my constituency, has an innovative Da Vinci school specialising in training young people, from 14 to 19, in cultural industry skills.

The Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership makes it clear that congestion is a key issue for businesses and residents and that addressing the issue will be instrumental in accommodating further growth in the county. The LEP believes that increased capacity on the A1(M) is the No. 1 priority for the county’s road network between 2015 and 2020. Our strong local science base has huge potential for further growth. Some 861 hectares of employment land are accessed from the A1(M), and the area employs 200,000 people, with 60,000 commuting in. Many homes are due to be built in the corridor over the next 20 years. By 2017, that section of the A1(M) will be under even greater stress and will struggle to accommodate any growth in the corridor without additional capacity.

Hertfordshire can be accessed easily from London and the midlands. It is convenient for the east coast ports and it has five railways and main roads—the A1(M), the A5, the A6, the A41, the M1, the M11 and the M25—that provide access to the rest of the country. We also have two airports, at Luton and Stansted, on the borders of the county, which open it up to the rest of Europe. This successful part of the country needs a well-functioning and well-funded transport infrastructure. Although much of our infrastructure is good, there are instances where we are let down. I would like to elaborate on three of them and consider the widening of the A1(M) a little later.

I held an Adjournment debate on the subject of roads of Hertfordshire in 1998, in which I called for three bypasses in my constituency: one for Baldock, one for Wadesmill to Puckeridge, and one around Royston. I can report that two have been built, which is a substantial investment, but not the one for Royston. There has long been a bypass to the north of the town, diverting the east-west A505 around it. However, the north-south A10 still goes right through the town centre. In the 17 years since I first called for a bypass on the A10, the situation has, if anything, worsened. The joint success of London, Hertfordshire, the midlands and Cambridgeshire, and a natural growth in the town’s population has put even more pressure on our road networks. Royston’s problems are becoming more serious, with heavy traffic streams through the town on a daily basis, tailbacks and road congestion clogging up Melbourn road, which affects children attending the main schools located on the other side of the A10.

Both the town council and local county councillors are united behind a plan to improve the situation with a bypass. In 1994, the Highways Agency announced that it supported the construction of an A10 bypass at Royston and the then Minister pledged to keep the case under review. I think you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is a long review. Royston remains the only town on the A10 between London and King’s Lynn without a bypass. In my view the case is a strong one. I wonder whether the Minister would write to me about how best to make progress on that.

We have been fortunate locally in recently gaining funding from Government for a bypass on the A120 around Little Hadham and improvements to the A602, both in my constituency. The county council is consulting on the detail of those schemes, but given the strategic importance of the link between the A10 and the A120 in relation to Stansted airport and travel on the A120 east of Bishop’s Stortford, I would be grateful if the Department started to consider how best to improve the route further. I would argue that a Standon bypass is needed to complement the works that have already been agreed.

I should like now to turn to issues surrounding the widening of the A1(M). I have described the huge value of Hertfordshire in terms of its businesses and local enterprise. From our multinational corporations to our small and medium-sized enterprises, at all levels of the supply chain our businesses are successful. UK Trade & Investment says that inward investment to Hertfordshire shows a 61% increase in the last year. Members of Hertfordshire chamber of commerce tell us that the pool of skills comes not just from local residents. Major companies such GSK and Airbus, although based in north Hertfordshire, cast a wide net for employment. Those commuters must be catered for on our roads. The road network is not as strong as it should be, so some of Hertfordshire’s potential is not being realised.

One of the most important of those roads is the A1(M). Starting in London, it moves into Hertfordshire, servicing Hatfield, Welwyn, Stevenage and Letchworth in my constituency, and then goes on to Peterborough, Doncaster, Leeds and finally Edinburgh. The road is important in getting workers to work and also products out to the UK market and beyond. London and Edinburgh are extremely important in that, and recent announcements by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the creation of a northern hub will make the A1 even more significant. The section between Welwyn and Huntingdon needs further improvement. The road is not as good as it should be. The section of the A1(M) between Stevenage and Welwyn is important, but it is composed of only two lanes in each carriageway. Every morning and evening, the road is congested and tailbacks are long, as the road narrows for that section.

I recently received a letter from a constituent in Letchworth, explaining that these problems had lasted for 25 years. He said:

“During that time I have travelled up and down the AIM between Letchworth gate and the clock roundabout at Welwyn and ended up going into work before 7 and coming home after 7 in the evening to miss the jams on the AIM. Even when I was travelling 25 years ago the bottleneck of the dual carriageway motorway from the Corey’s Mill roundabout at the Hitchin Junction and the clock roundabout is a crawl that adds considerably to travel time, pollution and frustration…Even today when I travel to Heathrow or Gatwick airport you either have to travel at 5 in the morning or the day before and the cost of a hotel because of the bottleneck. Successive governments have failed…on upgrading the road to 3 lanes in each direction.”

Junction 7 at Stevenage connects one of the biggest industrial areas in Hertfordshire with the rest of the UK, but drivers see regular queues on the motorway and some members of the Herts chamber of commerce suggest that continued non-remedied access to Stevenage could prompt them to relocate. We cannot let this happen. At the other end of the two-lane section, Welwyn Garden City junction 6 is dead-centre of the so-called golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London. The problems here are a blight on one of the powerhouses of the UK economy.

Some changes to the slip road at junction 6 have been suggested, but there is confusion locally about the announced managed motorway solution. At first, it spoke of use of the hard shoulder to add capacity, but that was then rejected by the Department for Transport. One of the best and simplest things that could be done is the widening of this section of the A1(M) to three lanes on each carriageway. This would allow for a greater stream of traffic, it would ease congestion and enable an important national connection to flow more freely. Businesses would be helped, things would be made easier for commuters, less time would be spent in traffic jams and it would reduce pollution.

Hertfordshire is a strong contributor to the UK and to public spending across the country. Hertfordshire contributes £12 billion in tax revenues each year and receives £8 billion in public expenditure—meaning that the county’s net contribution is £4 billion a year. My constituents feel that some of these public funds should be used in Hertfordshire to sort out the problems I have outlined.

I look forward to meeting the trunk roads Minister with my colleagues. I hope that the Minister responding today will be able at least to acknowledge the importance of the Hertfordshire economy and the need for a good strong infrastructure to support it.

14:42

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertshire (Sir Oliver Heald) on securing this debate on future strategic improvements to the A1(M). The great north road is a very important trunk road for this country, and coming from the great north myself I understand its importance. Indeed, much has already been done on the A1, as many sections have been upgraded to motorway standard, and we look forward to further investment in this very important route in the future.

I know that my hon. and learned Friend has been supporting his constituents, local businesses and the local economy by pursuing improvements to the A1(M) to unlock potential growth in Hertfordshire throughout the year. I applaud his engagement with the A1(M) consortium and would hold up this cross-organisational body as a good example of a constructive approach to stimulating debate and developing consensus on the way forward for Hertfordshire.

Before I passed over responsibility for strategic roads to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), I took a particular interest in the issue of the A1(M) in Hertfordshire, meeting both my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and the editor of the Welwyn Hatfield Times to discuss future improvements to this road. At those meetings, I made it clear that my Department would give serious consideration to this issue, together with taking early action to address pinch points.

I also know that my hon. and learned Friend expects to bring a number of MPs from across Hertfordshire to a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who is responsible for strategic roads in order to set out the case for widening the A1(M) from the M25 to Letchworth before the autumn statement.

Before I respond to the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend, it is perhaps worth taking the opportunity to set out this Government’s position on investment in the strategic road network and the history of proposals for major improvements to the A1(M), as well as setting out how my Department will consider options for future major investments.

The strategic road network is the Government’s largest single asset, currently valued at about £100 billion and comprising approximately 4,350 miles of motorways and all-purpose trunk roads. The Government recognise the importance of transport infrastructure to support the economy, and we have already announced increased Government funding to deliver improvements targeted at supporting economic growth. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear our commitment to deliver a step change in investment in transport infrastructure in his statement on 26 June 2013, when he announced the conclusions of the Government’s spending review of that year.

The Treasury’s Command Paper “Investing in Britain’s future” said that the Government would invest more than £28 billion in enhancements to, and maintenance of, national and local roads, and confirmed that we would provide funding for the building of a number of Highways Agency major road projects to tackle the most congested parts of the network, subject to value for money and deliverability.

On current investment in the strategic road network in Hertfordshire, smart motorway systems are now in operation between junctions 23 and 27 of the M25. Smart motorways help to relieve congestion by using technology to vary speed limits, and they also allow the hard shoulder to be allowed as a running lane to create additional capacity. They deliver those benefits at a significantly lower cost than conventional motorway widening, and with less impact on the environment during construction. The project is already relieving congestion and smoothing the flow of traffic, which is improving safety and journey times. Those benefits are also supporting economic development in the region.

The pinch point programme forms part of the UK Government’s growth initiative, which was outlined in the autumn statement in November 2011. That was followed up with the allocation of further funding in the 2012 autumn statement. The Highways Agency has designed the programme to deliver smaller-scale improvements to the strategic road network that will help to stimulate growth in the local economy, relieve congestion and improve safety.

More than £2 million of funding has been allocated to improving junction 6 of the A1(M) at Welwyn. The key features of the scheme include amending the current road layout to provide a lane drop at junction 6 and extending and amending the existing layout of the junction 6 entry slip road. That will improve traffic flow on the A1(M) northbound carriageway, with the amended entry slip road layout providing additional distance for traffic joining the A1(M) to merge safely with the main line of traffic. Work on the scheme will start in December and is due to be completed in April 2015.

In addition, £5.6 million has been committed to the A1 Black Cat roundabout improvements at Chawston. Although that is in Bedfordshire, that scheme will have a positive impact on the effectiveness of the A1(M) in Hertfordshire. It will reduce congestion by widening the roundabout and the A1 approach roads, and by providing 24-hour signals at the points at which the A1 meets the roundabout. It is predicted that the proposed scheme will reduce congestion, improve journey time reliability, improve safety and reduce carbon emissions. Work began in June and is due to be completed in early 2015.

In July, the Government announced a series of growth deals with businesses and local authorities across England through the local growth fund. The Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership has secured £199.2 million from the fund to support strategic development, relieve congestion and reduce journey times across the Hertfordshire area. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire mentioned, the Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership has been successful in securing a substantial amount of funding through its local growth deal—in the region of £48 million—for the M11/A10 transport package, which includes Little Hadham bypass, upgrades to the network to improve the resilience of the A10 and improvements on the A602 around Stevenage. Further priorities for improvements to the local transport network will be for the Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership to identify for future rounds of the local growth fund.

As my hon. and learned Friend will know, the Hertfordshire growth deal reflects the importance of the A1(M) for local growth ambitions, with £3.8 million being invested in transport improvements through the A1(M) transport package, and £16 million being invested in the A1(M) growth area forum to help facilitate developments around Stevenage. The package also includes a number of sustainable transport measures to provide more realistic alternatives for local trips, including the A1 sustainable transport package, the A602 local congestion measures and Buslink 2016. The M11/A10 transport package attracted £48.4 million of local growth fund money for a package of schemes including station access improvements, upgrades to the network to improve resilience, the Little Hadham bypass, A602 improvements and A10 network resilience.

The M1/M25 transport package has £15 million of local growth fund finance for a package of transport schemes including A414 junction improvements, Hemel Hempstead station forecourt enhancements, and Watford business park pedestrian and cycle access enhancements. Hertfordshire county council’s BigHertsBigIdeas project is a package of measures designed to address congestion and regeneration needs in Watford, Hemel Hempstead and St Albans. That includes cycling provision, public transport improvements and electric vehicle charging. The county council has secured a total of £11.69 million from the Department for the project through the local sustainable transport fund.

Hertfordshire county council continues to receive high levels of maintenance and integrated transport block funding. It was also allocated an additional £3.621 million from the March 2014 weather repair fund, and £2.191 million from the June 2014 pothole funding allocation to help to deal with all the potholes that appeared during the bad weather. I suspect that some of the potholes were there before the bad weather started, but they still need to be dealt with.

As for the Government’s future investment planning processes, my hon. and learned Friend will know that the Highways Agency is currently conducting its route strategy process, and that the Government recently concluded the growth deal process with all local enterprise partnerships. Earlier in the year, John Gourd, the chair of Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership, met officials from the Department and the Highways Agency to discuss the Department’s future investment planning processes, including the route strategy process. The strategies that are being developed by the Highways Agency will establish outline operational and investment priorities for all routes on the strategic road network—including the London to Leeds (East) route strategy, which encompasses the A1(M)—for the period up to March 2021, and will give an indication of the priorities beyond that.

Last autumn local enterprise partnerships, local authorities and other interested groups were invited to contribute to discussions about the current and future performance of the strategic road network to help to identify local priorities, and the evidence report has subsequently been published. It acknowledges the issues that exist on the A1(M) in Hertfordshire and the fact that, as we heard from my hon. and learned Friend, there is planned development and growth in the surrounding area. The Highways Agency and the Department used the evidence to identify priority locations for possible future investment in the strategic road network, and have started a programme of studies at those locations. Proposals emerging from those preliminary studies will be considered by my Department in the lead-up to the autumn statement—which, confusingly, will be presented in December this year—and will help to inform the Department’s road investment strategy, which we aim to complete before the end of the year. The route strategy work is due to be completed by the end of March 2015.

I note that the A1 corridor consortium is already working with the Highways Agency and other parties to develop a strategy to address congestion and future capacity issues on the A1(M), and I encourage the consortium to continue to work with the agency as the route strategy process develops.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his tenacity in campaigning for investment in transport infrastructure in Hertfordshire over a number of years. I fully recognise the importance of the A1(M) to him and his constituents. I have made it clear that the Government are committed to, and have set out, plans for large-scale investments to improve our national strategic road network in the relatively short term. We are also committed to maintaining a pipeline of future longer-term investments. Indeed, we are tripling the budget that was delivered by the last Government—if “delivered” is a word that can be used to describe that paltry investment.

In considering the choices to be made in relation to future investments in the strategic road network, my Department and I, and the Highways Agency, will work closely with local stakeholders through the route strategy process, to ensure that not just future transport problems but the range of possible solutions are considered. As I have said, it is important that proposals for future investment are clearly supported by local stakeholders, and that there is a clear consensus on what is required. Ultimately, any proposals for future investment need to be able to demonstrate a strong business, and the delivery of both transport and wider economic benefits.

We are also committed to working with local partners, including local authorities and local enterprise partnerships, on considering proposals for improvements that are affordable and clearly supported by local and regional stakeholders. In that way, we can place ourselves in a strong position to make the best use of the available funds and to establish a sound base for the development of a transport system that can contribute to a low-carbon economy and to our long-term economic plan.

Question put and agreed to.

14:55

House adjourned.

Petition

Friday 21st November 2014 Petitions

Friday 21 November 2014

Traffic Calming Measures on Glentworth Road East in Westgate

Friday 21st November 2014 Petitions

The Petition of members of the community in Morecambe,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that there should be traffic calming measures introduced on Glentworth Road East and also parking restrictions imposed.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Lancashire County Council to take steps to support the residents in Morecambe and to ensure that measures are introduced to stop speeding and dangerous parking in Westgate.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by David Morris, Official Report, 21 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 869.]

[P001390]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

I recognise the concerns about speeding and dangerous parking and how the introduction of traffic calming measures and parking restrictions might help.

Responsibility for the introduction of traffic management and the control of parking falls to individual traffic authorities. They are free to make their own decisions about the design of the streets under their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation. This includes the provision of traffic management measures such as traffic calming. Rule 240 in the Highways Code lists places where it is illegal to park at the roadside and rule 243 lists places where parking could be dangerous. It is for the police to deal with instances of illegal parking and obstruction. Lancashire county council can ban parking at locations with this is deemed necessary and, because they also have Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) powers they can take any necessary action against those who infringe parking restrictions. If the council wants to restrict or prohibit parking in Westgate they can do so.

The Department for Transport has published guidance on the design of traffic calming measures in local Transport Note (LTN) 1/07 Traffic Calming which is available on the DFT website at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-transport-notes

We have also published guidance for local authorities on the operation of CPE areas at:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operational-guidance-to-local-authorities-parking-policy-and-enforcement

In line with the coalition Government’s commitment to localism, Ministers and officials have no remit to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local authorities except where specific provision has been made in legislation.

Written Statement

Friday 21st November 2014 Written Statements

Friday 21 November 2014

UK Sport and Sport England(Triennial Review)

Friday 21st November 2014 Written Statements

[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 UK Sport and Sport England. As executive non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB), UK Sport and Sport England are required to undergo a Triennial Review. The joint UK Sport/Sport England review will have two principal aims, represented by two stages.

The first stage will provide a robust challenge for the continuing need for the functions performed by both UK Sport and Sport England, and, if there is, whether some or all of these functions should be delivered by alternative delivery models or continued delivery by a Non- Departmental Public Body (NDPB).

If it is agreed that the functions of each should continue to be delivered by NDPBs, the second stage will review the organisational control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that they are compliant with the recognised principles of good corporate governance and delivering good value for money.

The structure, efficiency and effectiveness of the two bodies will be considered as part of both stages. This will include an assessment of how well the two bodies work together, their progress against the conditions set in January 2013 on deciding not to merge them and the scope for further savings.

The findings at both stages of the review will be examined by a challenge group.

Further details of the review and a survey seeking evidence about UK Sport and Sport England can be found on the DCMS website at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/triennial-review-of-uk-sport-and-sport-England



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.

House of Lords

Friday 21st November 2014 Lords Chamber

Friday, 21 November 2014.

10:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Mutuals’ Redeemable and Deferred Shares Bill [HL]

Friday 21st November 2014 Lords Chamber

Committee

10:06

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 1: Power to permit the use of new classes of redeemable shares and deferred shares

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) The Treasury may by regulations make provision to permit or facilitate the issue of deferred shares by a friendly society or mutual insurer.
(2) “Deferred shares” are instruments that—
(a) are issued by a friendly society or mutual insurer (“the issuer”) with the consent of the appropriate authority,(b) can be transferred but not withdrawn,(c) prohibit repayment of principal other than—(i) on the winding up or dissolution of the issuer where all other sums due from the issuer to creditors claiming in the winding up or dissolution are paid in full, or(ii) where the appropriate authority has consented to the repayment, and(d) have such characteristics as are specified in regulations made by the Treasury under this paragraph.(2AA) Regulations under subsection (1) may modify any of the following—
(a) the Friendly Societies Act 1992 (as amended from time to time);(b) the Companies Act 2006 (as amended from time to time);(c) any other primary legislation relating to friendly societies or mutual insurers (whenever passed);(d) any instrument made under the legislation mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) (whenever made).(2AB) Regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) may not make provision that would permit or facilitate the issue of deferred shares by a friendly society or mutual insurer where it is not authorised to do so by its memorandum, rules or constitution;(b) may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(c) may make different provision for different purposes.(2CC) A deferred share issued by virtue of regulations made under subsection (1) is not a share within the meaning of the Companies Acts.”

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Naseby on securing a prompt date for the Committee stage of this important Bill. The Government are supportive of the key objective of the Bill, which is to provide mutual organisations with a means to raise external capital in a way that preserves the mutual status of those firms. The mutual sector has made the case that current capital constraints are preventing friendly societies and mutual insurers acquiring other businesses that would strengthen the overall offer to members and policyholders, and may also be restricting these organisations from developing new or innovative products, especially if these products require material amounts of regulatory capital to be held. Growth in these areas would potentially be to the benefit of both with-profits policyholders and other members of the mutual.

The Bill therefore addresses access to capital for two mutual sectors: friendly societies and mutual insurers and industrial and provident societies, now known as co-operative and community benefit societies. The Bill provides that the Treasury may make regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure, to the friendly societies and mutual insurers to issue deferred shares and to commit co-operative and community benefit societies to issue redeemable shares. At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Newby noted that the deferred share capital instrument for mutual insurers and friendly societies provides a good way forward, and he committed the Government’s support to this instrument. My noble friend also outlined at Second Reading that the Government would not extend their support to the proposed redeemable share instrument for co-operative and community benefit societies, as these societies already have a means of issuing redeemable shares. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Naseby has accepted the Government’s support for this more limited Bill.

Government Amendments 1 to 16 achieve three objectives. First, they give effect to the Government’s commitment to support only the deferred share capital instrument for mutual insurers and friendly societies, and therefore remove the parts of the Bill that concern co-operative and community benefit societies issuing redeemable shares. Secondly, to preserve the principle of mutuality, the Bill clarifies that no friendly society or mutual insurer will grant more than one vote per person for every deferred shareholder—and, further, that no deferred shareholder will receive more votes than an ordinary member by virtue of being a deferred shareholder. Thirdly, there are several minor and technical changes to tidy up the Bill and use more appropriate legislative terminology.

Amendment 1 to Clause 1 restricts the scope of the Bill to allow HM Treasury to make regulations providing for deferred shares for friendly societies and mutual insurers. The Bill will no longer provide a means for co-operative and community benefit societies, which were formerly known as industrial and provident societies, to issue redeemable shares. In order to provide for these deferred shares, the regulations may modify the Friendly Societies Act 1992, the Companies Act 2006 and other primary legislation relating to friendly societies or mutual insurers. The Government believe that granting the regulations the power to modify primary legislation still to be enacted is both necessary and proportionate. It is necessary because there will be a period of time before these regulations are made, and in the intervening period there may be changes to existing legislation that affects friendly societies and mutual insurers which may need to be amended. It is also proportionate because it is limited to the Friendly Societies Act 1992, the Companies Act 2006 and other primary legislation relating to friendly societies and mutual insurers.

Amendments 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are related consequential amendments. Government Amendments 2 and 3 make minor technical changes. Amendment 2 uses more accurate legislative terminology to clarify that the power to make regulations under the clause is exercisable by statutory instrument. Amendment 3 specifies that the statutory instrument containing regulations under this clause may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reported that it regards this delegation or procedure as appropriate.

Amendment 4 introduces a new clause that provides that holders of deferred shares will not receive more than one vote by virtue of owning a deferred share, and will not receive more votes than they would have had if they had been a member. Friendly societies and mutual insurers already have considerable freedom regarding their rules and internal governance. This maintains that freedom, but also provides that holders of deferred shares do not gain any advantage over other members by virtue of being deferred shareholders. This amendment therefore serves to protect the principle of mutuality.

Amendment 8 introduces a provision that where HMT makes a regulation to specify a particular organisation as a mutual insurer, such regulations are subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee confirmed that the negative procedure is sufficient in this regard.

Amendments 10 and 11 are minor and technical changes to provide that the Treasury has the power to commence the Bill by statutory instrument and that the Treasury may make regulations by statutory instrument to commence the Bill rather than by making an order. Amendment 12 is a minor and technical change to amend the title of the Bill more accurately to reflect that the Bill applies to friendly societies and mutual insurers, permits the issue of deferred shares and restricts the voting rights of members to hold those shares. I beg to move.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments arise out of the removal of the redeemable element in the original Bill. It was removed by mutual consent, but I hope in due course, on another day, to come back to that dimension of the original Bill. These amendments meet the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s ninth report of the Session. The comments from the committee were important and helpful.

The key element of the amendments is that they enable the Bill to go forward and allow friendly societies and mutual insurers to move forward in relation to the challenges they meet today. Looking back over two centuries, friendly societies and mutual insurers have provided insurance for life events for millions of ordinary people. They manage funds in excess of £90 billion on behalf of their members and customers and focus on good value and service quality. In addition, many are regional businesses, which is an important element. I had a debate the other week on cottage hospitals—or community hospitals, as some would call them. They are a wonderful vehicle for involving communities, and the vehicle of a friendly society or mutual insurer is a means of establishing that.

I applaud what the Government have done in terms of helping the whole mutual movement, building on the work done by the Major Government in 1992. We have seen progress in a great many areas of social welfare and other areas of mutuality, but there was this hole and these amendments help to fill it. I shall pick out the key elements these amendments will facilitate. They will facilitate an increase in membership of the firms involved. That is extremely helpful. The key point is that they will fuel organic growth and enable the development of new product lines. They will provide funds for firms to go through acquisitions that they may see as giving them an opportunity. I do not think I need to go into any greater detail. I went into considerable detail at Second Reading and the House may return to that on Report or at Third Reading.

10:15

I place on record my thanks, in particular to Her Majesty’s Opposition for their help in taking this Bill forward and to my noble friend on the Front Bench, with whom I have discussed this Bill in depth. On this side, I must say thanks to my noble friend Lady Maddock for her support. She is a major supporter of the movement.

All the amendments before us are hugely helpful on the issue of deferred shares. They are not a panacea, but they are a very positive start. In accepting these amendments, I place on record my thanks to Her Majesty’s Treasury for its positive response to the Bill, and, in particular, to the legislative section of the Treasury for drafting these amendments. As a former chairman of Ways and Means who knows what it is like to have to handle a major finance Bill, I know that these things are not easy to do. The number of amendments that were necessary to make a very simple change is pretty indicative of that situation. Above all, I say a particular thank you to the two Ministers who have helped the Bill to progress this far. I hope once again that this positive response will lead to the Bill reaching the statute book this Session.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak on behalf of the Opposition, particularly as a Labour and Co-operative Member of your Lordships’ House, to these amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Deighton. This Bill was last considered by your Lordships’ House on 24 October when we had the Second Reading debate. Both the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who spoke for the Government, and I supported the aims of the Bill and what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was seeking to do and congratulated him on making substantial progress in persuading others of the importance of the measures and of the need for action to be taken to support and protect the mutual insurance sector which only 20 years ago accounted for 50% of the insurance market in the UK but today accounts for just 7.5% of the same market.

As the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, explained, the Government were not persuaded that the proposed redeemable shares instrument for co-operative and community benefit societies was necessary as societies already had a means of issuing redeemable shares. Discussions took place and with the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the Government proposed to bring amendments in Committee, and they are what we are discussing today. I am happy to support the amendments, as is the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, which remove the proposed redeemable shares element from the Bill and restructure it in a slightly different way which is more acceptable to the Government or parliamentary draftspersons or both. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, can assure the House that the Government will keep this issue under review and if it is felt or shown that the proposed redeemable shares instrument may be beneficial to the mutual sector he will look at it again. Perhaps we can again call on the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, to bring such a measure in the next Session because it is important that the mutual sector as whole, not just the mutual insurance sector that the Bill seeks to protect, is protected and is allowed to flourish and grow in today’s modern world of business. It is a matter of great regret that the mutual insurance sector has shrunk so much in a relatively short period of time and that we have lost so many building societies that were once household names, which has been to the detriment of consumers.

I will not detain the House any longer than necessary. I am a supporter of the aims of the Bill and am content with the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Deighton. I wish the Bill a smooth and speedy passage on to the statute book. It is an excellent example of what a good Private Member’s Bill can do, identifying a problem or issue that there is no great dispute about, and seeking to make improvements to the situation which will be beneficial to everyone. This House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, who is my noble friend. I hope that there will be no amendments on Report and that the Bill can leave your Lordships’ House and be on its way to the other place before Christmas.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendments 2 and 3

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

2: Clause 1, page 2, line 22, leave out “Act” and insert “section”

3: Clause 1, page 2, line 23, leave out “and must” and insert—
“( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may”

Amendments 2 and 3 agreed.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 2 to 4 disagreed.

Clause 5: Restriction on voting rights

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

4: Clause 5, leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new Clause—
“Restriction on voting rights
(1) Regulations under section 1(1) must make provision to ensure that no friendly society or mutual insurer will confer—
(a) more than one vote per person as a member on holders of deferred shares who are members of the society or insurer by virtue only of being such a holder;(b) additional voting rights on a member of the society or insurer by virtue of being a holder of a deferred share where the member is a member other than by virtue of being such a holder.(2) Regulations under section 1(1) must make provision prohibiting the holder of a deferred share who is a member of a friendly society or mutual insurer by virtue only of being such a holder from proposing or voting in respect of any of the following—
(a) a resolution under section 85, 86 or 91 of the Friendly Societies Act 1992 (amalgamation, transfer of engagements or conversions);(b) a resolution to similar effect in the case of a mutual insurer, including a compromise or arrangement proposed at a meeting called under section 896 of the Companies Act 2006 (court order for holding meeting);(c) an arrangement made in pursuance of section 110 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (acceptance of shares etc as consideration for sale of company property) or Article 96 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989 / 2405 (N.I. 19));(d) such other matters as the regulations may specify.
(3) References in this section to the holder of a deferred share are to the holder of a deferred share issued by virtue of regulations made under section 1(1).”

Amendment 4 agreed.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed.

Clause 6: Definitions

Amendments 5 to 8

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

5: Clause 6, page 4, line 2, after “a” insert “friendly”

6: Clause 6, page 4, line 5, after “a” insert “friendly”

7: Clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 8 to 26 and insert—
““the Companies Acts” has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 2006;
“friendly society” means a friendly society registered and incorporated under the Friendly Societies Act 1992;
“modify” includes amend, repeal or revoke;
“mutual insurer” means a body corporate that—
(a) is a mutual undertaking that—(a) is neither a friendly society nor a registered society within the meaning of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, and (b) is of such description as the Treasury may specify by regulations,(b) has no share capital, and(c) has permission to effect or carry out contracts of insurance under Part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; “primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation.”

8: Clause 6, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
“(2) The power to make regulations conferred by paragraph (a)(ii) of the definition of “mutual insurer” is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(3) A statutory instrument containing them is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

Amendments 5 to 8 agreed.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed.

Clause 7: Short title, commencement and extent

Amendments 9 to 11

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

9: Clause 7, page 4, line 28, leave out “Redeemable and”

10: Clause 7, page 4, line 30, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Treasury”

11: Clause 7, page 4, line 31, leave out “order” and insert “regulations”

Amendments 9 to 11 agreed.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed.

In the Title

Amendments 12 to 16

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

12:In the Title, line 1, after “registered” insert “and incorporated”

13:In the Title, line 1, leave out “the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or”

14:In the Title, line 3, leave out first “and” and insert “or”

15:In the Title, line 3, leave out from “the” to “; and” in line 5 and insert “issue of deferred shares”

16:In the Title, line 6, leave out “certain”

Amendments 12 to 16 agreed.

Title, as amended, agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL]

Friday 21st November 2014 Lords Chamber

Committee

10:24

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 1: Amendment of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, after “25” insert “(2)”

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak also to the question of whether Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. All these amendments, starting with this one, have at their heart the protection of children and assistance to middling and lower income families, who are facing terrible problems now that legal aid has been removed from assistance in divorce law, and with the exceedingly high number of divorces that we have every year.

The law needed reform anyway, but the urgency that now arises comes from the removal of legal aid. Only this week, the Bar Council reported an 88% increase in the number of people having to represent themselves in the courts. Throughout the Bill, I am trying to provide a framework that is just but which also promotes autonomy, clarity and entitlement. Given that legal aid has been removed—and I do not envisage an improvement in that situation for years to come—we have to help the poor families who are struggling at one of the worst moments in their lives with something expensive and complicated. Noble Lords will all have seen the accounts of cases in which couples have assets of, let us say, £1 million—not so difficult if you have a house—half or three-quarters of which goes on lawyers’ costs because they cannot reach an agreement; they have no firm framework within which to do so.

This first amendment emphasises what was implicit—it would now make it clearer—that the Bill is not meant to affect the existing provision for children, let alone make it worse. This amendment has the effect of retaining untouched Section 25(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—note that this House has not revisited that law since 1973—and retains a provision that in dealing with finance after divorce the interests of children under 18 are the first consideration for the court. They are not “paramount”, which is an even stronger word that is used as regards decisions about their residence.

There is of course scope in the Bill, as there has been previously, for the matrimonial home to be preserved for the use of, let us say, the mother and young children until they reach majority, even if a half share has already been allocated to the father but its realisation or liquidation postponed. From that follows the deletion of Clause 6, which spelt that out in a different way. This amendment also serves to preserve Section 25A of the Matrimonial Causes Act—the desirability of the clean break.

We are not talking about child maintenance as such, because there is a new Child Maintenance Service, successor to the Child Support Agency, and that law will continue as ever. I might also add at the beginning for clarification that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who cannot be in her place today, supports this, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has specifically authorised me to give his view to the House. He says:

“I support your Bill and support the amendments. I think it vital that the law should contain a provision setting out a generally suitable formula for the division of the assets of a divorcing couple that would guide them without recourse to the courts. It would not harm this concept that a discretion should be available to the court to depart from it on cause shown”.

In fact, a general consensus is building up through the courts that something must be done about this law. It is for the run-of-the-mill divorcing couple who can no longer afford legal representation. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the House is very grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this Bill for consideration, and I hope that we can make progress today through the Committee stage. I am supportive of what the Bill seeks to do. It is a fact that relationships break down, and proposals to make financial settlements between parties as simple as possible, enabling both parties to retain a greater proportion of their assets, are to be welcomed. As the noble Baroness has explained, this group of amendments seeks to leave untouched Section 25(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which makes it clear that the interests of the children are the first consideration when dealing with finances after divorce. It is also proposed in this group, as a consequence of that amendment, that Clause 6, which dealt with children, should no longer stand part of the Bill, as it would be confusing and could conflict with provisions already in place. These are very sensible amendments, which I hope will find favour with the Government.

10:30

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on skilfully steering this Bill to Committee stage. I thank her very much, too, for communicating with the Government about the amendments and the thinking behind them; we are extremely grateful for that clarification.

The Government’s position was made clear at Second Reading and it would not be helpful to repeat that position at this stage. Since then, the noble Baroness has met my ministerial colleague, Simon Hughes, who has responsibility for this policy and is aware of the Government’s thinking. I will restrict my comments in Committee to one or two brief points about the amendments and leave it very much at that.

The first amendment relates to Clause 1 and the protection of children on divorce, and it is of course convenient to take Clause 6 stand part together with the amendment. Amendment 1 limits what was the repeal of all of Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to subsection (2) of that section, which contains the list of matters to which the court must have regard in deciding how to exercise its ancillary relief powers. This amendment leaves the other provisions of Section 25 in place and, accordingly, restores the court’s duty to give first consideration to children of the family in deciding how to exercise ancillary relief powers, retaining the list of matters to which the court must have regard in making specific financial relief awards in relation to children of the family. The amendment adds considerably to protection for children given in the Bill. As a result of this, the noble Baroness has indicated that she does not wish Clause 6, which contained the previous provision for children in the Bill, to stand part of the Bill. The Government welcome this improvement in protection for children.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “section” and insert “subsection”

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I speak also to Amendments 3, 4, 20A, 21, 22 and 26. What the amendments in this group have in common is that they are minor and technical. I had great assistance with the drafting of this Bill over the summer, as your Lordships will have noticed, and these amendments arise from the refinement of the drafting as it took place in reaching the final state of the amendments.

Amendment 2 is simply a correction, while Amendment 3 is a clarification. Amendment 4 ensures that this law, as I hope it will turn out to be, applies equally to civil partnerships and same-sex couple marriages. Clearly, a new law must apply to all different sorts of couples, whoever they are, who may go through the courts. Amendment 20A has come about simply because there has been a redraft. Amendments 21, 22 and 26 arose from the fact that there has been a preservation of flexibility of lump sums in distribution of property. This entire group is technical. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this is an important technical group of amendments, which follow on from the previous group in clarifying that the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act remains in force and that we are referring only to subsection (2), for all the reasons that noble Lords gave in the previous debate, along with Amendment 3, which again makes it clear that we are referring to the Act in the amended form. The addition and clarification of the 2004 and 2013 Acts, as the noble Baroness advised the House, will clarify that the new law will apply to civil partnerships and same-sex couples, but not to cohabiting couples, who are the subject of a different Bill, to be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which will have a Second Reading shortly.

The second part of the group removes subsections 5(1) and (2), which deal with the issue of periodical payments, discussed during the Second Reading debate in your Lordships’ House. They seek to address an issue that everyone recognises needs to be looked at; on these Benches we were concerned that there appeared to be a one-size-fits-all approach. In a later group, we will look at amendments that seek to take on board concerns expressed in the Second Reading debate and elsewhere.

Amendments 21, 22 and 26 make clear the divide between lump sum payments and ongoing periodical payments.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group of amendments. As the noble Baroness said, a number of these are technical or drafting improvements on which I need not detain the House; I have only these brief comments of substance to make.

I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s intention to limit the potential for litigation under this Bill through her amendments. Amendment 20 is consequential to the removal of paragraphs (b) and (d) of Clause 4(7). It removes the provisions on the making of periodical payments and the duration of such periodical payments and the requirement for the court to consider whether a lump sum payment would be sufficient to meet the needs of the person concerned; it also removes the restrictions and duration limits on the court when making orders for periodical payments, for which the existing subsection (1) of Clause 4 provides.

Amendments 21 and 22 remove from Clause 5 references to lump sum payments as an alternative to periodical payments in Clause 5, and Amendment 26 removes a reference to a lump sum order as an alternative to an order for periodical payments. The Government welcome the greater flexibility for payment of periodical sums provided by these amendments.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Amendments 3 and 4

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after second “1973” insert “as amended”

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
““2004 Act” means the Civil Partnerships Act 2004;
“2013 Act” means the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013;”

Amendments 3 and 4 agreed.

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
““relevant financial order” means—
(a) an order for lump sum provision in favour of a party to a marriage under section 23(1)(c) of the 1973 Act,(b) a property adjustment order in favour of a party to a marriage under section 24(1) of that Act,(c) a pension sharing order under section 24B of that Act,(d) a pension compensation sharing order under section 24E of that Act,and also includes any order under the corresponding provisions of the 2004 Act and the 2013 Act.”

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 5. Consequent on it is whether Clause 2 stands part of the Bill. This provision, as amended, is rather more technical, but also flexible. It brings together the definitions of the relevant financial order—the sort of things that the court may deal with—and defines and spells out what was implicit in the original draft, the various types of order that the court may make. After some discussion, lump sum orders are included, as they may assist flexibility in dividing up the total assets. This will assist the court in achieving maximum flexibility. My aim throughout is to promote sufficient clarity to enable people to arbitrate and mediate and yet preserve a little bit of discretion, which is a good hallmark of our law. I beg to move.

[Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe]

My Lords, this amendment, as the noble Baroness said, introduces a definition of a new expression, “relevant financial order”. The most significant feature of the new definition is that it does not include an order for periodical payments, but to leave it there would perhaps be a rather meagre explanation. In the long run, it might be helpful to considering some later amendments if I speak very briefly about the terminology and structure of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Many of your Lordships will recall that the concept of no-fault divorce was introduced in England and Wales by the Divorce Reform Act 1969. Scotland followed suit in 1976. The 1969 Act did not contain any provisions altering what was then, in the old-fashioned phrase, called ancillary relief. New provisions were brought in by the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, which for the first time gave the court power to direct the transfer of specific assets, rather than dealing simply with sums of money. The 1969 and 1970 Acts were consolidated in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. My noble friend Lady Deech, with great respect, is not quite right in saying that the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 has not since been revisited by Parliament. On the contrary, it has been amended at least 12 times. I may have got that number wrong, but it is a very much amended Act. However, the noble Baroness is quite right in saying that what Parliament has not revisited is the essential provision in Section 25(2), the guidance as to how judges are to exercise their very wide discretion. As the supporters of the Bill say, that is the provision that cries out for a simpler and more workable test.

The 1973 Act, unusually for a consolidating Act, introduced two entirely new definitions: first, a financial provision order, which was either an order for periodical payments or an order for a lump sum; and secondly, a property adjustment order, which reflected the introduction by the 1970 Act of a power to direct the transfer of particular identifiable assets. The difference between those two forms of order is essentially that between orders for a sum of money and orders relating to identifiable assets. The powers of the court were extended further in 1999 by the introduction of pension sharing orders, and in 2008 by pension compensation sharing orders following the introduction of the pensions compensation Act. That is the range of powers open to the court at present. The new definition of “relevant financial order” includes all the types of order—that is, property adjustment orders, pension orders and lump sum orders, but not orders for periodical payments. The shape of the Bill as we seek to remould it reflects that. Clauses 2 and 4 are concerned primarily with the scope of “relevant financial orders”, as they now would be defined. Clause 5 would be concerned with periodical payments orders, which are treated and stand on their own and to which the Bill adopts the attitude of discouraging them as a long-term measure except when they are essential.

The Bill seeks to amend what is by now a very complex situation. I hope that this definition adds a little clarity to that. Perhaps I may add that if the Bill does go through, it certainly would be high time for there to be a further consolidating Act to replace the much amended 1973 Act.

10:44

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this next group of amendments, or one amendment and one clause stand part, seeks to improve the Bill from its original form, taking into account matters brought out on Second Reading. I think that all noble Lords who spoke in that debate thought that the Bill was seeking to address issues that had not been addressed for far too long, so what we are seeking to do here today is very welcome. Amendment 5 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my noble friend Lord Grantchester and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, sets out clearly what a relevant financial order is so that there can be no ambiguity about it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, lump sum orders are also included as they may assist in providing flexibility in dividing up total assets. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is opposing that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, as there are amendments down that better define what is sought to be achieved here. If agreed, those amendments will be an improvement to the Bill as it is presently drafted. I can see the logic here and the clarification that that brings.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I wish to say simply that of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, is right—that is why he is learned and I am just a noble Baroness and not learned. However, my point is that this House has not revisited the principles of financial provision on divorce in more than 40 years, despite all the changes in society and all the things that have happened—the changes in the position of women, women going out to work and the rise in divorce. It is really crucial to do so now because of the removal of legal aid and the need to help those who mediate and arbitrate and give them a starting point. The Government favour mediation yet there has been a decrease in the use of mediation. How can people mediate if they do not know what the starting point is? To mediate means to find a middle way, and therefore we need a parameter. That is why we are trying to clarify this law.

[Lord Faulks]

I am sure that all noble Lords realise that what the noble Baroness meant by saying that the 1973 Act had not been revisited was that the approach that was set out in that Act has not been changed since that date. Although there have in fact been a considerable number of amendments to the Act, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, pointed out, the overall thrust of the noble Baroness’s point remains the same. Amendment 5 moves, in amended form, the list of financial orders in Clause 2 so that they now form the definition of “relevant financial orders” in Clause 1, which deals with interpretation. This amendment goes with the proposal that Clause 2 does not stand part of the Bill, as the provisions for financial orders would as a result be dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.

The Bill as amended will limit the court to making relevant financial orders only to the extent that a binding prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement did not “deal with the matter”, and only in relation to matrimonial property, as defined by the Bill.

Amendment 5 agreed.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

6: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Orders limited to matrimonial property
(1) In this Act “matrimonial property” means all property and interests in property, including any pension rights, which could be the subject of a pension sharing order or a pension compensation sharing order, belonging to the parties or either of them at the date of the relevant financial order which—
(a) was acquired—(i) during the marriage; and(ii) otherwise than by gift, inheritance or succession from a third party; and(b) does not directly or indirectly represent property acquired by them or either of them before the marriage.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)—
(a) any premises and household goods acquired before the marriage for use by them as or in their home shall be treated as acquired during the marriage;(b) if any property that would otherwise fall within subsection (1)(b) is used and applied so as to increase the value of any matrimonial property the property so used or applied shall be treated as matrimonial property;(c) if any matrimonial property belonging to one party is used or applied so as to increase the value of an asset which belongs to the other party, and is not matrimonial property, a proportionate share (by value) of that asset shall be treated as matrimonial property; and(d) paragraph (c) shall also apply if by exceptional personal skill or effort a party to the marriage increases the value of an asset which belongs to the other party, and is not matrimonial property.(3) Subsections (2)(b) to (d) do not apply in relation to any asset if it appears that the costs of investigation and valuation required for the application of the relevant paragraph in subsection (2) would be likely to exceed one-fifth of the amount of the proportionate part or adjustment.
(4) Except as provided in section 3 (pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements), no relevant financial order shall be made otherwise than in relation to matrimonial property.”

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 6 and in so doing I propose to speak to Amendments 14, 15, 15A, 16, 18 and 19. They all stand together, forming one of the great pillars of the Bill, which is to seek to bring the law into line with what the Supreme Court in its judgments has more or less inched its way towards—to bring our law into line with Scottish law and the law applying in most of North America and the continent of Europe. In brief, it is that when the court is dividing up the matrimonial property, it should divide only the property acquired after the marriage by the couple. That would aid greatly simplicity and negotiation. Of course, it is not absolutely rigid. The family home will always be treated as matrimonial. I assure your Lordships that there are many provisions and precedents in the law for manoeuvring that situation to ensure that children, and usually their mother, stay in the home until they leave for university or careers. Incidentally, it is an interesting question whether one should treat children as ending their childhood at 18 or whether, as it is now so common for school-leavers to go to university or college, one should say that they need the protection of the law in that respect until they are 21.

There is, however, room for manoeuvre in this amendment. It is modelled on New Zealand and Scottish law and makes provision for how to treat property that was separate but has been increased in value by the assets or efforts of the other party. It is not the case that selfishness will be promoted. If one spouse works on the premarital property of the other, a proportion would be regarded as reverting to the ownership of the one who has put in the effort.

Again, this is a law, and this is an amendment, for the average couple. Very wealthy couples will always be able to afford lawyers and may make prenups and sort out the property between them. This is for the hundreds of thousands of couples who get divorced every year and are clogging up the courts and having to face each other in court without representation and with no clear guidance on what would be a fair and equitable settlement. If this Bill is passed, this provision in particular would give them a steer.

Noble Lords may have seen the report last week that a couple spent £1 million on lawyers and experts while fighting over the division of assets worth £2.9 million. There was a call to cut excess litigation costs and for cost caps. However, you cannot cut unless you make the law simpler and clearer and give couples a starting point for mediation. A cartoon in the Times yesterday showed two lawyers expressing shock and horror over the case I mentioned and at the fact that one-third of the assets was used up in costs. A final box in the cartoon says, “Absolutely shocking! When I did a divorce case, we used up half the assets”. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. It would be better to have broad-brush justice to help those struggling without legal aid and lawyers. I mean no criticism of the Supreme Court. Its judgments have been sophisticated and compassionate. But only the richest people reach the Supreme Court and the level of detail and sophistication that its judgments have provided does not help the man or woman in the high street battling over how to divide up their sparse assets, and where every penny spent on costs takes money away from the children.

Amendment 14 would simply change the date on which the valuation of the assets is calculated. I was advised by judges that I should make this change, which would change the date on which the financial order is made. Amendment 15 is consequential drafting. Amendment 15A would provide maximum flexibility by allowing people to carve up their assets by using lump sums, not necessarily chopping the house in half or having to sell it but using such assets as they have to reach a 50:50 settlement in their negotiations. Amendments 16, 18 and 19 spell out the ways I mentioned earlier of departing from a 50:50 split in certain circumstances, mostly where one party has put in extra effort or, indeed, for the protection of the children. Flexibility would be maintained but couples who know nothing about the law would be able to start with the presumption that whatever they acquire after they get married should be divided in half. I used to run an all-party parliamentary group on family law in this House and members of the public attended its proceedings. They did not always understand the niceties but one message came through from the hundreds of people who attended the proceedings. They said, “Please, can’t we have a booklet when we get married to tell us what our rights and duties are and what’s going to happen to us—what we will owe—when we get divorced? We ask people and nobody can tell us”. This is what I am trying to provide. Here is a guide to what will happen in the unfortunate event of people getting divorced. I beg to move.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for her great efforts to allow the courts to bring certainty to this situation. As regards her last comment, I hasten to add that I do not think people enter marriage with the idea that they are going to get a divorce. Similarly, I do not believe that anybody turns up to work with the intention of fouling up, but these things happen. I support the amendment as it would bring certainty and enable couples facing divorce to be given clear advice on what their future situation will be and how the matrimonial assets will be divided. The starting point for this process should be that of defining what the matrimonial assets are.

[Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 15A. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, Amendment 6 is one of the main pillars of the Bill. The revised proposed new clause embodied in Amendment 6 lays down the general principle that matrimonial property is to be divided equally in normal circumstances. That is the easy bit. The more difficult bit is defining with reasonable precision what matrimonial property is. The revised proposed new clause largely reproduces—we hope in a clearer form—what was in the Bill as introduced, although there are one or two significant alterations to which I shall draw attention. I recognise, of course, that in this context clarity is a pretty relative concept and that the proposed new clause is not particularly easy going.

One way of viewing the proposed new clause is as laying down three general principles in proposed new subsection (1), followed by four qualifications or refinements in the four paragraphs of proposed new subsection (2). The first general principle is that property acquired before marriage should not be regarded as matrimonial property but as—to use a clumsy but unavoidable term—non-matrimonial property. The second general principle is that gifts received from third parties or inheritances or intestate succession to the estates of third parties are also to be treated as non-matrimonial property, even if the gift is made, or the death occurs, during the marriage. I should treat the third general principle at some length because it differs from both the Bill as introduced and from the Scottish legislation embodied in the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, from which these provisions are fairly obviously derived.

I mention in passing that I very much regret that my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead cannot be here today because he, as former Lord President in Scotland, has unparalleled experience of the practical working of Scottish legislation. I have had the advantage of some discussion with him but I take responsibility for what I say about the law of Scotland, which will be far less learned than if it came from him.

10:59

The problem can perhaps be illustrated by a simple example. Suppose that a wife owns a portfolio of stock exchange investments that are managed on a discretionary basis by a financial adviser. It may be that she does not know that the portfolio is being changed from time to time, with her authority, by the adviser. After several years of a long marriage, a few of the investments held in that portfolio may be exactly the same as those that were in the portfolio when she got married. Are they or are they not non-matrimonial property? The answer that Scottish law has given, rather surprisingly, is that they would cease to be non-matrimonial property—that a mere change of investments in a managed portfolio would be enough. Indeed, in one case decided in the Court of Session, a company reorganisation carried through by a simple share-for-share exchange converted a very large and valuable holding from non-matrimonial to matrimonial property. We take the view that that is unfair and against the public interest, in that it has the effect of inhibiting normal economic activity if it is essential to keep non-matrimonial property in just the same form as before.

The amendment proposes that property that can be regarded as directly or indirectly in substitution for non-matrimonial property shall have the same character, subject to the exceptions and qualifications that I now come to. The notion of tracing property through to substitute property is familiar in several areas of English law—for instance, in tracing misappropriated trust assets and, in a very different context, in tracing the proceeds of crime for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act. It can create difficulties but it is the lesser of two evils to have a provision about substituted property as against a position under which non-matrimonial property may suddenly and almost irrationally turn into matrimonial property.

I come to the four qualifications or refinements. The first, in subsection (2)(a), is well understood and, I think, non-controversial; the matrimonial home and its household contents should be regarded as matrimonial property, even if acquired before the marriage. The second qualification, in proposed subsection (2)(b), is concerned with the situation in which property loses its non-matrimonial status by, in effect, being merged with matrimonial property. To follow on from the simple example of the wife with the portfolio, if she decides to raise £20,000 from her portfolio and put it towards improvements to the matrimonial home, it is no longer traceable as non-matrimonial property and becomes matrimonial property—and that is, no doubt, the fair and simple solution.

Proposed subsection (2)(c) is concerned with the converse case, whereby matrimonial property is used in turn to enhance the value of non-matrimonial property. Again, using the same example, if the wife’s investment portfolio includes shares with a large, valuable rights issue but the wife is not in a position to put up the cash to take up the rights, and the husband says, “I will do that”, the new shares acquired on the rights issue would be an example of matrimonial property being recycled, as it were, into non-matrimonial property but would keep its character as matrimonial property.

Fourthly, proposed subsection (2)(d) applies the same principle to where the contribution is not in cash or assets but in skill, time and effort. It is not intended to apply simply to a bit of help given from time to time by a husband to his wife in her business, or vice versa, but contributions that are beyond the ordinary, by which the value of non-matrimonial property is enhanced, should be marked by an appropriate adjustment.

Those are the purposes of the four paragraphs in proposed subsection (2). They largely follow the Scottish pattern but we venture to hope that we may have made them somewhat clearer and simpler. They do not follow exactly the Scottish pattern. That is the way in which we have tried to provide a reasonably sensitive but nevertheless not too complicated pattern for distinguishing between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property.

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing in the Bill and to declare my interest as a practitioner in matrimonial law for 30-plus years. I am grateful to the noble Baroness because the Bill is overdue and much needed. It provides some clarity and simplicity for those of us who operate in the field, at the moment without proper statutory guidance. It is vital that the matters that she is addressing are put forward for debate, and reform is long overdue.

The simplicity behind the Bill is wonderful. It applies not only to what happens when things go wrong and people get divorced but to the drafting of prenuptial agreements, which is practically impossible if one does not know what is going to happen at the other end if a marriage, civil partnership or same-sex marriage is dissolved. Such agreements are become increasingly fashionable, despite the fact that there is nothing in Section 25 of the 1973 Act about the enforceability of prenuptial agreements. The courts are therefore enforcing them in circumstances that they think may or may not be fair. There is no official guideline from Parliament as to how they should be enforced.

There should be a purer definition of what people can expect upon the breakdown of a marriage. This is not for rich people who can afford to spend a small percentage of their money litigating matters. They can have the luxury to do what they want, like they can in everything else. This is for the average person who goes into a marriage trying to protect the assets that they previously acquired and knowing what they are going to end up with, should it break down. I welcome these amendments and the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness very much indeed for introducing it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Wilcox, my noble friend Lord Grantchester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, and the other amendments in the group—namely, Amendments 14, 15, 15A, 16, 18 and 19—deal with matrimonial property, an issue central to the Bill.

The new clause proposed by Amendment 6 is detailed and, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble and learned Lord, makes it clear that the split of assets on divorce should be limited to property acquired after marriage by the couple. The family home will be treated as matrimonial but property, gifts and inheritances acquired before the marriage will not be matrimonial or available for sharing.

I very much see the point that without the certainty that the proposed new clause aims to give, couples run the risk of spending vast sums of money fighting over the division of assets and thereby reducing the assets that they are left with. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, to reduce costs we need to make things simpler and clearer for divorcing couples. These are welcome amendments that seek to do just that. I also associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton of Belgravia, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing forward the Bill.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the amendments in this group would provide greater clarity about how the court is to approach the making of orders dividing matrimonial property on divorce. Clarity and a degree of certainty are clearly desirable. Against that, one has to weigh the need for flexibility, with the possibility that flexibility can sometimes bring fairness that certainty precludes. I am very grateful for the way in which the group was introduced by the noble Baroness, and indeed for the elaboration by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. He explained with great lucidity the attempt to improve upon the Scottish definition to deal with the problems of portfolios and the like, which may change and therefore change their character in legislative terms.

The proposed new clause seeks to define matrimonial property as property acquired “during the marriage”, rather than property owned before the marriage by either party, or property received as a gift during the marriage. Its intention is to clarify the definition of matrimonial property, which, under the terms of the Bill, will be the only property in respect of which financial orders can be made on divorce, except where there is a significant additional contribution by one party, or if the property has increased in value. The noble and learned Lord described what is meant by a significant additional contribution.

Matrimonial property would normally be divided equally between the parties. The Government have concerns over the definition of “matrimonial property” and the rigid equal division of matrimonial property, as the definition may be unfair in many cases: an equal division of property is rarely found in most ancillary relief cases, due to the lack of assets of the family, and the needs of the children and of the family. If the provisions of the Bill were to be taken forward we would need to define matrimonial property extremely carefully to ensure that any division was fair.

Existing provisions for division of property on divorce give the court a wider discretion to divide property and determine who should have which assets, in the context of the needs of the family. That enables the court to seek to achieve fairness in all the circumstances. The Government are not convinced that the certainty that the Bill and these amendments intend to provide would not come at too great a cost in rigidity. Therefore, the Government believe that the definition of matrimonial property in the Bill is problematic and, I fear, continue to have significant reservations about it.

Amendment 14 is in a different category. It would clarify the date on which the net value of the matrimonial property is to be valued. Instead of the “relevant date” described in Clause 4(4), the valuation is to be made on the date of the relevant financial order made by the court. This provides a clear and unequivocal date for the valuation: the date on which the property is divided. Consequentially, Amendment 15 removes the definition of the date at which the matrimonial property is valued in Clause 4(4). That is clearly desirable.

Amendment 17 would insert a new subsection into Clause 4, describing how a lump sum order is to be taken into account on the division of property on divorce. A lump sum payment is to be taken into account as part of the equal sharing of the matrimonial property, irrespective of the assets used to pay the lump sum. The amendment clarifies the position as to how lump sum payments are to be taken into account.

The Government welcome the greater clarity that would be introduced into the Bill, but as I have indicated remain concerned about the lack of flexibility for the court to determine how to divide property on divorce, and about the fact that the provisions in the Bill apply only to matrimonial property, allowing no flexibility for the court to consider what might be fair to the parties of a marriage in particular circumstances. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s intention, through her amendments, to limit the potential for litigation under the Bill. The Government and all noble Lords are particularly aware of the unsatisfactory nature of the law, in the sense that it can so often lead to protracted disputes.

Amendments 18 and 19 concern Clause 4. They would remove paragraphs (b) and (d) from Clause 4(7), so that, under the Bill, the court would no longer have to take into account the source of funds not derived from the efforts of the parties during the marriage when making an unequal sharing of the matrimonial property—nor would the court have to take into account the nature and use of the matrimonial property in such circumstances.

11:15

[Baroness Deech]

I completely appreciate the Government’s concerns on this. We are united in wanting to ensure that the costs of litigation are removed or reduced and that people get fair shares. It is a very difficult issue. I do not want to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but given that the Bill will have many more stages to go through—including, I hope, in the House of Commons—I and others would be happy to enter into discussion with the Government on this very tricky issue of how to define what should be shared, bearing in mind that the Supreme Court has already indicated, in a number of judgments, that sharing matrimonial property is the way forward. That has to be our starting point, even if we try to refine it in the many stages that lie ahead of us before the Bill becomes law.

Amendment 6 agreed.

Clause 2 disagreed.

Clause 3: Pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

7: Clause 3, page 2, line 16, after “agreement” insert “in writing and signed by both parties to the marriage”

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I will speak to Amendments 8 to 13 as well. What binds them together is that they concern prenuptial and post-nuptial agreements.

First, let me counter criticisms I have heard. Unfortunately, it is no good saying that nobody ever contemplates the end of their marriage. Only too sadly, it is unavoidable to think of it. There cannot be anyone in this House who has not had a member of their family go through divorce—or, indeed, has not been divorced themselves. It is a very current feature of life. I know the arguments that the Bishops might have put forward, had they been here: that having a prenuptial agreement somehow undermines marriage. That is not so. Such agreements are common in every country in Europe and in North America. In all those places the divorce rate is lower than it is here, except possibly in the United States. I do not think it can be argued that they in any way undermine marriage. Moreover, the Supreme Court swept away the public policy issue that there is somehow something wrong with making an agreement about the end of a marriage in the famous case of Granatino v Radmacher, which was unusual in that it was the wife who was very wealthy and the husband, although comfortable, was not quite so wealthy.

First in this group, I took account of what was a glaring omission in the first draft. The prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement must of course be in writing. That is covered by Amendment 7. This was a mere oversight. It follows the recommendation of the Law Commission in its report on matrimonial property agreements and it follows practice abroad. There can be hardly any dissent from that. Amendment 8 is an improved draft: a way of saying that prenuptial and post-nuptial agreements are binding.

Amendment 9 is about disclosure. Obviously, if people are making a prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement they ought to tell each other what their assets are before they sign it. This amendment seeks to deter legal challenges to an agreement if a small or unimportant asset was overlooked and not declared. For example, if a wife omitted to mention in her list of assets her second-hand car kept somewhere else in the country, one would not want the agreement voided for that unimportant failure to disclose. How many of us could at any time make a completely comprehensive and accurate list of everything we own? Therefore, the amendment provides that a failure to disclose will not ruin the prenup or post-nuptial agreement provided that the asset is not of great significance. I have been advised by judges that there is no need to make any fresh statutory rules about disclosure—hence Amendment 12.

Amendment 11 is meant to prevent someone who would not be damaged taking advantage of non-disclosure. Others will give more substantial examples of that. For instance, if a wife failed to disclose her second-hand car, she could not rely on that to destroy the prenuptial agreement so as to give her an advantage. The idea is that, set against a background of clarity in dividing up assets, the court will accept the prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement as binding.

The Supreme Court has already almost worked into that position, but it attached so many conditions in the well known case of Granatino v Radmacher that about a dozen other cases followed where couples argued simply over whether the prenuptial agreement was binding. If they start going to court to argue about that, the very point of the agreement is undermined and costs accumulate.

The provisions in this group of amendments cumulatively will give very strong, although not complete, force to the binding nature of a prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement. Because the normal laws of contract will apply, if there is a mistake, duress or fraud, it will be possible to undermine a prenup. Section 35 of the Matrimonial Causes Act provides, in limited circumstances, a way to attack a post-nuptial agreement, so that is already quite common.

The great advantage of this provision is the encouragement that it will give people to get married. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who apologises for not being in her place today as she has been called abroad on urgent business, told me enthusiastically about her feelings and those of other Members of this House of riper years who might contemplate a second marriage. People who do so, having once been widowed or divorced, may well say to themselves, “But if I get married again, all the property that I inherited from my first husband or everything I have worked for might, in the event of a second breakdown, go to the second spouse and his family”. I think that most people of a riper age who are thinking of getting remarried would prefer to keep their property for their original family, and the existence of a prenuptial agreement would encourage and help them.

The prenuptial agreement is very common in other countries. Of course, as your Lordships know, there is many a transnational marriage these days. People who were married abroad get divorced here and vice versa. An English person marries someone from abroad who takes it as a matter of course that there should be a prenuptial agreement. Years ago, I had a student at my college in Oxford who got engaged. She came bouncing in to see me and said, “I’m engaged, Mrs Deech. I’m engaged. Who do I go to? Which lawyer do I see about my prenup?”. That was about 20 or 30 years ago, and one can well imagine how my jaw dropped. However, she was Canadian, from Quebec, and that is what they do in Quebec, in France, and in other places. Having decided to get married, the young couple go off and see a lawyer to discuss what they call the “matrimonial regime”, where they talk about what sort of property ownership will apply. It does not undermine their marriages in those countries. As I have said, their divorce rate is lower than ours.

I find it very curious that when the average couple in this country spend £20,000 on arranging a wedding, and spend years doing it—we all know just how complicated these things are—they do not spend just a few pounds on going to see a lawyer to decide who is going to own the property and how things are going to be sorted out. It runs contrary to our nature—or at least it used to. However, I think, and hope, that the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, will explain to us that these prenups and post-nups are catching on, because, sadly, none of us can be unaware of how these things can go wrong and what it will cost us. As I said, the Supreme Court has already pretty much worked itself into this position.

Therefore, I very much hope that your Lordships will accept this group of amendments, which will make prenups and post-nups binding against a background of dividing up assets fairly on divorce and will give couples a clue as to what is fair when drawing up a prenup. Alternatively, they might say, “No, I’m not going to draw up a prenup. Don’t you love me? We don’t need a prenup”. I am sorry to say that that would be a bit naive these days but this group of amendments would greatly improve the situation for couples with a foreign element, older couples embarking on a second marriage and couples where there is a great disparity of wealth: the model who marries the footballer, the singer who marries the Russian oligarch and so on. It is perfectly understandable that they might want to discuss how those assets should be owned and divided up. It is too late for me, I am afraid, but not necessary anyway. However, I very much hope that this House and the Government will recognise that that is modern society and that the amendments would greatly help a number of couples. I beg to move.

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia]

My Lords, I support the concept behind this pillar of the Bill. It is vital that there is more clarity as to when, why and where prenuptial agreements should be binding. If they are made de rigueur in this country, as they are in other countries, there will not be any romance in it; it will just be like trotting along to get your marriage licence. There will be WH Smith forms and, if the couples do not take legal advice, they will be protected.

There are problems because the current law does not provide for binding prenuptial agreements but there is a lot of travel within the European Community. People come to this country having signed a prenuptial agreement which is not a prenuptial agreement: it is a property regime which, with no legal advice, is translated into a prenuptial agreement in this country, and it causes a lot of problems. If people know in clear terms that those are not going to work, then they will know where they stand. They will know what will work and they can be given appropriate advice before they arrive here if they are intending to come to this country.

My noble friend Lady Wilcox believes that this proposal will positively encourage marriage, and I support that wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, I see a cottage industry in my profession of stepchildren encouraging divorce. It is forced upon a parent so that the parent can, putting it crudely, collect the money before they die because there is no prenuptial agreement. Therefore, divorce is being promoted by stepchildren so that assets on one side of the balance sheet can be collected and they can profit by inheritance. That is ugly. A prenuptial agreement would avoid such circumstances.

Also, second marriages are often broken by stepchildren. If those stepchildren know that their financial security is intact and protected by law, there is every chance that the marriages will survive. Speaking in my other capacity as a patron of the Marriage Foundation, I believe that everything should be done to enhance the prospect of people remaining married. Prenuptial agreements protect people because they know what will happen to them should the ghastly event of divorce happen. It is very important that people get independent legal advice because at the time they get married they are, in my experience, concentrating on the dress, bridesmaids, venue and canapés and not what may go wrong. To have people in love not being properly shown the horrors of divorce is a mistake.

I wholly agree with this measure becoming part of the statute. I was the lawyer for Mr Granatino and it was an ugly shock when the Supreme Court decided to apply contractual measures to something that had hitherto, as part of the Matrimonial Causes Act, not been legally enforceable.

11:30

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support for prenuptial agreements. I say that in the context that I trained as a Roman-Dutch lawyer, under which law a prenup is recognised. In an era when we have one of the highest divorce rates ever, certainly this is the time to simplify this important part of divorce law.

I say a prenup rather than a post-nup because obviously a prenup is more certain and there is far less scope for negotiation than with a post-nuptial agreement. But a prenup makes the likelihood of successful mediation far more likely than is the case now.

A common theme of the Bill has been to provide more certainty. Ideally, we want a clean break for those going through the unfortunate process of getting divorced. Apart from the huge cost of lengthy divorces, not much has been mentioned today about the huge stress that this has on children from this prolonged and tortuous process. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, mentioned the important fact that, without this protection, those who have gone through traumatic divorces are far less likely to want to get remarried. I am sure that she will also have mentioned that 16 million people in Britain are over the age of 65. That is another reason why this clause should be promoted.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak but I have one or two points to make. When my noble friend talked about a cottage industry I thought that was probably scaling things down a little; it is a mansion industry rather than a cottage industry. I accept the total impeccable logic of the case advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. She is talking about an unfortunate necessity. Only this week I met a young girl in her 20s. I have known her since she was born. She married with great hope less than 18 months ago and the marriage is foundering now. Of course, I accept all that, but am I alone in your Lordships’ House in expressing infinite regret that we are where we are?

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, it might surprise the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to know that I am absolutely with him on the importance of marriage. I have spent much of my academic career writing about it in an atmosphere where I was almost a lone voice. I am with him all the way. I wish there was more we could do about it without being accused of claiming the moral high ground and so forth.

Nevertheless, I have studied the situation and realised, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, pointed out, that this is going on. The Supreme Court has recognised it. It is for this House to grab a hold of it. We should grab hold of all this law, which has been interpreted and elasticised and twisted around by the judges for 40 years without this House getting a grip on the principles. Now is an opportunity to recognise that we are where we are with 100,000 couples divorcing every year, leaving aside the many more breakdowns of cohabitation—and possibly in the future, civil partnerships and the relationships of same-sex couples who have not turned up in the statistics yet. My heart is absolutely with the noble Lord.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group of amendments starting with Amendment 7 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Wilcox, and my noble friend Lord Grantchester are all to Clause 3, which concerns prenuptial and post-nuptial agreements.

I see the arguments made that these agreements, which were not very common a few years ago, are on the increase and can provide certainty to both parties as to the division of assets in the result of a breakdown of the relationship. I recall the comments of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, when he told us at Second Reading that these agreements had in no way encouraged the breakdown of marriage. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, spoke about people who had been widowed or divorced and were afraid to marry again where there were assets they wished to protect and who were reluctant to commit again, fearing a potentially financially disadvantaged position at a time of life when starting again would be almost impossible. The noble Lord and other noble Lords spoke about this again today.

The amendments themselves seek to provide further clarity as to what this Bill seeks to do in respect of pre and post-nuptial agreements and build on the comments and points raised both inside and outside your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, this has been a useful and instructive debate on this interesting and significant area. There are those who retain great faith in the institution of marriage. The noble Baroness herself said that, and I for one see no tension between thinking that and nevertheless being of the view that it is important there should be some sensible provision about prenuptial agreements. Her student may have been anticipating a trend by suggesting going to a lawyer almost immediately, in the heady days of announcing her engagement. A number of popular songs that suggest going to see the preacher at that juncture may have to be amended to reflect this different approach.

These amendments all relate to this clause. Amendment 9 changes the threshold of the duty of disclosure placed on both parties for the prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement to be binding on both parties. The Bill currently requires that the parties fully disclose their assets before the agreement will be binding on them and this amendment would require only “proper disclosure”.

Amendment 7 corrects the omission of the requirement in the Bill for a prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement to be made in writing. I recall that that point was specifically drawn to the House’s attention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, at Second Reading. As the noble Baroness said, this is an essential prerequisite and a key feature of the recommendations made by the Law Commission.

The intention is clearly to protect people entering into prenuptial agreements by imposing the formality of a written and signed agreement. However, the Government have already indicated that we have reservations about the lack of flexibility in the Bill for the court to override an agreement that is unfair or does not adequately provide for “needs”. This is especially so given that people often enter into a prenuptial agreement at a point when they are not as realistic about events, sadly, as they should be.

The Government has yet to consider the detailed proposals for binding matrimonial property agreements put forward by Law Commission in its report on Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements. We have informed the commission that a final decision on the proposals should be made by the new Government after the election. However, the Government would not seek to oppose this amendment to the Bill.

The requirement under the existing divorce process is for both parties to make,

“full, frank, clear and accurate”,

disclosure of their assets using form E. We have concerns that undefined “proper” disclosure would be open to interpretation and offer scope for possible hiding of assets in a way that the current requirement is designed to avoid.

Amendment 8 amends the formulation of subsection (1) of Clause 3 and, if I have understood it correctly, is intended only to tidy up the drafting and not to change its substantive effect. The amendment seeks to replace the words,

“binding on the parties and is to be given effect unless”,

with “binding on them unless”. However, I believe that normal legislative drafting convention means that the effect would be to omit the crucial word “unless”, which is necessary to apply the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1).

Amendment 11 inserts a new substantive provision into the clause which sets out the requirements for a prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement to be binding. It does not set a new condition for the agreement to be binding; rather, it provides that only the person who has been disadvantaged can rely upon failure to obtain legal advice or failure to disclose assets as a means to make the agreement non-binding. The Government remain generally concerned about the lack of protection for people entering into binding prenuptial or post-nuptial agreements under the terms proposed in the Bill. These amendments do not appear to improve significantly on the protection offered and are substantially different from the approach recommended by the Law Commission, which would preserve the ability of the court in appropriate cases to override an agreement made between the parties where in the view of the court its terms are manifestly unfair or where they fail to provide adequately for needs. The Government have yet to consider the Law Commission’s detailed proposals. In relation to the Bill we are concerned that leaving prenuptial agreements to be subject to the rules of contractual law around validity and enforceability, and post-nuptial agreements subject to review by the court under the provisions set out in Section 35 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, does not amount to a coherent set of protections.

Amendment 12 would remove the possibility of the Lord Chancellor making rules to specify what constitutes the full disclosure of assets, which is one of the requirements in the Bill for the prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement to be binding. The noble Baroness said that she has been advised that the law in relation to disclosure is sufficiently clear not to need further elaboration. As already noted, the second amendment would alter “full disclosure”, which as she rightly says is well understood, to “proper disclosure”. The Government agree that there are already established principles around disclosure. I understand that the noble Baroness is really concerned with what might be regarded as de minimis omissions from the list, but I do not think that that would in fact cause a difficulty on the existing rules. We are concerned that the use of the term “proper disclosure” could open up some areas of concern.

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia]

Would the Minister clarify that he is talking about form E? Form E is an incredibly detailed analysis of someone’s wealth; it could not be fuller than full disclosure. Is the Minister talking about disclosure of that nature, because I think that the amendment is meant to catch disproportionate non-disclosure? Form E is the most comprehensive document known to man. It goes down to the last £500 or number of pairs of cufflinks that a man may own.

[Lord Faulks]

I am not seeking to suggest that form E is not an extremely thorough document and I am sure that my noble friend is absolutely right on the point. But the amendment seeks to alter the rules from “full disclosure” to “proper disclosure”. If form E is going to be what proper disclosure is, my noble friend may well be right. My point is simply that proper disclosure appears to be a different description. If I have understood her correctly, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that this was in order to ensure that the whole thing could not be set aside on the basis of a failure to include in the list something that someone had forgotten about or which was so trivial that it did not enter the heads of those entering into it. I understand that that is the aim, but the Government remain concerned that “proper disclosure” could open the door to someone saying, “Well, it was not proper for me to disclose that”. That is my answer to my noble friend.

Finally, Amendment 13 alters the court’s powers when dealing with the division of property on divorce when a prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement is to be treated as binding on the parties so that instead the court can make a financial order as described in amended Clause 1(3). The orders the court can make under the revised clause are an order for a lump sum payment, a property adjustment order, a pension sharing order, a pension compensation sharing order and corresponding provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2014 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 in so far as the provisions of the 2013 Act are not already covered by the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 as amended by the Bill. This increases the range of orders which can be made. However it still falls some way short of the flexibility that the courts currently have under the 1973 Act and, for the reasons I have already given, the Government still have some concerns about the approach.

12:57

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

The noble Lord said that one of the reasons why the Government would introduce the full setting aside of a prenuptial agreement would be “need”. If that is the case, would that not, first, have the potential to open up an area of great ambiguity and uncertainty because “need” would have to be defined very closely? Secondly, would there not be a real risk that “need” could be interpreted by a court as being the right to retain the same standard of living as had been the case when the party had been married, and that might be possible only by drawing on prenuptial, non-matrimonial property? That would undermine the whole purpose and force of the Bill. Will the noble Lord say a few more words about how the Government envisage defining the word “need” in this context?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord makes an important point. What I did say was that the Government had not yet concluded how they proposed to respond to the Law Commission’s recommendations. The Law Commission has said that it considers it appropriate to override an agreement in some cases. I take entirely his point that if, as it were, the court is going to have a free rein to override an agreement simply because it thinks it fairer in the circumstances to come to a different conclusion, that would significantly undermine the degree of certainty which can be obtained by a prenuptial agreement. However, at the heart of what the Government will have to decide on this is to respect all the advantages that one can obtain from having a prenuptial agreement for the reasons that have already been outlined in the debate, yet not making it iniquitous in some circumstances—limited circumstances, I would imagine—where it is manifestly unfair for a party to be restricted by the scope of that agreement.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the best should not be the enemy of what is workable and good going forward. I am also sure that the Minister and I are united in the deep concern I have about the unfortunate couples who are wasting their money as they go through the process at the moment. I am willing to try almost anything because this has been a concern of mine for the past 40 years. We need a framework for couples that is more in line with what is tried and tested in New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, North America and Europe. While appreciating that this is an issue in flux and the fact that the legislation I am proposing would still have to go through the Commons, I hope very much that the noble Lord will be open to discussion with me and other concerned parties about how to get exactly the right wording in relation to proper disclosure—I absolutely understand his concerns—and the flexibility that is necessary. I am convinced that we must do this and I believe that the Minister shares that concern.

Amendment 7 agreed.

Amendments 8 to 13

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

8: Clause 3, page 2, line 16, leave out from “on” to “unless” and insert “them”

9: Clause 3, page 2, leave out line 26 and insert “one or both parties failed to make proper disclosure of that party’s assets before the agreement”

10: Clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out “the applicable rules” and insert “any rule”

11: Clause 3, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) Any non-compliance with subsection (1)(b) or (d) may be relied on only by the party disadvantaged by such non-compliance.”

12: Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out subsection (3)

13: Clause 3, page 2, line 41, leave out from “may” to end and insert “make a relevant financial order”

Amendments 8 to 13 agreed.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed.

Clause 4: Matrimonial property

Amendments 14 to 16

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

14: Clause 4, page 3, line 4, leave out “relevant date” and insert “date of the relevant financial order”

15: Clause 4, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (4)

15A: Clause 4, page 3, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) The amount of any order for lump sum provision in favour of a party to a marriage shall be taken into account as part of the equal sharing of the matrimonial property (irrespective of what assets are actually resorted to by the other party in compliance with the order).”

16: Clause 4, page 3, line 14, leave out subsections (5) and (6)

Amendments 14 to 16 agreed.

Amendment 17 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 18 and 19

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

18: Clause 4, page 4, line 1, leave out paragraph (b)

19: Clause 4, page 4, line 6, leave out paragraph (d)

Amendments 18 and 19 agreed.

Amendment 20 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed.

Clause 5: Periodical payments and lump sums

Amendments 20A to 22

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

20A: Clause 5, page 4, line 14, leave out subsections (1) and (2)

21: Clause 5, page 4, line 23, leave out “or lump sum”

22: Clause 5, page 4, line 32, leave out “or lump sum”

Amendments 20A to 22 agreed.

Amendment 23

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

23: Clause 5, page 4, line 33, leave out “three” and insert “five”

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, Amendments 23 to 25 are all about what we specialists call periodical payments, which, I ought to explain to the House, are ongoing maintenance payments that many people are familiar with, whereby usually a husband, although not always, is ordered to pay his ex-wife a monthly or annual sum, year in, year out. A Member of this House has told me that he is still paying maintenance to his ex-wife after 30 years and many intervening marriages.

In fact, only about 12,000 such orders are made every year, although, as I have said more than once, there are more than 100,000 divorces every year. Not many of these orders are made, which must mean that people are reaching their own agreement: they are settling the matter once and for all by a lump sum, or, very likely, there simply is not any money to go around. As I have said before, the law that I am trying to reform affects largely lower and middle-income people. Of course, as we know, in the lower income bracket, people may well be living on benefits with a great deal of state subsidy; there simply is no money to go around and no order is made.

Noble Lords will recall the great difficulty there has been over the decades in trying to extract from fathers, who have no reason to object, ongoing maintenance for their children after a divorce. It has been like trying to get blood out of a stone, and so it remains. I suspect that in many of these divorces no order is made because one or both of the couple are living on benefits.

In many ways, the current law is regressive. Reverting to an analogy I have used before, were I or any other noble Baroness in this House so fortunate as to marry a footballer for a brief period, we could expect at the end of the marriage, which undoubtedly would come about, to be kept in that particular style for ever and ever—it really is not that amusing; that is the law at the moment—whereas if a noble Baroness in her youth was so altruistic as to marry a vicar she would get absolutely nothing, or next to nothing, on divorce. I have said for many years—and I have been involved in educating women all my career—that the message that goes out is, “Find that footballer and sit back”.

The Law Commission has said that periodical payments—maintenance—should be a transition. In an era when women, mothers included, are expected by the Government not to claim benefits once their child is six, it is very hard to argue that once a woman has children she should always be kept after the end of the marriage, let alone if she has no children or those children have grown up. I am sure that noble Lords know from their acquaintances the inequity and rather arbitrary nature of what goes on.

The Law Commission has said that maintenance should be a period of transition to full independence. We know that this may be hard on the older woman but it may very well be that there are lump sums and a division of assets. Moreover, I have shown in these amendments that I am listening to the concerns of the Government. At Second Reading they said that this may be hard. These amendments therefore say that maintenance should last in the first instance for five years—which represents the average period between the end of one marriage and the beginning of another—and that they may continue where there is evidence of “serious financial hardship”.

To change the law in this way would be only to bring us into line with what goes on, as I have said before, in North America, the rest of Europe, Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand. It is very hard to argue, when our divorce law, rightly or wrongly, is no longer based on fault but on irretrievable breakdown—“This marriage has come to an end; it is nobody’s fault”—that a man should continue to keep his ex-wife in the style to which she became accustomed for ever and ever until the end of their joint lives. It does not actually happen—as I said, there are only 12,000 cases.

I will quote briefly from some of the blogs. Whenever I mention this in public, the public come back and say things such as,

“desperately needed reform of financial proceedings on divorce … The financial interests vested in the current lawlessness are colossal … all that comes out of court is injustice, direct/indirect discrimination … It is fundamentally unfair and an affront to the rule of law that the outcome of cases should vary randomly to such a degree”.

Even the Law Commission reported that its consultees said that operating financial provision in divorce for a judge is like a bus driver being given a bus and told to drive it but not being told where that bus is to end up.

What is the objective of maintenance at the end of divorce? The House has not really got to grips with this ever since the change in the divorce law in 1969. Actually, periodical payments are withering on the vine. It is time for us to give a steer. I absolutely understand that the Government have concerns and think that people will end up on benefits, but the people who are likely to do so are living on benefits already.

I have provided in Amendment 24 that the period may be extended. Again, I quote from some of the consultees:

“Many people going through divorce have grown sick and tired of hearing that the legal profession has spent the decades since the Matrimonial Causes Act was enacted failing to develop a coherent set of straightforward principles to govern division of income and assets on divorce”.

Another says:

“ The Scottish system”—

which I am copying here—

“is by no means perfect, but it does at least provide a framework for dealing with financial provision. Legislation will always be open to interpretation by lawyers … The public should however be able to rely on and understand a basic set of provisions regulating the division of matrimonial property on separation and divorce”.

Another said:

“Nobody knows where they stand. The judge you get on the day can do virtually anything based on a whim”.

That is how it seems—a point made strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, at Second Reading.

Moreover, one must remember that many women now, especially younger women, are earning more than their husbands. Men somehow seem to take it on the chin when they have to pay maintenance to their ex-wives, but there is nothing like the fury of an ex-wife who already feels that she has been betrayed by the man she married who is earning less than her when she realises that she is going to have to keep him for the rest of his life. I beg to move.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome all the noble Baroness’s amendments. They seem sensible and the principle of equality is at the heart of them. I just wanted to point out that, given the equal marriage Act and the Civil Partnership Act, feasible as it is for a noble Baroness to find her footballer, it is equally feasible for a noble Lord, too.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, on the footballer point, I suggest that noble Lords should look at carefully at the teams, because certainly the teams that I and my noble friend Lord Hunt support probably would not give the sort of assets that people would be looking for.

The three amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, beginning with Amendment 23 in her name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, again respond to concerns raised at Second Reading. I and others then raised the concern that the one-size-fits-all approach would not work in all cases, as there was no provision to take account of individual circumstances that could leave an individual in a much weaker position than would be reasonable. The amendments seek to address those concerns. In particular, Amendment 24 sets out a specific duty for the court to satisfy itself. This is a step in the right direction, but I am still left wondering whether we should go a little further to protect the weaker partner. However, the case for indefinite maintenance orders needs addressing and these amendments make progress in that respect.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the amendments deal with Clause 5 and periodical payments. Amendment 23 concerns the power of the court to make orders for periodical payments and extends the duration of those permitted under the Bill from three years to five.

Amendment 24 inserts a new substantive provision into Clause 5(3)(c) and provides a mechanism for the court to extend the duration of a periodical order beyond the five-year maximum under the Bill in circumstances where there is no other means to make provision for a party to the marriage and that party would otherwise be likely to suffer serious financial hardship as a result.

Amendment 25 removes the provision in the Bill which would have provided that any party to the marriage at risk of suffering financial hardship should be awarded only such periodical payments or lump sum as is,

“reasonable to relieve that party of such hardship over a period of three years or such shorter period as the court considers reasonable”.

The noble Baroness has written to me to say that she has listened to the Government’s concerns—as indeed she has said today—that divorcees need sufficient time to adjust to their new circumstances and should not find themselves on benefits because of a lack of maintenance, as it was sometimes referred to.

The proposed amendments would go some way to address concerns held by the Government about the real possibility of hardship, with an economically weaker party to the marriage being forced to live on benefits. That risk needs to be balanced against the understandable desire on the part of many parties to a marriage for a clean break in the event of divorce. We continue to have reservations about the protections under the Bill for ensuring that an economically weaker party to a marriage can successfully complete the transition to financial independence, but we entirely accept the concern that has been well expressed about continuous and over-lengthy reliance on periodical payments, whether it is from footballers or Members of your Lordships’ House.

Amendment 23 agreed.

Amendments 24 to 26

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

24: Clause 5, page 4, line 34, after “divorce” insert “, such period not to be exceeded unless the court is satisfied that there is no other means of making provision for a party to the marriage and that that party would otherwise be likely to suffer serious financial hardship as a result”

25: Clause 5, page 4, line 35, leave out paragraph (d)

26: Clause 5, page 5, line 10, leave out “or lump sum”

Amendments 24 to 26 agreed.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed.

Clause 6 disagreed.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed..

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [HL]

Friday 21st November 2014 Lords Chamber

Committee

12:06

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 1: Expulsion and suspension of members of the House of Lords

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“( ) Standing Orders under subsection (1) may only make provision in respect of conduct by a member which takes place after the coming into force of this Act.”

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, I hope that I will not have to detain the Committee at great length on this amendment or on the subsequent amendment, because, at Second Reading, I was enormously encouraged by the widespread support for the aims of this Bill that came from all sections of the House. I was encouraged, too, by the words of the Minister in his offer to discuss issues arising from the Bill. In Pollyanna mode, I decided that not having a settled view was a good thing and that we could perhaps move forward to a point where the Government had a settled view that this was a small but important measure that they would be able to support.

As I have said, this is a simple Bill; it is an enabling Bill; and no major concerns were raised at Second Reading. I think that Members of the House recognised that this was not a Bill about composition or reform of your Lordships’ House, although many people would have wished that it were so, but that it was dealing with a limited but very important issue, which was to ensure that the House had available to it, if the circumstances arose in which they were needed, sanctions and disciplinary measures that the public would expect us to have in those circumstances and which I think there is general agreement that we do not have at the moment.

My conversations have been mainly about the technical issues that arose from the Bill—that is Amendment 2, which we will come to in a moment—but also about whether there was a way in which we could do two things. The first was to clarify in the Bill that this is a Bill about conduct, not about composition. The other was to address the point raised in the debate: to ensure that no injustice should be done in respect of any Member of your Lordships’ House.

As I have said before, this is an enabling Bill, and it will be for the House to draw up Standing Orders to ensure that the powers that it has been given by the statute are appropriately, fairly and properly implemented and that the processes and procedures available in such circumstances should be of the highest standard. In proposing the amendment, I am happy to include one thing in the Bill: the issue of retrospectivity. The amendment makes it crystal clear that sanctions that came to pass because of Standing Orders made under the Bill may be made only in respect of,

“conduct by a member which takes place after the coming into force of this Act”.

Given what I have said about the amendment clarifying in the Bill that it is not intended in any way to be a retrospective measure but is about putting our House in order in future, it is profoundly to be hoped, as many noble Lords said at Second Reading, that these serious disciplinary measures will not be needed because conduct will not occur that calls them into action. However, forewarned is forearmed and, as I said at Second Reading, I believe that we have a dangerous lacuna in our disciplinary proceedings and the Bill sets out to fill it and protect the House in those circumstances. I beg to move.

[Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)]

I very much support the amendment, and apologise that I was unable to be in the House for Second Reading, but I also support the Bill. As some of your Lordships may recall, I was chairman of the Privileges Committee during the saga of the first suspensions to take place in the modern era. They were not as simple as all that, because a number of people thought that we should not have been able to suspend noble Lords from the service of the House. We found that we were, but we also found that we were unable to suspend noble Lords beyond the length of a Parliament. In other words, if someone was suspended today, they could be suspended for only five or six months or so, whereas if someone was suspended on 1 June, they could be suspended for five years. The press and the public were rightly unable to understand why we did not have the power to suspend for longer or, indeed, to expel. The Bill appears to deal with that matter extremely well, and I very much support it and the amendment.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I want briefly to add my support. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is a leading member of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which includes Members from all parts of the House and of another place. We see the Bill as the logical extension of the Bill taken through the House of Commons last year by Mr Dan Byles and through this place by my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood, who has done so much in this field. During Second Reading, the word housekeeping was slightly disparaged. The Bill is extremely important, dealing with a vital subject, but it is quite literally about keeping the House in the best possible sense.

We are all grateful to the noble Baroness for, at this late stage in the Parliament, seeking to introduce a very short, precise and particular measure, which can certainly pass in the little time left available in this Parliament, given the good will and support of the Government. I was heartened, as was the noble Baroness, by what the Minister said at the end of Second Reading and by what I have heard since, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able not only to accept the spirit of the amendment but indicate that the Bill can have a fair wind. It is in the best interests of your Lordships’ House that this House should be kept in the best possible way, and the Bill enables us to move in that direction.

12:15

[Baroness Flather (CB)]

My Lords, I am totally in favour of this power being given to us. When we had the latest expulsions, the amount of flak this House received from the public was amazing. Everywhere I went, people were saying to me, “You are no different to the Commons. You are a cheat. Everybody cheats in the House of Lords”. It is very important that we can show that we will not allow people who cheat on their expenses to remain in this House. Anybody who has been found to be cheating should have to leave the House, because unless we do that, we will never recoup our reputation and position in the public’s mind. In any other place where anyone else works, they would never get away with the behaviour of some noble Lords. They would never be able to keep their jobs and stay on, so why should we not do the same?

I utterly support the Bill. We need these powers to protect all of us who do not cheat or behave badly, because one or two people can make all of us look bad. I hope that we can get on with this and that the Bill passes.

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

My Lords, the last thing I would want to do is delay the Bill in any way. I was shocked recently to discover that this proposal has been debated since the 19th century without being passed. Of course the principle is absolutely right, but I just question whether Amendment 1 is really a very good idea. We talked just now about expenses. Obviously, if we pass the amendment, that conduct, which would have taken place before the Bill came into force, may only be exposed after it came into force. The amendment would make it impossible to deal with that conduct. In other words, the amendment makes it difficult to deal with some of the worst conduct. To use an entirely hypothetical example, if someone committed perjury in a libel case and it took four years for that perjury to be revealed, in the course of which the Bill was passed, the conduct would no longer fall under the Bill. I wonder whether the amendment is quite what we want.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the Opposition fully support the noble Baroness in her endeavours. The noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, raised an interesting point to which the noble Baroness will no doubt respond. There is time between now and Report if clarification is required. I take his point.

The Bill can be fairly assured of passage through your Lordships’ House. The question is, when it gets to the Commons, what help will the Government give it? Without government help, I suspect that it will be very difficult for the Bill to pass, so it is right for me to press the Minister on what the Government’s attitude will be. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, helpfully said, as the noble Baroness reminded the House, that the Government have no settled view on the Bill at present. He kindly said that he would take back the speeches and consider with colleagues what response the Government could make. I hope that today he will be able to tell us that the Government are prepared to give this a fair wind in the other place. The other place does not have much work to do; the Government have sent MPs home. They now do Mondays to Wednesdays, so there is plenty of time for the Commons to consider this if the Government so wish.

There is an appetite in this House for sensible change. Discussions are taking place about the noble Baroness’s Bill and other noble Lords are discussing the issue of retirements, which we are going to have to face up to. Yet more noble Lords are discussing improving the governance of the House. I hope that the Government will allow for these discussions to take place and that we can have some more general debates about the issue of retirement. I think that we could reach a consensus on retirements in your Lordships’ House. The Minister is looking at me but there is an overwhelming appetite among noble Lords all around the House to sort this out. We have had the remarkable example of the Lord Speaker making a statement some months ago, giving notice of her intent to leave the House at a certain time. That was a marvellous example. Why are the Government not allowing the House to come to a sensible view on these matters?

The Minister may say that it is because substantive reform is just around the corner, and he may quote me as having said that in the past. It is difficult to assume who is going to win the next election, but let us assume that we have a Government after the next election, after some time and of some sort. Let us assume that they set up some kind of review—a convention or whatever—to come forward with proposals on substantive reform. I would say that the first opportunity of that coming into practice would not be before 2020, if we are realistic.

[Lord Cormack]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, whom I am tempted to call my noble friend on this occasion, as on others, for giving way. Does he not agree that it would be entirely feasible for the Government to set up a Select Committee of this House, with a strict timetable to report back by the end of January or in early February on the issues to which he was referring? I am quite confident, from my experience in the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, that consensus could be reached, and reached amicably.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I very much agree with that. That is a very sensible approach and I am sure that consensus could be reached. The point I was making is on the argument that we should not do this because substantive reform is just around the corner. As I said, even if we agreed and a Bill went through and was approved by both Houses, it would be very unlikely to be implemented before 2020. So for at least five years ahead, we will be working under the current arrangements. The argument for sensible change—

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

I am slightly confused. I thought that this Bill was about dealing with people who transgressed the behaviour expected in this House. I appreciate that my noble friend is anxious to pursue his agenda but he knows perfectly well that consensus on reform of this House can proceed only on the basis of its powers compared to the House of Commons. Until that is satisfied, all the discussion in the world will get nowhere and he should not waste his time on it.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

With the greatest of respect—and I have great respect for my noble friend—I think that he has missed the point. I agree that substantive reform of the Lords will not take place until the relationship between this House and the other place is fully resolved. I believe that conventions will need to be codified in an Act of Parliament to have any chance whatever of there being a relationship between two elected Houses, if we are to have two elected Houses. Other noble Lords will disagree but I say to my noble friend that the argument that the Government have deployed on a number of occasions is that we cannot agree to sensible, incremental measures because we are committed to a fully elected second Chamber. That seems to be the argument that essentially comes out, certainly from the Minister and his party. My point is that even if we were to reach consensus and a reform Bill went through both Houses, it would be some years before it could actually be put into practice.

In the mean time, we still want a second Chamber to be as effective as possible. The way we are going, the issue about numbers is becoming so serious that we are running into a real problem of credibility. That is why I hope that the Minister will be very positive on this Bill but that he will also reflect on what his noble friend has said about allowing the House to discuss these other matters and come to a view very quickly, which I believe could be done.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I hesitate to open up a wider debate about long-term Lords reform. We all know that we are already into substantial discussions about constitutional reform of this multinational state. I suspect that after the next election and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, just said, with whatever shape of government should emerge from it, the future of this House will be caught up in those discussions. Two of the three parties are already committed to a constitutional convention, so there are a range of things—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure he is right but does he also accept that it will be some years before any change can take place? Therefore, the argument that the House should be given a fair wind by the Government to make some incremental, sensible change is overwhelming.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Lord and I will discuss, off the Floor, the question of how easy it will be to get consensus on the principle of retirement. I will tell him about some of the conversations I have had with Members of his own Benches about this over the past two years, some of which have been extremely vigorous.

Meanwhile, we are dealing with the Committee stage of today’s Bill, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, rightly pointed out, is concerned with the conduct of the House. It has a limited and specific purpose and is concerned with the reputation of Parliament as a whole. We welcome that. The Bill is also concerned with rebuilding public trust in our political institutions and, as she made clear, is intended to give the House precautionary powers—powers which are intended to be available but to be rarely, and, one hopes, never, used. We recognise that and the Government also recognise the sentiment around the House on the Bill. We are very happy to work with the noble Baroness to ensure that the amendments are tweaked into a form that would suit.

We understand the spirit of the amendments but there are some issues about the exact definition, which we need to clarify. The noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, raised one example: what do we do if we become aware of past conduct which was egregious but was not previously known? What do we do about past conduct, the effects of which are continuing? The issues of retrospectivity are complicated in this regard and the House will also need to be concerned that we currently have an inherent power of suspension, which may or may not be used with retrospective regard to past conduct. If we were to pass this, we would be limiting the power of suspension that the House currently has. What I can do on behalf of the Government is to say that we would be very happy for Cabinet Office officials and lawyers to discuss between this stage of the Bill and the next, with the noble Baroness and others, how we might reshape these amendments to put them into a reasonable form.

The Government are giving the Bill a fair wind in this House. How far we will be able to assist it in the other place is a matter which the Government do not yet need to address and have not yet fully addressed. All Members of this Chamber will know of the complicated internal procedures that the Government need to go through. It will be tight to get the Bill through the other House, given the queue of Private Members’ Bills before the next election—although I take the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that some of them are not entirely overworked at the moment—but we need not address that issue definitively at present.

For the moment, I am very happy to say that the Government will work with the noble Baroness to revise the amendment into a form that would suit the purposes that are intended, and that we have thought through some of the complications about the principle of retrospection, which is a very delicate and important one in the issue of conduct.

12:30

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken for their support for the general principle of the Bill and for their recognition that, although we quickly get on to wider issues when any of us in your Lordships’ House talks about the House itself, this is not a House of Lords reform Bill but a House of Lords disciplinary Bill.

I was particularly heartened by the Minister’s words because, as the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, will not be surprised to hear, some of the issues that he raised have also occurred to me. The issue of retrospectivity is one on which the House has very strong views. We have lost most of the lawyers who were taking part in the preceding business, but if they were here they would remind us of some recent examples of the fact that you cannot bring in sanctions that would be current today for offences that occurred in the past. We are talking basically about a sanctions regime. Equally, I do not think that anyone in the House would think it appropriate for there to be double jeopardy and, where someone had had disciplinary proceedings against them, been suspended and then had come back, for that to be reviewed. However, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, and the Minister that there are some issues where conduct takes place before disciplinary proceedings, and that the interaction of that with the Bill is an important area.

I hope that the conversations we have will be fruitful and that the fair wind that the Government have given to the Bill in this House will enable us not only to pass these amendments today but to return to them on Report so that they can be improved appropriately. I should record now that I have been immensely grateful to the Leader of the House, the Minister and officials within the House for their support and help thus far in the Bill. They will understand when I pocket that help and support and ask for more, because I believe that we can get the Bill into perfect shape quite quickly in this House and that a fair wind transferred down the corridor could enable us to get it on to the statute book. That would be good not just for this House but for Parliament as a whole. I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed.

Clause 2: Effect of ceasing to be a member

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman]

2: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, after “4” insert “(2) to (8)”

[Baroness Hayman]

I suspect that we will not have the same level of debate on this technical amendment. It was pointed out to me that it would be helpful, in spelling out the consequences of expulsion under the Bill that are to mirror those under the “Byles Bill”—the House of Lords Reform Act 2014—if I referred not simply to Section 4 of that Act but also to subsections of that Act. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, here again the Government are sympathetic to the principle, but there are some technical issues about how the Bill refers to the 2014 Act and how one relates to the other. Again, the Government would be very glad to talk to the noble Baroness between Committee and Report to sort them out and perhaps come back with a different amendment on Report.

I read the latest Code of Conduct again this morning, thinking that we need to be sure what we are on about. One of the issues that perhaps we need to discuss informally off the Floor is how far this measure is intended to refer only to conduct that is mentioned in the Code of Conduct or to egregious conduct of other sorts conducted by Members of this House. However, that is a question that we need not have in the Bill itself, but it is certainly a question that the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and others will need to consider at a later stage. With the reassurance that we will be very happy to discuss how we remodel this amendment between now and Report, I hope that the noble Baroness is happy with the Government’s response.

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, one thing I would never claim as one of my core skills is parliamentary draftsmanship. Therefore, I am not just happy but very grateful to have the discussions that the Minister suggests.

I agree with the Minister that the heavy lifting about getting this right has to be done within the House, with the Committee for Privileges and Conduct looking at the code of conduct and Standing Orders and making sure that we have the appropriate procedures. This is an enabling Bill to allow us to get on and do that meticulous and careful work under its auspices.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed.

Clause 3 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Friday 21st November 2014 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

12:38

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill is officially called the Equality Act (Amendment) Bill, but that is rather a boring title. I prefer to call it the “Six-Inch Rule Bill” since it simply imposes a duty on all occupiers of public buildings to install a ramp if the entrance to the premises has a step of six inches or less.

Noble Lords may ask why this is necessary since we have the all-singing, all-dancing Equality Act 2010, which runs to 218 sections and 28 schedules and covers all forms of discrimination, including facilitating access to public buildings for disabled people. Indeed, Section 20 of the Equality Act imposes a duty on occupiers of public buildings,

“to take such steps as … is reasonable”,

to remove any physical features of the building that disadvantage disabled people. That wording seemed sensible and should cover all possible situations. It is clever wording and no doubt Harriet Harman MP and the officials thought that by setting down that general principle, the Act would stand the test of time and not require the regular amendments it would need if they had phrased it in more specific language.

However well intentioned Section 20 and the related Schedules 4, 5 and 21 were, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is simply not being implemented on the ground. There are tens of thousands of entrances to public buildings with a step of less than six inches and nothing is being done to grant wheelchair access to them. Clause 1(2) of my Bill states that if the entrance step is of six inches or less, it is cheap and easy to remove the step or make a ramp. If occupiers do not remove or adapt the step of six inches or less, they would fail in their duty under the Act,

“to take such steps as … is reasonable”.

Subsection (3) introduces a duty to introduce ramps for steps of up to 12 inches to be introduced at a later date, but more on that later.

What is the justification for my assertion that no reasonable steps are being taken to enforce the provision,

“to take such steps as … is reasonable”,

to remove any physical feature of the building that disadvantages disabled people? The evidence for my assertion is available for all to see in some stunning examples just a few hundred yards from your Lordships’ House. If noble Lords were to take a short walk down Victoria Street as far as the Army and Navy Stores—now House of Fraser—turn left into Horseferry Road and left again through that wonderful little market street Strutton Ground, they would see more than 40 examples. The vast majority of big chain stores and shops on Victoria Street have level access from the pavement or a lip of about an inch at most. Of course, new-build shops nearly all have level access. However, there are nine shops on Victoria Street with a step of six inches or less. In Horseferry Road, there are about a dozen shops or pubs with a step of six inches or less, and Strutton Ground has 21 such premises. I hasten to add that this is no criticism of Westminster Council, which is particularly good at providing dropped kerbs for wheelchair users; nor is it any special criticism of the shops in Strutton Ground. I mention the shops in this location because they are right on our doorstep 300 yards away, but I could easily take any street in any town or city in this country and find tens of thousands of examples of the same thing.

What is particularly irritating—to me, at any rate—is that many shops have a step of about 2 inches, the thickness of the Companion, and it would take less than £10-worth of concrete to put a ramp in front of them. There are even some shops sharing a double doorway, where one has put in a little concrete ramp and the other right next to it has done nothing and left the step.

What is the point of this? Wheelchairs have little front wheels and if you hit a step of 2 inches, it is the equivalent of a motorist hitting head-on a pavement of eight inches. It is not something you do twice, not deliberately at any rate. I have found that many shopkeepers in those streets and in Pimlico are very kind and offer to serve me out on the pavement. However, I have a principle that if they cannot be bothered to make a slight, low-cost adjustment to let me into their shop, I am blowed if I am going to give them my business, and I will go and buy my sandwich somewhere else. One restaurant, which is very close to the Home Office, suggested that if I came round the back, they could let me in through the kitchen. I thought that being asked to go round the back door last happened in Alabama in the 1960s. Would any other group covered by the Equality Act tolerate the suggestion of going round the back to be served?

I have therefore concluded that an amendment is necessary to deal with the easiest and cheapest problem to solve—steps of less than six inches—and give people in wheelchairs access to tens of thousands of buildings that we cannot get into at present. I am not asking owners of buildings with lots of steps to make changes at a cost of £20,000, nor am I asking listed buildings to wreck their appearance by building ramps instead of steps. I think that all of us in wheelchairs accept that when some of our greatest buildings were erected, wheelchair ramps were not in the architects’ design manuals. For many ancient buildings, it is enormously expensive now to install wheelchair ramps or lifts. If we cannot do it in this House, it seems a bit hypocritical to demand it of others. That is why I am focusing on the easiest and cheapest solutions.

I have checked all this out and have bought some ramps for my personal use; one can get sophisticated aluminium or fibreglass ramps which are suitable for steps of six inches or less and cost less than £100. I ask those of your Lordships who only do metric to look at the steps in the gangways in your Lordships’ House. I have measured them, and the bottom steps are four and a half inches high; the next ones are five and a half inches; then they alternate to four and a half again. I am not suggesting that we install ramps here; I am merely using them to illustrate what a height of six inches is. It is neither rocket science nor expensive to provide ramps that would grant access to buildings outside this place with steps of six inches or less. However, I think that half the places we looked at in those streets I mentioned could solve the access problem with about £10-worth of concrete. I calculate that, if my six-inch rule Bill became law, we could get access to more than 90% of those 42 shops in Horseferry Road, Victoria Street and Strutton Ground. If replicated nationally, this small step for man would be a giant leap for mankind, or at least for wheelchair users—to paraphrase Neil Armstrong.

While there are many buildings with steps higher than six inches, and where it would still be reasonable to make the adjustments I suggest, I do not want cost to be used as an excuse for not doing it. I do not think that anyone with a shop or a pub can complain that a cost of £100 is an unreasonable burden, and I hope that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will agree with that in any impact assessment it carries out.

I realise that my Bill will probably not become law in this Session, and that if it were to make progress in Committee, I would want to amend it. Clause 1(3) on tackling steps of 12 inches is probably a step too far. I would like to replace that with a regulation-making power for the Minister to be able to legislate for steps higher than six inches in a manner and timescale that would not put a further burden on small businesses. Clause 1(4) makes it clear that my Bill would not apply to buildings with more than one step if the total combined height of the steps was greater than six inches. Thus, if they had two steps of three inches, it would apply, but if they had two steps of, say, three and four inches, making seven inches in total, it would not apply. I think it would be reasonable to do that, but I put it in the Bill to reassure businesses that they would not suffer excessive cost and so they could not complain about the burden placed on them and use it as an excuse to block this legislation.

I am very grateful to the Minister and her officials for accompanying me yesterday on a cold, chilly afternoon to look at the premises in Strutton Ground and get a first-hand look at the problems that my Bill seeks to address. I do not wish to put words in her mouth, but I think we all concluded that in many cases the solutions were cheap and easy to bring about. Indeed, some of the shopkeepers had done it themselves, putting down a little concrete to enable wheelchairs to get in easily.

As I said at the beginning, theoretically, the wording in the Equality Act on disabled access is excellent, but I submit that it has failed and is failing in reality. I also get the impression that disability is very low down the agenda of the Equalities Office. Of the hundreds of announcements made by the office over the whole of 2013-14, I could find only two related to disability—I apologise if I got that wrong. One was that three interns had been appointed to work with parliamentarians, and another that up to 60 people had applied for grants to get involved in politics. Those are no doubt very good things, if they can actually get into the polling stations, but there are supposed to be 1.2 million wheelchair users who cannot get into public buildings at the moment—although I think that that estimate, which I got from the web, is high; there are probably about 800,000. However, that is still a pretty large number of people. I suggest to the Minister and the department that they would have a big win on their hands if they adopted the proposals in my Bill.

I am afraid to say that the equality commission seems to be doing nothing to enforce Section 20, and district councils seem to be worried about the cost of judicial review if some organisations were to challenge them if they enforced Section 20 on the basis that their interpretation of it is not reasonable. Therefore, I have concluded that a specific and objective measurement is the only way in which to make progress. It removes the need to determine whether the adjustment that I suggest in my Bill is reasonable.

I have gone through the Act carefully and looked at all the regulatory powers, but I cannot see any that would permit the Minister to make regulations addressing the specific and practical points in my Bill. There may be, but I could not find them. I am willing to accept that a possibly better solution than my Bill may be a new regulatory power that would permit the Minister to specify, in addition to the general duty to take reasonable steps, that certain practical things would be regarded as a breach of the duty and should be remedied. That power could be used for wheelchair access, as in my Bill, or specific other measures that would help blind, partially sighted, deaf or other people with disabilities who also need a practical remedy.

I hope that I can get the support of your Lordships’ House, at least for the concept of what I aim to achieve. I acknowledge that my Bill requires amending and input from noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have longer experience of wheelchair use than I have. However, I am convinced that the concept of my Bill is right. No real progress on getting access to public buildings will be made unless we have the Bill or a regulation that brings about the same effect. I beg to move.

12:49

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support my noble friend’s Bill, which is a timely reminder that disabled access to all kinds of premises, particularly shops, is not done and dusted. This is what Martin Affleck, an architect specialising in access, told me recently:

“After the initial flurry of implementing the Disability Discrimination Act between 1996 and 2004, many service providers, including shop keepers of small premises, have stopped bothering and there is very little pressure to make improvements other than when Building Regulation approval is sought for some other reason”.

I urge the Government to put their weight behind this modest Bill—modest, but one that will be very significant for those of us with mobility problems. Many of us want to support smaller, independent shops for all kinds of things, including specialist food shops, greengrocers, clothes shops and many others, but all too often there is the barrier of a step or two, making it impossible for wheelchair users or even walker users, like me, to access these places. Nor, often, is there a rail, meaning that even those with sticks feel unsafe.

The excuses are legion, the chief one being, “The landlord won’t let us”, or, “This is a listed building”. And the more that one shop does nothing, the more that the others do not feel that they should either—so nothing happens, and disabled people have to find much of what they want in supermarkets with disabled parking spaces in their car parks and disabled lavatories inside, or in accessible high street chain stores. But why should disabled people be excluded from niche shopping or supporting their local shops? I used to buy fruit and vegetables from a local shop which had one steep step up. I had to stand on the pavement and trust the greengrocer to get everything for me, but it was not satisfactory. There is a row of shops quite near where I live, running alongside Wandsworth Common, where little ramps have, in places, been installed. This immediately gives the disabled shopper a warm feeling that their custom is welcomed.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra is very kind to those in charge of listed buildings. I do not feel quite so kind. Are buildings really more important than people? Yes, of course there are ways of making premises in listed buildings accessible—as I believe my noble friend Lady Brinton will say. Of course I understand that some buildings will have to remain for ever out of reach for those of us with impaired mobility, but for far too long owners have just had to utter the words “listed building” for that to be the end of the matter.

At this point I must mention an organisation that I have only recently come across called the Access Association. It is a national network of individuals, including many access officers, who say that they are,

“passionate about access and inclusive design”.

Perhaps my noble friend will agree to meet the association to see whether it can help to take things forward. After all, the design of a ramp, even a small one, can be quite a tricky business, and many of the people in this admirable organisation are professionals and know their business. Enforcement is also an important question that it can help with.

While I am on my feet, and on the subject of the accessibility of shops, I must say something about dropped kerbs—that is, the lowering of kerbs on either side of a road junction to allow a wheelchair, pushchair or someone with a walker to cross safely. Even where there are dropped kerbs, many local authorities do precious little to maintain them, with the result that some of them are quite dangerous. Sometimes the design was not right in the first place, as many are simply too steep. Some have been damaged by use and not repaired. I urge local authorities to check on all their dropped kerbs to make sure that they are fit for use. The population, as we all know, is getting older and more disabled, so this problem will grow if not addressed regularly.

The House will be glad to know that I will not raise at this point another of my favourite topics when talking about the high street and accessibility—that is, the design of disabled lavatories—but will leave that to another day. I wish my noble friend’s Bill well.

12:57

[Baroness Flather (CB)]

My Lords, I am not in a wheelchair, but my husband of very long standing is in a wheelchair. He got MS in 1983 and by the mid-1990s he had to start using a wheelchair. He now cannot stand and is in a wheelchair all the time. We have hoists at home to get him into bed or on to the loo. That is all right; we are all right at home and do anything that needs to be done. There is a two-inch lip to get out on to the patio, which we dealt with by putting a little wooden ramp down; it did not cost anything and he can go over it without wibbling and wobbling.

However, there is a big problem with many places. It can be even worse than just the shops; sometimes you do not need to shop but you like to eat out. Many of the restaurants do not provide access. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said, you go in from the back. How many times he has gone in from the back —not just into restaurants but into government buildings and all sorts of places. Maybe it is exciting to see what goes on behind the front, but it is not what people expect. They expect nowadays to be treated like normal people because they are normal people. My husband has been a practising lawyer and sat as a judge. He is very old now but he is still doing a lot of work for the Ministry of Justice. People’s brains are working absolutely perfectly and they want to enjoy some of the facilities that everybody else takes for granted. Anything that can be done to help make that happen has to be right and proper. However, I am sorry to say that these things have not been done. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, disabled people are just dumped.

I went with my husband to a fusion-food restaurant which is part of the EAT franchise. We could not get in and the staff were quite rude to my husband, so we wrote to both the restaurant manager and to EAT but have received no reply. I do not know what we are supposed to do when people take no notice of what disabled people say to them about the treatment that they have received. Not to gain access to premises and to then be subjected to rudeness is too much for most people. Some of the restaurants that we visit regularly now have ramps that are put down for disabled people. If there is a small step, you do not have to construct a permanent ramp; you just bring out a ramp and put it on the step. That happens in many places now. You just let them know that you are coming and they have the ramp ready. Some premises are not prepared to do even that but ramps are not expensive and it is something that we should all be able to expect. Therefore, I totally support the Bill.

I support other measures, such as disabled loos. However, disabled people are never asked what should be in these loos. All disabled people are considered to need one kind of loo, but disabled people have differing needs and different people with at least two or three different disabilities should be asked whether disabled loos work for them. That is not done.

Another problem is that a hotel room for disabled people may contain a double bed. I can tell noble Lords from personal experience that it is almost impossible to sleep with a disabled man. I do not know how the noble Lord’s wife manages but I certainly cannot manage with my husband. It is very awkward for both of you, because my husband needs to be moved around or he moves around. It is so silly that people do not take into account disabled people’s actual needs. They say, “This room is suitable for disabled people”, but there is no room to get round the double bed in a wheelchair, for example. I do not know when we will start to think properly about the needs of the disabled, but any such start on that would be welcome.

13:02

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Bill to amend the Equality Act and his eloquent explanation of why it is necessary. Access for those with disabilities, principally but not only those in wheelchairs, is not just nice to have, it is essential if the Equality Act is to mean anything today. People offering services of any kind or running a public building should make adaptations wherever possible, as their responsibilities under the Act are clear. However, the policing of adaptations is often poor.

My noble friend is too kind. I do not want just six inches; I think that 12 inches is an absolute minimum because technology has changed. It is possible to buy properly constructed sturdy ramps in a range of sizes for permanent installation or, where that is impossible, portable ramps for staff to bring out. I cannot access a large number of shops. Therefore, there are a large number of shops where I will not spend my money. Others have spoken of restaurants. I despair of some restaurants, especially those where staff think that they are accessible until you turn up and the penny drops.

However, I do not want to be entirely negative. There are some very good examples of small shops in listed areas. One example is Bravissimo in Covent Garden. No permanent ramp is possible because the shop is right on the corner of Covent Garden, with a tiny pavement in front of it. What is really noticeable about Bravissimo is that all its staff are well trained in helping women with disabilities, and it shows. That extends beyond having the obvious accessible bell and responding to it, putting the ramp down and not serving one behind a high till, which too many shops just forget about, to include help with selecting items to try on, taking them down from higher hangers and to fitting too. You know that this is an organisation that really cares, and that is why they get my business. Sadly, that contrasts with the poor examples—organisations that do not provide or highlight their arrangements. How often have people in wheelchairs turned up to discover that there is no bell and no sign to the disabled access around the back.

Earlier this month, I booked into a small hotel in Ebury Street. After checking that it was accessible when the room was booked, I rang again on the day to let the hotel know that I would be arriving very late and to check that the night porter would have access to the ramp. I was assured that he would and that the hotel was fully accessible and had a proper disabled bedroom and wet room. It sounded good. I arrived in the taxi, which sped off. As the night porter came out, it was immediately apparent that the step, which was probably just under 12 inches high, was completely unsuitable. The ramp that arrived was for a sack barrow—far too steep. The staff kept insisting to me that the ramp was fine but two of them could not push the chair up the ramp, which I had said they would not be able to, and after 15 minutes they abandoned this. I was kept on the pavement in the cold at 1.30 am for 45 minutes while they tried to find a better ramp from another hotel, could not do so, and then tried to find me another hotel. To say I was unimpressed was an understatement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, referred to disabled rooms in hotels. Premier Inns has a special line in disabled rooms. I have been offered accessible rooms previously and the bedrooms are fine. The rails around the toilet are fine. The shower over the bath is less impressive. When I mentioned this to one receptionist on the morning I was checking out, she said, “We provided a little platform at the end of the bath to help you slip in”. When I asked, “How do I get out?”, she looked rather perplexed.

For grade 1 listed buildings, not small just businesses, the poor examples are legion. A particular bugbear of mine is the glamorous London Marriott County Hall Hotel. I am afraid that I have no compunction in naming and shaming the wrong ones. The main entrance is a sweep of wonderful steps. The hotel always uses the excuse of being listed not to vary the front. I shall come on later to those hotels that do. I have been invited to dinner there on a couple of occasions, and the contortions to get in are Byzantine. You have to travel down the street on your own, wait outside the security entrance of the next organisation in County Hall and wait for the security guard to come from his tour of the building. Last December, it took well over half an hour on a very cold evening, making me late for the dinner I had been invited to. When he arrived, the stair lift up the steps was excellent. What was less good was the unlocking of a series of sets of doors between the hotel and other organisations in County Hall, one of which was encircled by the most enormous chains I have seen in a while. It began to feel like something out of Dracula, with chains and dark, poorly lit service corridors. By the time I finally arrived at the dinner, I felt extremely unwelcome. The organisation I was with will not use that hotel again. I wonder whether the hotel knows how damaging this is, not just to its reputation but to its bottom line.

There are ways of making adaptations even in these listed buildings. I excuse small enterprises from this but anyone who has seen the arrangements at the front door of the Institution of Civil Engineers in Great George Street, opposite the Treasury, knows that it can be done elegantly and practically. It can be viewed on YouTube, but for those that do not know, the white stone steps are divided by a balustrade. Half the steps elegantly retract underneath the building and a stair lift emerges from the cavity underneath. You are made to feel really welcome, whether you are in a wheelchair or find the steps too difficult if using a walking stick. Contrast that with two other buildings in its vicinity. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers on Birdcage Walk is, frankly, an insult to use. A scissor lift behind a steel door on the pavement takes you down to a door into a meeting room that is let out. I have been escorted through other people’s meetings. They have to get up and move themselves and their chairs away so that I can get through to use the accessible lift. Then there is 8-10 Great George Street, where the Liberal Democrats have their headquarters. The landlords provide access through a car lift into the basement behind the building, with two sets of industrial gates to get through on the ground floor and the basement. There is then a very narrow doorway access to the lift and security to get through before I even get to my party’s headquarters.

Technically, both those buildings comply with adaptations under the Equality Act, but they are not disabled friendly and they say a very large amount about the landlords’ attitudes towards people with disabilities. I have even been told, at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, to wait, as the maintenance man was not free to take me down—just like a parcel.

The issue of inappropriate ramps is not just for fixed buildings. There is a real problem with taxi drivers who claim to drive accessible taxis, with the blue wheelchair sign in their windows. I need to make it clear that London, Glasgow and some other large cities that insist all Hackneys have a single ramp are not the problem; it is the many smaller cities and towns where taxi driers in accessible vehicles—including, I am afraid, older black cabs—have only to produce evidence of ramps: note the plural. It is possible to purchase cheap parallel track ramps that are not suitable for people in electric wheelchairs because the ridges are incompatible with the base and shape of electric wheelchairs. They are also often too flimsy and probably would not sustain the heavy weight of an electric wheelchair, some of which weigh 85 kilograms before the owner is in it.

I travel extensively, and I now dread waiting for an accessible taxi. Too often, even when I have asked for a single ramp for a wheelchair, the one that arrives has two. Both the driver and the customer are irritated, but the dispatcher at the firm does not care. At Watford Junction station, my local, where the drivers are as regular as I am, I am afraid to say that there are a handful who do not even lower their window to tell me that they have two ramps. They know my face and they hold two fingers up to me, from which I am meant to deduce that they are a two-ramp cab, not a one-ramp cab. I appreciate the Bill’s constraints and I understand that we must be realistic about achieving change, but I would love to see a condition for the licensing of accessible taxis that the driver should have a single ramp, and that it is tested at the same time as everything else to ensure that it works.

To return to the substance of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Bill, I support it and understand its limited scope, but I am reluctant to accept his new idea that we can do further things with regulation. I hope we might consider some minor amendments to it to provide a level playing field for those in wheelchairs trying to live an independent life. Frankly, hotels, restaurants, shops and offices can make life an absolute misery. A few small, compulsory, not expensive adaptations will not only help those with disabilities, but increase business for the public buildings supplying them. Something that benefits the bottom line should always be encouraged. Making people independent is beyond price.

13:13

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on bringing the Bill forward. It is an exact model of a Private Member’s Bill: it addresses one issue and does so in very few clauses. I also congratulate the speakers in the debate. I was listening very careful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and her story about County Hall. I wondered whether she was going to end up in the aquarium or something when she spoke about all the doors that she went through.

It is important that we congratulate the institutions, buildings and businesses that get this right and that we name those who get it wrong. When I visited its headquarters recently I noted that the RIBA has remodelled its front and its steps for disabled access. If the RIBA can do it, anybody should be able to do it.

I was interested when the noble Lord talked about the 2010 Act because I was one of the Equalities Ministers responsible for helping to take that legislation through your Lordships’ House. I very well remember the discussions that took place around Clause 20 and the negotiation that took place across the House about how tight or otherwise it should be. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Low, tried to make amendments to the Bill which were not dissimilar to this amendment. However, because negotiations were going on and it was at the end of a Parliament, I am afraid that not all the parties in the House could agree to them. However, at that time everybody knew and accepted that the Act would need to be addressed from time to time to see how it worked or did not work and what adjustments might need to be made. It is entirely sensible that we are reaching that point.

I apologise to the noble Lord for not going on his trip to Strutton Ground yesterday. As I said in my note to him, it was one of those days when I could not manage to get out of the House to do something as interesting as that.

I grew up with somebody in a wheelchair. My grandfather had been blown up in the Second World War and was a paraplegic. He died when I was about 20. My parents got married in 1952 and, as the noble Lord will know, wheelchairs then were very large and extremely heavy. My parents told me that he had to be carried in his wheelchair up two flights of stairs to attend their wedding. There was absolutely no way that the register office in Dewsbury would have any access whatever for someone in a wheelchair.

My mother was in a wheelchair for a lot of the last year or so of her life. Although she was slightly mobile, she needed a wheelchair when we went out. As the noble Lord will know, in Yorkshire we have a lot of hills. Her favourite garden centre had disabled access, and it was very good and very accessible, except that the car park was on a steep slope. Getting her out of the car, into the wheelchair and into the garden centre without her rolling down the hill to Haworth was quite a challenge. Therefore, I am absolutely familiar and completely in sympathy with the noble Lord’s wishes and with the Bill. I am very pleased to hear that he seems to have anticipated some of the issues that might arise from the issue of six inches and 12 inches.

I think that this is a good time to ask questions of the Government about the enforcement of Section 20. As the noble Lord clearly did, I looked at what was being said by the EHRC about disabled access and adjustments for disabled people. Because my research was done yesterday, on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s website I found briefing dated 11 November about the adjustments for disabled people. It basically reiterates what is in the Bill, which is that Section 20 is anticipatory. In other words, it anticipates that adjustments should be made whether they are asked for or not. That is rather important, and I remember the debates about that. The briefing says that an organisation should not wait,

“until a disabled person wants to use its services, but must think in advance (and on an ongoing basis) about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need, such as people who have a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, a mobility impairment or a learning disability”.

The question of what is reasonable has now changed. The noble Lord is suggesting that it is reasonable that businesses should take steps to make these adjustments, and I think that that is entirely right.

I shall not prolong the debate, because other speakers have made the case much better than I can, having spoken from their personal experience. I wish the Bill well and look forward to the Minister’s response.

13:19

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, take the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra on succeeding in getting his Bill read a second time in this House. It has given the House an opportunity to consider a very important legislative protection provided to disabled people in the Equality Act 2010.

My noble friend’s Bill seeks to amend the wording of the duty set out in Section 20 of the Act, which imposes a requirement on specified people to make reasonable adjustments for those with a disability. This ensures that those who meet the Act’s definition of a disabled person are not put at a disadvantage compared with those who are not disabled.

The Bill would require service providers and others to provide ramps for wheelchair users where there is a single step at the entrance of their building. Initially, this would apply to steps of less than six inches in height, with a longer period to allow compliance where the step is between six and 12 inches. Under the Bill, this would be a legal requirement irrespective of the physical location of the building.

I have a good deal of sympathy for my noble friend and the frustration that he feels in being unable to enter some shops and other premises. Like the noble Baroness opposite, I myself experience the same feelings when caring for my mother. She is a wheelchair user. I have to push her around on Cornish granite cobbles. The two of us—her in the wheelchair and me pushing—frequently encounter the same sort of obstacles and difficulties that my noble friend has vividly described, and of the sort that he pointed out to me when we made our tour of Strutton Ground in Westminster yesterday.

The reasonable duty is a cornerstone of the protection offered to disabled people under the Equality Act 2010. It has a wide application—in the fields of employment, service provision and the exercise of public functions—and it applies to both the public and private sectors. The adjustment duty as it applies to the provision of goods, facilities and services is anticipatory, as we have already said. The rationale for that is that while a service provider’s relationship with a customer is often transitory, it is reasonable for the service provider to “anticipate” particular adjustments, which will prevent a disabled person from being put at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to a non-disabled person. The question of whether there has been a failure to comply with the duty therefore hinges on what is reasonable.

My noble friend and I did indeed see a number of premises yesterday where reasonable adjustments had been made simply and cheaply, as well as others where they could have been made but had not been; and yet others where they would not have been feasible, at least within any proportionate cost.

I entirely accept that the use of the adjective “reasonable” in the legislation recognises the need to strike a fair balance between the needs of disabled people and the interests of service providers. The Act therefore requires a service provider only to make adjustments that are reasonable in all the circumstances of particular situations. For example, if the cost of making the adjustment would put the service provider out of business, that clearly would not be reasonable.

I should also explain that building regulations control certain types of building work, principally the erection, extension and demolition of buildings and the provision or extension of certain services or fittings, so as to ensure that buildings meet certain standards of health, safety, welfare, convenience and sustainability. For buildings in England and Wales, Part M of the Building Regulations 2010 includes a requirement to ensure that reasonable provision is made for wheelchair users to gain access to buildings, including premises used as shops.

This is where we begin to encounter difficulties with the proposal for the automatic installation of ramps in my noble friend’s Bill. Clearly, for some existing premises giving out directly on to the street, there would be significant difficulties in finding even a fairly small area to construct a ramp. For some, it might create a potential hazard for pedestrians. Yesterday, we looked at the issue of dropped kerbs where there are bobbles in the pavement. The dropped kerbs are for disabled users and the bobbles are for blind people to know when they are approaching a road. Sometimes one part of the disabled community can be served and not the other, so there is a balance. Also, some buildings open directly on to a highway that belongs to a third party, and in such circumstances it would be impossible to provide a wheelchair access ramp without cutting back into the building’s entrance floor. In some cases that could be quite an expensive operation.

The existing provisions in the Act are deliberately worded so as not to specify what an individual with obligations under the Act should do. This wording allows for greater scope in considering how best to solve the particular problem being experienced by the disabled person. We have had examples of where workarounds could not possibly fit under the “best fit” description. Specifying the remedy to a particular problem in the Act will inevitably result in proposals to have other specific remedies spelt out in it or in future technical guidance. In practice, this could risk the Act becoming a series of technical specifications which might actually be easier for employers and service providers to circumvent than the “reasonable adjustment” duty. Under the Bill, many service providers are likely to assume that building a ramp of the sort proposed will now constitute fulfilment of the duty—end of; nothing further would be required. This would result in provisions that might well suit some disabled people but not others, so I hope that noble Lords will agree that rather than changing the law, it might be helpful if we consider ways of trying to make effective use of the existing law with the duty—it is quite a powerful one—that we currently have.

Ultimately, there is the option of bringing a case against a service provider if all else fails, although I fully acknowledge that this always has to be the last resort and that many disabled people may be deterred by the effort and cost. Yet Allen v RBS, Paulley v First Group plc and some cases involving other types of disability show that it can be done. It is against this background that the Government have doubts about the need for and, indeed, the feasibility of the noble Lord’s Bill. Even if some noble Lords may not accept that the current arrangements are ideal, I hope that they recognise that the physical location of some buildings would make it impossible for businesses to build ramp access, and indeed we did see a few like that yesterday. As such, this Bill would impose a duty that is impossible to comply with.

Let me assure noble Lords that the Government have a continued commitment to disabled people, and more specifically to our belief that every disabled person has the right to have an adjustment made for them if it is reasonable. What is in contention here is the best way of achieving that aim. The Government believe that the current system is both fair and balanced, and works in the main satisfactorily for disabled people, businesses and employers.

[Baroness Flather]

Forgive me, but I cannot agree that the law works in a fair way. It really does not. There are so many places where things could be done quite easily, but they are not done, and if you complain, they still do not do it. Can the Minister tell us how to get these things done?

[Baroness Jolly]

The noble Baroness makes a fair and very good point. My noble friend mentioned the Access Association. It may be that noble Lords need to work with such organisations. However, I take the point that taking someone to court is a bit excessive, although a certain amount of naming and shaming would do no harm. I would not mind betting that the PR organisations that deal with some of the organisations which have been named today will pick stuff up in Hansard tomorrow. Actually, that will be no bad thing.

Legislation does not stay the same for ever, and indeed changes were made from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to the Equality Act 2010. Like other recent statutes, the Equality Act will in turn be subject to post-legislative review. In this case it will cover the period 2010 to 2015; that is, the first five working years of the Act. Under the normal rules, we can expect the next Administration to publish, as the outcome of the review, a memorandum for the relevant Select Committee, which itself may choose to take forward aspects of the review or indeed its own conclusions on whether and how the legislation has worked relative to the stated aims of the Act. I realise that this does not offer any immediate solution to my noble friend’s concerns, but hope it will reassure him that the Government, and indeed Parliament, remain mindful of the sort of problem he has raised.

The Box has just given me an answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, about what action a disabled person can take if appropriate adjustments are not made. They should first approach the service provider to discuss why they feel they cannot access the service or function in question, and discuss what adjustments they require. If, following discussion, the service provider fails or refuses to make a reasonable adjustment, the disabled person could take their custom elsewhere; alternatively, they might decide to bring a case of alleged disability discrimination before the civil courts. I can see from the noble Baroness’s face that that does not satisfy her.

For the present, however, the Government are unable to support my noble friend’s Bill for the reasons that I have set out to the House.

13:31

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I will come to the Minister’s response at the end of my remarks but I am slightly disappointed. I am grateful to noble friends and noble Baronesses on all sides of the House for their support.

My noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester confirmed that progress has ground to a halt after the initial flurry after the 2010 Act. I agree with her that listed buildings should not be an excuse to do nothing, because there are many listed buildings that it is possible to sympathetically alter to grant disabled access. I will happily meet the Access Association. I will let my noble friend set that meeting up and we will see how we can take this forward.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, for her kind intervention. She made the point that in order to help her husband to get out on to the patio, a little wooden ramp was made—just a piece of wood, two inches high at one end and planed to nothing at the other; that is all that takes for electric or non-electric wheelchairs to do it without a terrible jolt.

I will also add EAT to my boycott list of places I will not go into if they cannot be bothered to provide access. I must say to the noble Baroness—I call her my noble friend—that I am used to going through the basement in some places, particularly in the Foreign Office, which I used to attend regularly until recently. I would be taken through the basement, until they installed a little lift. Actually, going through the basement is still faster than trying to use the disabled lift. On one occasion when the rest of the lifts were not working, I had to use the garbage lift at the Foreign Office to get to a ministerial meeting.

I do not want to get too far into issues that do not relate to the Bill, but I suggest that whoever designed the new disabled loo round by the Speaker’s quarters should actually have talked to a few people in wheelchairs before designing it. Some parts of it may be convenient but the washbasin is in one corner, the soap dispenser is three feet away and the towels are another six feet away—someone needed to have given that a bit of extra thought.

I cannot comment in detail on sleeping arrangements. I almost thought that was an offer from the noble Baroness. But she is absolutely right. One of the problems that some of us with MS and many other disabilities face is restless legs and, if they kick and thrash around all night, certain ladies do complain, so I sympathise with that point.

I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Brinton. I was trying to make a modest measure that I hoped the Government would not oppose because I was trying to impose a burden only on buildings with steps of less than six inches, but it should be 12 inches. It is not too difficult to do that. My noble friend the Minister made the point that, when shops have a doorstep right on the pavement, it is difficult and dangerous to put a permanent ramp there because others would trip over it; there is not the space to do it. But there are temporary ramps they can use or ramps that they can instantly rush out with and assist, if they have given it some thought. I agree with her entirely about the Marriott County Hall Hotel. The last time I was there, I went by the same circuitous route but I ended up going through the aquarium.

I also pay tribute to 1 Great George Street, which is the Institution of Civil Engineers. I go in there occasionally just to use the ramp and the lift, because I attended a meeting a couple of years ago—I think it was of the Royal Society in Carlton House Terrace—where there were no proper ramps. To get in there, there was a ramp of about 45 degrees, and I said, “That just cannot be done”. I know that these things are supposed to have a maximum incline of 7 degrees, which is a bit over the top; I can do about 30 degrees, but 45 degrees there was impossible. I came next day to a meeting in Great George Street. There was a button to push and a chap came out, and I said, “How do I get in here?”. I was really annoyed. “Oh”, he said, “no problem. Just you watch this, sir”. He pushed the button and all the steps receded into the wall. A lift materialised from the ground and up we went to the first level. At that level, all the marble steps disappeared into the wall, and up we went again—I must admit that I played with it on a few occasions, up and down.

No doubt that cost a lot, but that was in a listed building and they have shown how it can be done. I agree about some of the other buildings in Great George Street, apparently used by engineers. It is a disgrace when they open a rusty old door and you are taken through the basement. I have been through that route, too.

I totally agree with my noble friend that innovative technology is out there. I was asked to lunch at the Garrick Club last year—it was the first time that I had ever been asked to lunch there; I will probably be asked again to go back and apologise. It has a staircase of about 20 steps up. They came with a most amazing contraption—a rubber, crawler tractor thing. One parked one’s chair on it, tilted backwards and then this crawler thing went up the steps. It was absolutely scary to use the first time. But that was a solution. It was an expensive, £12,000 solution—I checked out the cost—but we are talking in this modest little Bill of measures of £10 or more, up to about £100 to replace the steps.

Without going into detail on taxis, which are not covered by the Bill, I say to my noble friend Lady Brinton that she is absolutely right. I have now learnt the hard way when I have wanted to flag down a cab. The older London cabs have a proper, fold-out ramp. The super-duper new Mercedes Vito cabs, which have wonderful space inside, one cannot get into, because they have two skids with side lips about two inches high and our clearance on these things is about 1.5 inches; we just cannot get into them. Other cities are not as good as London.

I pay tribute to the vast majority of London taxi drivers who pick us up. Only a tiny minority suddenly go blind when they see a wheelchair. My worst ever morning was when there were three cabs in a row. One decided to look out the other window; one switched off his light and zoomed off; and the third one gave me a finger—one finger on this occasion. They were followed by another cabbie who did an illegal U-turn, came screaming up beside me and said that he would not charge me for the journey; he was appalled by what his colleagues had done.

Finally on taxis, I carry a screwdriver in my chariot here—I am sure that I am able to use a visual aid—because so many cabbies cannot open the screw to get the disabled ramp out. Those who can often find that it is rusted solid, so I must carry some WD-40 as well.

I am grateful to the spokesperson for the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her support for the Bill. From her background with her grandfather, she knows what it is like. I am grateful also to my noble friend the Minister for coming with me yesterday to look at the problem on the ground. She highlighted today that the key word is “reasonable”. Of course, one is not asking people to make “unreasonable” adjustments, but I simply say to my noble friend that I am not going to go around the 40 shops in Horseferry Road and so on, speak to individual shopkeepers and ask them to please put in a ramp for me and, if they refuse, then write to them and take court action against them. I expect someone else to be enforcing that rule. If the Government cannot accept the concept of my Bill, or even a future regulation, which may be far better, they—or someone—must do more on enforcement.

Finally, I accept that an automatic requirement to stick a ramp on every little shop, which could protrude into the pavement, could be dangerous. That may not be the best solution. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider a regulation, which could have dozens of exemptions and opt-outs, to deal with the simple problem of shops that could easily install a ramp and the more difficult problem of shops which are right on the pavement, where a permanent ramp may be improper but some other facility could be installed. My Bill may be too blunt or too basic, but we need a solution either in better legislation than mine or in a regulation that would permit all the flexible solutions that we need. At the moment, we cannot get into shops. I am sorry about that. I therefore move that my Bill be given a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 1.40 pm.