House of Commons
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business before Questions
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
1. What steps he is taking to encourage investment in infrastructure in west Yorkshire.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
12. What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage investment in infrastructure.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Mr Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at an ECOFIN council meeting today.
The Government have made huge progress in delivering the infrastructure that the UK needs, establishing the first ever national infrastructure plan, which now shows that more than 2,500 projects have been completed since 2010. West Yorkshire continues to benefit as part of this plan, which includes the M62 smart motorway westward extension—the first new trans-Pennine road capacity since 1971. As part of the city deal, a combined west Yorkshire authority is taking forward a package of investments in transport worth up to £1.6 billion over 15 years.
Jason McCartney
I very much look forward to the northern powerhouse coming over the Pennines to west Yorkshire. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new bidders for the Northern Rail and TransPennine Express rail franchises will commit themselves to getting rid of the antiquated Pacer trains that plague commuters in my constituency on their daily commute?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which is raised by Members of Parliament and constituents from across the Northern Rail and TransPennine Express franchise areas. I can confirm that in the autumn statement we set out some changes that we would make to those two franchises. The packages for the new franchises will include a substantial package of upgrades, including new services and modern trains in order to phase out the outdated Pacer trains, which have also been raised with us under the Deputy Prime Minister’s Northern Futures programme.
Mr Spencer
If north Nottinghamshire’s coalfields are to feel the success of HS2, connectivity will be key. Will the Chief Secretary assure the House that once we have pulled together a bid for the Robin Hood extension to the villages of Ollerton and Edwinstowe, capital will be made available?
Danny Alexander
I am well aware of the importance of this connection to my hon. Friend and to other Members of Parliament in the area. As he will be aware, the east midlands has already benefited from investment of approximately £70 million to improve line speeds on the midland main line up to 125 miles per hour. Further electrification is due to be extended to Nottingham by 2019. A decision on the Robin Hood line is a matter for the local authority, but we would certainly look on the idea favourably.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
The importance of infrastructure is surely a sign of the importance of Government investment as a way of growing our economy. Does the Chief Secretary therefore agree that one further way that we could move forward on this is to build at least 200,000 new houses a year to help to build our economy?
Danny Alexander
I totally agree with the hon. Lady. It is incredibly important to improve the rate of house building. I would set the figure at closer to 300,000 houses a year across the UK, rather than the 200,000 that she mentioned. She will know that in the autumn statement we extended the affordable house building programme for a further two years in order to build 275,000 affordable homes in the next Parliament. We are taking forward the idea of Government commissioning of housing, which would be a radical departure for this country, at Northstowe, and looking at it as a solution for the whole country.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I warmly welcome the infrastructure announcement, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we also need further devolution to allow the much-needed rail link to Leeds Bradford airport and the electrification of the Leeds-Harrogate-York line? Will he meet me and other interested colleagues who represent the area to discuss how we can take this forward?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that devolution, city deals and the growth plans we have put in place for every local enterprise partnership area are an incredibly important part of delivering infrastructure. He refers to two projects that are very important in the city he represents and I would, of course, be delighted to meet him and any other interested colleagues to discuss them.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
One hears the pious words of the Chief Secretary regarding house building, but has he not presided over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s?
Danny Alexander
In case the hon. Gentleman does not remember, he was present in the last Parliament when his party was in government and caused the most severe economic crash that this country had experienced for very many decades. The housing market, of course, gets affected by the economic cycle, which is precisely why this Government have presided over the highest level of affordable house building in this country for 20 years. Under the hon. Gentleman’s party, the number of affordable houses in this country fell by 421,000; under this Government, it has risen by hundreds of thousands.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
2. What steps the Government are taking to support economic growth in the Humber.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Government have taken many steps to rebalance the economy and strengthen every part of the United Kingdom. In the case of the Humber, the growth deal was announced in July, building on the success of the city deal, which was announced in 2013. We have also just announced £80 million for flood defences for the Humber estuary. I am pleased to see that our investment in that part of the country is working. Employment in Yorkshire and the Humber is now at the highest level on record at 2.51 million.
Andrew Percy
Key to economic development in east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire are, of course, our tidal flood defences, which are so important. Last week the Government announced that the Environment Agency would undertake a review of the package proposed by myself, other local MPs and local authorities. Will the Chief Secretary ensure that Treasury and, if possible, Cabinet officials will also be involved in that process? It needs to be Treasury-led, rather than EA-led, to give us the result we require.
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The proposal by the local enterprise partnership is incredibly important and it needs to be assessed in detail by experts at the EA. The National Audit Office recently commended the EA on the way in which it carries out such appraisals. None the less, given the significance of the issue and the fact that it was announced as part of the national infrastructure plan, I shall make sure that Treasury officials are also involved in the process.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
23. Although I welcome the announcements in the autumn statement and the northern powerhouse initiative, too often in northern Lincolnshire in the Humber region we feel somewhat remote from the northern powerhouse. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that further initiatives will link the north-western part of the northern powerhouse to the Yorkshire and the Humber region?
Danny Alexander
Under this Government, there have been a number of initiatives in the Humber area that have helped to grow the economy, not the least of which is the enormous effort that Ministers in several Departments made in attracting the Siemens investment to Hull, which is an incredibly important part both of creating jobs in that area and of delivering our ambitions for renewable energy.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
3. What recent estimate he has made of how much the reduction in the additional rate of income tax to 45% is worth for a person earning £1 million a year.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The cost of reducing the additional rate of income tax to 45% is estimated at about £100 million a year. That is set out in table 2.2 of Budget 2013. We have not broken down the impact by income ranges, because there is a significant behavioural response associated with the additional rate of income tax. That behavioural response is estimated in aggregate and reflected in the costing.
Mr McKenzie
Christmas is coming and it is a time for giving, but the truth is that this Government have been giving to millionaires for some time. The average tax cut to millionaires is worth £100,000 a year. Will the Financial Secretary confirm that that figure for the Government’s tax giveaway to millionaires is correct? How many of my constituents in Inverclyde have benefited from that reduction in tax?
Mr Gauke
What is a fact is that the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% for the years since the 50p rate was cut has in every year been higher than in any of the years in which the 50p rate was in operation. It is this Government who have made changes to stamp duty land tax—that was just last week—and to capital gains tax, and who have dealt with reliefs and exemptions, to ensure that the wealthiest play a greater share than they have in the past.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Is it not the truth that people are able to change their behaviours to reduce their tax liabilities, and is it not the case that if the Government want to raise more from the wealthiest, it is necessary to lower the rate to a point where it encourages them to earn and to pay?
Mr Gauke
As I said a moment or so ago, in the two years since the 50p rate was reduced to 45p, a greater share has come from the top 1% than in the previous three years. There is a lesson to be learned there. It is probably the reason why the previous Labour Government had a 50p rate for only 35 days out of their 4,758 days in office.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
Will the Minister rule out a further cut to the additional rate of income tax for the top 1% of earners? Will he rule out another tax cut for millionaires?
Mr Gauke
The priority of the next Conservative Government will be increasing the personal allowance to £12,500, and the rate at which higher-rate taxpayers pay the 40p rate to £50,000 a year. The truth is that our focus is on ensuring that we can lift people out of income tax, which is not a record of which the previous Government can boast.
Shabana Mahmood
I will take that as a no. The Minister has failed to rule out another tax cut for the richest 1% of earners in our country. As he signalled in his answer, the Prime Minister has made £7 billion-worth of unfunded tax promises for the next Parliament. We did not find out in the autumn statement where the money is coming from to pay for these promises, so unless the Minister can stand at the Dispatch and categorically rule out raising VAT again, will not people just conclude that the only way the Chancellor can pay for his unfunded tax promises is with another Tory VAT rise?
Mr Gauke
Our plans do not require us to raise taxes. [Interruption.] The shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), is heckling, but I have to say that when he was asked that question on television last week, he refused to rule out raising VAT. Our plans do not require taxes to rise, unlike—I have to say—those of the Labour party.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a fair tax system should see everyone contributing to reduce the deficit, with those with the largest earnings making the largest contribution? Am I correct that the top 1% of taxpayers actually pay nearly 30% of all income tax receipts at present?
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
5. What estimate he has made of corporation tax receipts in each year since 2010; and if he will make a statement.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs publishes annual corporation tax statistics every August. They show that revenues from corporation tax, excluding the ring-fenced oil and gas regime, were £35 billion in 2010-11, £33 billion in 2011-12, £35 billion in 2012-13 and £36 billion in 2013-14. The Government have delivered major cuts to corporation tax, but increased growth and investment in the UK mean that revenues from the main regime were higher last year than in 2010.
Charlie Elphicke
Is my hon. Friend aware that non-oil corporation tax receipts have risen 16% over the course of this Parliament so far, compared with a rise of just 8% over the entirety of the previous 13 years? Does that not show that if you cut the rate, you up the take? [Interruption.] How will the diverted profits tax work?
Mr Speaker
Order. The question was simply too long. The hon. Gentleman should have cut it off when he was winning, instead of going on for too long, which is what he then continued to do.
Mr Gauke
It is right that we have reduced the corporation tax rate. Next year, it will give us the lowest rate in the G20. That is resulting in greater investment in the UK. It would certainly be a mistake to reverse that policy, as the Labour party intends. In terms of the diverted profits tax, I would point out that it will help to deal with aggressive tax avoidance. We will publish the draft legislation on that tomorrow, setting out the full details of how it will operate.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The House knows that I am an avid listener of the “Today” programme. Did the Minister hear the interview this morning, which showed how ineffective it is to have this great gap between the rich and the poor in our country? The tax system is increasing that gap, not helping it. What is he going to do about it, because it makes our economy less efficient?
Mr Gauke
As it happens, the distributional analysis shows that our policies have narrowed the gap. The point is that we have made changes to our tax system to ensure a greater contribution from the wealthiest in terms of stamp duty land tax and capital gains tax. We have reduced some of the reliefs and exemptions that meant some high earners did not pay taxes. I am afraid that the idea that a 50p rate was effective in achieving such objectives—including raising revenue—is simply wrong.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Further to the Minister’s answer on the diverted profits tax, will he confirm whether it will cover businesses that run substantial operations in the UK, but that invoice from Ireland or Luxembourg to avoid tax?
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The current corporation tax rate is the lowest in the G7 and there are good reasons why that is the case. However, on small business Saturday last weekend, many of us were reminded of the heavy burden of business rates. Would it not be better, instead of reducing the corporation tax rate further, to use the same money to reduce business rates?
Mr Gauke
I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who performed the role of Financial Secretary with great distinction, that in his time in office there were no measures to reduce business rates in the way that we have done in the last two autumn statements by putting in place a cap of 2%, bringing in a rebate for retailers and extending small business rate relief. This Government have an excellent record on business rates—a message that I am sure many hon. Members heard on small business Saturday at the weekend.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
6. What estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of the amount of uncollected tax in the UK.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
14. What estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of the amount of uncollected tax in the UK.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
HMRC published its latest tax gap estimates on 16 October 2014. The tax gap in 2012-13 was estimated to be £34 billion, which was 6.8% of the total tax due.
Jim McGovern
Last week in the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced plans to address tax avoidance. If he and the Treasury are serious about that, why did they vote down an amendment that said that the quoted eurobond—I am sorry, but I cannot quite remember the words. They did not support that amendment, costing this country £500 million per year.
Mr Gauke
The reason we have not pursued that policy is that, having looked at it carefully, we do not believe that it would raise anything like the revenue that has been suggested, nor that it would do anything for the UK’s competitiveness. The Government have consistently taken action on tax avoidance, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning. I would happily list the measures, Mr Speaker, but I suspect that you would not allow me the time to do so. By 2015-16, we believe that those measures will be bringing in £7.6 billion a year.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for his answers to Question 5 and to these questions. Will he explain why I am fighting against funding cuts for families in crisis in Rotherham because the council does not have enough Government funding to support them, while some big companies are getting away with not paying a penny in corporation tax?
Mr Gauke
Very difficult decisions have had to be made to deal with the deficit that we inherited. On the contribution from larger companies, as we have heard, the tax take from large companies through corporation tax has continued to rise and we have continued to take measures to deal with tax avoidance. As I have said, just last week, we announced that we would operate the diverted profits tax, the details of which will be set out tomorrow. That is an example of where the Government are taking tough, practical action to ensure that everybody pays what is required under the law.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the investment and effort that have been put into tackling tax avoidance and evasion since the general election, a record number of people are being prosecuted, with 2,600 people having been prosecuted in this Parliament alone?
Mr Gauke
Yes, my hon. Friend is correct—we have substantially increased the number of prosecutions in that area. The yield brought in by HMRC as a consequence of its enforcement action has also increased substantially, and in the autumn statement it was announced that that yield is anticipated to be £26 billion in 2014-15—around £9 billion more than when we came to office.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has made much of what the Government are doing on tax avoidance, but will he tell the House by how much tax receipts were revised down in the autumn statement?
Mr Gauke
It is the case that tax receipts were revised down, but so was expenditure on debt interest payments. This country continues to face the major challenge of living within our means, and it is important to have a Government who stick to the long-term economic plan that delivers that.
Cathy Jamieson
The Minister gave a very partial answer because he did not mention the fact that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that tax receipts have been revised down by £25 billion by 2018-19. Is one key reason for that the fact that wage growth has been revised down again, and that the Government’s failure to raise living standards for working people is why they have also failed to meet their promise to balance the books by next year?
Mr Gauke
The answer to increasing wage growth is not just to observe that it would be nice if wages went up but to have no policies to do that. If we want wage growth, we need investment in the UK, which we are getting. We want more people in jobs, and a record number of people are in jobs. We want to improve our training and education system, and record numbers of people are taking up apprenticeships. We want to improve our transport infrastructure, and the Government have committed to the biggest road building programme since the 1970s. If we want wage growth, we must stick to the long-term economic plan.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
7. What recent estimate he has made of the level of employment.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
I am pleased to tell the House that employment is at its highest-ever level in this country with 30.8 million people in work. Since the coalition came to power, employment has increased by more than 1.7 million, meaning that on average an extra person has become employed every 80 seconds since the Government were formed in 2010. Last week the Office for Budget Responsibility published its latest forecast, estimating that an extra million people will be in work by 2019.
Jackie Doyle-Price
The Government can be proud of creating on average 1,000 jobs a day. That is not just a number; it is more people with the security of a job and a regular pay packet. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents in Thurrock that we will stick to the policies that are creating record numbers of people in work?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend is right. It is incredibly important that we create jobs in this country as that is providing opportunities and incomes for people who did not have one previously. The Government should be proud of that. Today the 2 millionth apprentice has been recruited under this Government, and the young lady, Paige McConville of Oxford, will meet the Business Secretary to highlight that achievement.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Many people in my constituency who are in work are trapped in low-paid minimum wage jobs. Often they are not able to add to the hours that they work in order to earn more, and they rely on the state for prop-ups with housing benefit and tax credits. When will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury understand the cost of living crisis in the country, and what will the Government do about it?
Danny Alexander
I recognise that some people find themselves in the situation the hon. Lady describes, and that is precisely why we need a growing economy that creates more jobs, as it does in her constituency. The economy is creating more employment opportunities and allowing people to progress in work. The most recent figures showed that people who have been in full-time work for more than a year—85% of the jobs created in the past year are full time—have seen their wages increase by 4%.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
The UK has seen more net employment growth in the past four years than the rest of the EU put together. Has the Chief Secretary also noted that, according to the same figures, more of our young people are in work than in Germany, Ireland and France, and the position is far better than in Greece, where only one in four young people are in work? Does that not show that we need to stay the course and help more of our young people into work?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend is right. It is a fact that the United Kingdom has created more jobs than all the other countries in the European Union put together. That shows the success we have had in delivering economic growth by working through the balanced careful plan that we put in place at the start of this Parliament. She could also have mentioned the fact that female employment, at 73%, is at its highest-ever level.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
A couple with two children who are both working—the woman in part-time work on £10,000 and the man on £25,000—will have lost £9,417 in withdrawn tax credits in the autumn statement. The Chief Secretary talks about putting up the threshold, but he gets much more back from the poorest. When will he pursue a progressive policy that makes work pay for the poorest?
Danny Alexander
I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. The policy of increasing the income tax threshold to £10,600, which was put on the table by my party the Liberal Democrats back in 2010, is putting £825 back into the pockets of 26 million working people on low and middle incomes. Improving work incentives and earnings for people in work is something he should celebrate and everyone in the House should welcome.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Is the Chief Secretary aware that in the north-east of England we have the fastest rate of growth in private sector businesses in the autumn quarter and the most tech start-ups outside of London? Does that not show that the long-term economic plan is beginning to work?
Danny Alexander
Actually, I was not aware of either of those facts, but they do not surprise me because of the entrepreneurial spirit and the brilliant businesses we have in the north-east of England. I believe it is the only region of this country that is a net exporter to the rest of the world. Through the measures we are putting in place, including the investment in infrastructure, we need to continue to support that part of the country.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that we need to redouble our efforts to reduce the unemployment level for young people from 730,000, and that some 1 million young people are still not in training or education? Does he think that his Government could do much more to get them back to work?
Danny Alexander
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do more to reduce the level of unemployment among our young people, but I point out to her, and it would have been fair for her to point it out, that we have seen a very sharp fall in the level of youth unemployment and a very sharp increase in the level of employment of young people in the past 12 months. That suggests to me that the policy mix the coalition has put in place is precisely the right one to achieve those objectives.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
8. When he next plans to meet representatives of high street retailers to discuss levels of tax; and if he will make a statement.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
I met small business representatives in Inverness on Saturday as part of small business Saturday. In response to concerns expressed by small businesses, the Government have taken decisive action that has reduced employment and property taxes paid by high street retailers. As of April this year, businesses can claim a deduction of up to £2,000 in their national insurance contributions, and next year 300,000 shops, pubs and cafes will receive a business rates discount of up to £1,500.
Mr Bellingham
The Minister is probably not aware—there is no reason why he should be—that I have recently been visiting shops in the high streets of both King’s Lynn and Hunstanton. Is he aware that they are delighted—absolutely thrilled—with the business rate discount that is now being raised to £1,500? Can he give me an estimate of how many shops in my constituency will benefit from that?
Danny Alexander
I was not aware of my hon. Friend’s shopping habits, but I am very glad to hear that he has been spending time with small businesses in his constituency.I can tell him that in the King’s Lynn and west Norfolk area there are 1,280 small businesses that will benefit from the £1,500 discount. That is something worth celebrating in his constituency, as it is across the country.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that a further rise in VAT would be a hammer blow to small businesses in Wrexham and across the country? Does he also know that a Labour Government have never increased VAT?
Danny Alexander
I am not sure that last fact is absolutely correct. The level of VAT we have at the moment I think is the right one for the country and I certainly would not advocate any further increases. The right measures for small businesses are the reductions in business rates that we have put in place, which I would hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome. The fundamental review of business rates that we are now undertaking is an opportunity for every Member of this House, and small business across the country, to make the argument on how they want this outdated and outmoded system to be reformed.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
9. What recent steps he has taken to reduce tax avoidance.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We set out the next set of steps in our plan to tackle tax avoidance in the autumn statement last week. We are introducing a new diverted profits tax from 1 April 2015 using a 25% rate to counter the use of aggressive tax planning techniques used by multinational enterprises to divert profits from the UK. We are also strengthening the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—regime, coupled with a further suite of measures that build on the work we have already done to tackle marketed tax avoidance such as accelerated payments of disputed tax in avoidance cases.
Stephen McPartland
My constituents work hard and pay their taxes and rightly expect other people and businesses to do the same. Does the Minister agree that the autumn statement last week showed that it is Government Members who are serious about delivering fairer taxes for all?
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
If the Government are serious on tax avoidance, why has the much-heralded Swiss tax deal brought in only a third of the projected income?
Mr Gauke
That particular measure has not brought in as much as was forecast, but I can point to others that have brought in more than was forecast. One example is disguised remuneration, which the Office for Budget Responsibility highlighted last week and has brought in more than was anticipated. We anticipated that it would bring in £750 million a year; it will bring in more than that. By the way, that measure was opposed by the Labour party.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
10. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the housing market on the economy.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
The Government are committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. The Government’s Help to Buy scheme and last week’s stamp duty reforms will continue to support housing market activity and new housing supply is already responding with housing starts growing by 16% in the year to 2014 in quarter three.
Mark Lazarowicz
The recent measures are no doubt welcome, but would the Minister care to confirm that annual house completions have been lower in every year under her Government than in every year of the last Labour Government?
Andrea Leadsom
The point is that we believe in the aspiration to buy your own home. We have seen house prices recover but they are still in real terms lower than they were at the peak under the last Government. This Government have delivered housing starts at their highest since 2007 and our Help to Buy scheme, which has helped 77,000 people to get on to the property ladder, is a very important measure.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I am pleased that the Government’s stamp duty reforms are already helping more first-time buyers in Macclesfield. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the effect the stamp duty reform plus the Help to Buy scheme will have on helping more people to get established on the housing ladder?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is quite right. Our stamp duty changes have meant that 98% of the people who pay stamp duty will receive a cut, which will enable more people to get on to the housing ladder. Our Help to Buy scheme will also encourage more aspirational young people to buy their first home.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
11. What proportion of recipients of tax credits are in employment.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
13. How many employed people are in receipt of tax credits.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Priti Patel)
Tax credits provide financial support to low-income households. In April 2014 there were 3.3 million families in work receiving tax credits. That had fallen from 4.8 million in April 2010. In total there are 4.7 million families receiving tax credits, 71% of whom are in work.
Mr Speaker
Formally the group of questions falls if the Member with the lead is absent but I dare say we can improvise.
Chris Ruane
Thousands of hard-working families in my constituency have been bit by tax credit cuts, a £300 increase in their energy bills, the bedroom tax and the increase in VAT. This Government offer tax cuts to millionaires and porridge and food banks to low-paid workers. When will the Government allow British workers to share in the wealth of this country?
Priti Patel
It is fair to say that this Government ensure that people are better off in work, in stark contrast to the failed dependency policies of the Labour party. We are the party in government that has taken action to support people on low incomes by increasing the personal allowance, taking 3.2 million people on low incomes out of tax altogether and increasing the national minimum wage. We should all remember which party was responsible for the cost of living crisis; it was Labour’s great recession. We are the Government who have frozen fuel duty and council tax and it is our policies that are now leading to growth in the economy.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The latest figures show that the number of individuals classed as being in in-work poverty has fallen by 300,000 since this Government came to office, at the same time as an extra 2 million people are in work. What Government measures does my hon. Friend think have contributed to this rise in people’s income?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is fair to say that this Government are not returning to the failed policies of the past as seen under the Labour party. The key measure explaining why we have had so much growth in our economy is our focus on our long-term economic plan, which is securing a better future for our economy, for the country and, of course, for hard-working taxpayers.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady’s opportunity is now. Her moment has arrived; her voice should be heard.
Yasmin Qureshi
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister confirm that 10 million households will be affected by the two-year freeze on tax credits and benefits and that the average household will be £974 worse off? This will hit working people the most, and women in particular, so will the Government reconsider their position?
Priti Patel
I come back to my earlier point about employment increasing and more women being in work than ever before. When it comes to tax credits, universal credit will go on to replace the current complex and broken system of means-tested benefits—introduced by the Labour party, by the way—and we are the party that has supported people to get into work and reduce dependency rather than confining them to dependency and welfare.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
15. What steps he has taken to support people with savings and pensioners.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
This Government are determined to support savers and pensioners—unlike the last Government who gave them miserly increases in state pensions. Since 2010, we have delivered the biggest-ever increase in the individual savings account allowance and for pensioners the triple lock means that they will receive about £560 more in 2015-16 than under the last Government’s policy. We have also given pensioners the freedom to choose how and when to access their own pension.
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend is right that the previous Administration caused the great recession, which has meant that savers in Crawley have suffered considerably. Last week’s autumn statement proved that this Government stand up for the aspiration of passing on savings to our children.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is quite right. He will be as delighted as we are that we are now allowing people to pass on their unused ISAs to their spouse or civil partner free of tax, and their defined contribution pension schemes are also to be free of tax to their successors. This was a great move, allowing people to decide what they do with the money they have saved during their lifetimes.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Most pensioners in my constituency do not have enough savings to put money in an ISA, but can the Minister confirm that owing to recent measures announced by the Government, those who receive the savings element of pension credit will, because of its interaction with pensions, receive only an 87p rise?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady should welcome the fact that this Government introduced the triple lock for pensioners to ensure that, instead of under the last Government when they received only the increase in average earnings, pensioners under this Government will receive an element for inflation, average earnings or 2%, whichever is the higher.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
16. What recent representations he has received on the introduction of new fiscal rules to limit government borrowing.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
The Government will shortly publish the revised charter for budget responsibility, which will set out new fiscal rules in detail. As the Chancellor said last week, there is more to do, but our long-term economic plan is working. The deficit is forecast to fall this year, down from what the Office for Budget Responsibility described as the post-war record deficit of 10.2% of gross domestic product in 2009-10 to 5% this year—cutting it in half.
Mr Ruffley
I thank the Minister for that reply. I commend the autumn statement, in particular chart 1.9 therein, which makes it clear that any Government who wish to reduce debts as a share of GDP to under 40% in the next 20 years will not merely have to balance the budget, but to run a surplus of 1% of GDP on the budget. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is essential that new fiscal rules are created and voted on frequently to achieve this massively important debt reduction?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition talk about balancing the books, but in fact what they are talking about is borrowing more once their current budget is in surplus, and that is a complete fabrication, because what the Opposition need to recognise is that the only way to return this country to prosperity is not just to deal with the massive debt left by Labour but also to get our economy back into long-term growth and long-term surpluses. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is very disorderly for Members to yell at the Minister from a sedentary position, and I remind you, Mr Lucas, that you have still got to complete your apprenticeship to become a statesman. I keep updating the House on progress, but there is still a little distance to travel.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Many people in work are relying on benefits just to survive, and they are not paying tax, all of which contributes to the reason why the deficit has gone up more than the Minister, and her Government when they came in, promised. Today’s OECD report says countries that promote equality will grow and prosper. Will she accept that her Government have got it disastrously wrong for so many people and adopt the policies suggested by the OECD, including a higher rate of top tax?
Andrea Leadsom
I find it absolutely extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman can talk about the under- achievement of this Government. It is not by chance that our economy is the fastest growing in the G7; it is not by chance that there are 2 million more people in work in the private sector; and it is not by chance that there are now 2 million apprentices, as of today. It is extraordinary that the Opposition do not see that it is all about economic recovery, not interfering and borrowing more.
Mr Speaker
As usual we are pressed for time, but I cannot allow excessively long early questions and answers to deny Members who have been waiting patiently, so we will now hear, I hope, from Mr Philip Hollobone.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
17. What the basic rate personal tax allowance was in May 2010; what that rate would have been in May 2015 if indexed to inflation; and what that rate will be in May 2015.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The tax-free personal allowance was £6,475 in May 2010. It would have risen to just £7,485 by May 2015 through inflation, but the Government announced at autumn statement 2014 that the personal allowance would be increased to £10,600 from April 2015, and this is being legislated for in the Finance Bill 2015.
Mr Hollobone
By next May how many people does my hon. Friend estimate will have been taken out of paying income tax altogether in (a) Kettering, (b) Northamptonshire, and (c) the country as a whole?
Mr Gauke
By April this year the Government’s measures, including increases in the personal allowance for those born after 5 April 1948, are estimated to have taken about 3.4 million individuals out of the income tax system altogether. Some 248,000 of these individuals live in the east midlands region, which of course includes the constituency of Kettering in Northamptonshire.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure economic stability, promote growth and employment, reform the banking system and restore sanity to the public finances.
Fiona O'Donnell
On Wednesday I asked the Chancellor about public registers of beneficial ownership in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. He replied that
“they are all consulting, right now, on the creation of these registries.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 328.]
The fact is that two are not consulting and the others have all finished their consultations, although none has published its submissions or its policies. Will the Chief Secretary now set the record straight?
Danny Alexander
I will set the record straight. The record shows that under the previous Labour Government the Crown dependencies and these bodies did not make any progress on registers of beneficial ownership. Progress is being substantially made now because of the lead this Government showed at the G8. By the way, these same places have also now agreed to the automatic exchange of tax information, to make sure that for the first time—this is something the Government of the hon. Lady’s party never did—we can get tax from people who are trying to hide it in these jurisdictions.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
T2. My constituents in Peterborough who work at Thomas Cook and many families with young children will have been delighted by the announcement on children’s air passenger duty in last week’s autumn statement. Will the Exchequer Secretary give an undertaking that she will continue to monitor the impact of air passenger duty on tourism and the family budget and not rule out further cuts in the near future?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Priti Patel)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The reductions in air passenger duty announced last week are to be welcomed not just by his constituents and by Thomas Cook but by hard-working families across the country. As with all other taxes, air passenger duty will be kept under review, taking into account our commitment to creating sustainable public finances alongside helping households and, of course, the tourism industry.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Chief Secretary confirm that table 2.3 on page 67 of the autumn statement shows that total managed expenditure will fall to 35% of GDP by 2020? According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, that is a level not seen since the late 1930s. Does he stand by the autumn statement or not?
Danny Alexander
The way in which the autumn statement is constructed is that the OBR is given an assumption about the path of the public finances over the course of the whole of the next Parliament. As I explained yesterday to readers of The Daily Telegraph—perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not count himself as one of them—a neutral assumption is built into the public finances post 2017-18 which assumes that spending will stay flat in real terms. That enables the OBR to construct its forecast. In my view, when we have finished dealing with the structural deficit post 2017-18, public expenditure will be able to grow faster than that.
Chris Leslie
It does not sound as though the right hon. Gentleman stands by the autumn statement much, Mr Speaker. On Wednesday, the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility wrote to the Business Secretary confirming that the autumn statement and all the policy assumptions leading to this figure of 35% were
“signed off by the ‘quad’”.
Is the Chief Secretary still a member of the “quad”, and is that actually true? Why is he now pretending to distance himself from his consistent record of Tory collaboration when he has been as thick as thieves with them in vote after vote, year after year, time and time again?
Danny Alexander
I guess it is a tough job being shadow Chief Secretary: he has to deal with the shadow Chancellor. I saw a quote from the previous Chancellor just this weekend, in Alan Cochrane’s diaries. It said, “I don’t think Miliband gets much of a look-in on the economy now. He’s a difficult man, is Balls.” I guess that is what they mean by a zero-zero economy: one Ed has zero influence; the other has zero credibility. Let me say this to the Labour party and to the Conservative party: both of them, in different ways, are advocating relentless austerity for the whole of the next Parliament, and it is only the Liberal Democrats turning around the public finances after 2017-18 who offer any hope of a change in the future.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
T3. Public Health England at Porton Down in my constituency is at the centre of the global life sciences industry and works with 250 partnerships across the globe. The outline business case is currently before a number of Government Departments. Will the Minister assure me that the fullest range of options will be considered, including a proposal to set up a UK centre for a global response to infectious diseases, which I believe would reduce the call on the British taxpayer?
Danny Alexander
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is an important and, I understand, sensitive decision, which Public Health England is considering in all its aspects. The outline business case is currently with Treasury officials for scrutiny. I know that this work is incredibly important, not least given the recent Ebola outbreak in west Africa, but it would be inappropriate for me to give any further details on the business case until the review has been completed.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
T4. I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will be aware of just how important the video games industry is to Dundee and to my constituency. The Chancellor said last week that he would support exports. Businesses in the video games industry are often started by university graduates with little or no financial support, yet they end up employing people. What will the autumn statement mean for the video games businesses in Dundee?
Danny Alexander
I absolutely recognise the importance of the video games industry to Dundee and other parts of the country, and indeed to many hon. Members. I do not know whether Candy Crush was developed in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but it is clearly very popular in the House. The package of measures in the autumn statement to support exporters will benefit the video games industry, as will the improvements to tax relief for research and development, which will particularly benefit small and medium-sized enterprises. If he has further ideas for measures that might benefit that industry in his area, I would be glad to hear them.
Mr Speaker
I know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will not want to talk out opportunities for his own hon. and right hon. Friends. I call Mr Roger Williams.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
T6. On small business Saturday I visited retail businesses in Brecon, Llanwrtydwells and Talgarth. They told me how pleased they were with the employment allowance, which gave them a reduction of up to £2,000 in their employer national insurance contributions. More than 1,000 businesses benefit from that in my constituency, but up to 500 that are eligible have not applied. What can we do to encourage them to take up this important measure?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to highlight the importance of these changes. As a local Member of Parliament, he has a particularly important role to play in promoting them, as he has done for the businesses already taking them up. I encourage him to continue to do that and to talk to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about whether there is more we can do to get that message across.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
T5. Last week, the Chancellor said: “What I reject is the totally hyperbolic BBC coverage on spending cuts. I had all that…four years ago and has the world fallen in? No”.At my surgeries, I meet mothers dependent on food banks to feed their families, fathers desperate at lost Sure Start services, and disabled pensioners choosing between heating and eating. They tell me that their world has fallen in. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the Chancellor that they are being “hyperbolic”?
Danny Alexander
I am sure the hon. Lady explained to those constituents that the severe economic problems this country is experiencing and recovering from were caused on her party’s watch when it was in office. Although I share the view that these are difficult issues, I hope she would also highlight the fact that her constituency has seen 5,200 jobs created in the past 12 months.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The confidence to create a new business is a true barometer of the progress this Government are making on the long-term economic plan. Will the Chief Secretary join me in welcoming the 1,000 new businesses that have been created in my constituency in the past 12 months? What is he doing to encourage more people to find their entrepreneurial spirit?
Danny Alexander
The right hon. Lady is right about that, and I join her in congratulating all 1,000 of those businesses in her constituency and millions more nationwide. We are talking about people who have set up their own businesses and are working hard to create wealth, jobs and growth for this country. That is why a range of the tax and regulatory changes we have put in place have been designed precisely to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
T7. A few weeks ago, the Chancellor rushed off to Europe to try to get the cap on bankers’ pay lifted. Will he do the same for public sector workers, and, in particular, nurses?
Danny Alexander
I am not sure that that is a matter for discussion at a European Union level.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Rebalancing the economy has been crucial in delivering the coalition Government’s economic plan. Delivering skills for the future is vital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the funding of professional careers advice must be part of the plan, to ensure that the growth in manufacturing is secured for the future?
Danny Alexander
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend on that. He has done more than most Members of this House to promote apprenticeships, the creation of skills and the manufacturing industry, and I pay tribute to him for his work. I ask him to look at what we have said about this in the autumn statement, which contains particular measures to promote the provision of better careers advice in schools.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
T8. This week, growth forecasts for the eurozone economies have again been downgraded, but the European Central Bank is refusing to adopt counteracting measures of quantitative easing. What plans do the Government have for protecting Britain’s economy in the event of a full-blown euro crisis?
Danny Alexander
The best protection for the UK is to stick to the economic plan that is creating jobs and growth up and down this country. That is what the coalition has done and will continue to do. The OBR’s forecast, published last week, showed that it expects the UK, despite the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers, to continue to have economic momentum over the next few years.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Rural communities are clearly not part of the city regions and possibly will not form part of the northern powerhouse. What assurances can the Chief Secretary give us that rural communities will benefit from the increased prosperity from the long-term economic plan?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend makes an important point, although I would say to her that rural communities are part of local enterprise partnership areas that benefit from the growth deals announced last year. The city deals and the devolution process we are engaged in benefit all parts of the UK. I highlight to her the investment this Government are making in transport and in broadband as particularly important in driving growth in rural communities.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
T9. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that individual unsecured debt will rise over the next five years by a staggering £360 billion, which is a record 55% of total household income. More people will be thrust into poverty and forced to go to food banks, and that will not be because more of them know about them or that poor people cannot cook. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the Chancellor that the best way to reduce his borrowing is to increase everyone else’s debts?
Danny Alexander
That same economic forecast suggests that an extra 1 million people will be in work from the record levels that we have at the moment; that there will be a consistent rise in real incomes over the next five years; and that the United Kingdom has the strongest economic growth of any developed country in the world and the strongest job creation. Those are the facts about the United Kingdom and the hon. Lady should welcome them.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
May I put it on the record that I support the Government’s drive to create a northern powerhouse? What assurances can the Chief Secretary give me that constituencies such as my own in Fylde will benefit from such a move?
Danny Alexander
I can honestly say to my hon. Friend that his constituency will benefit. It has already benefited from the growth deals, and it is benefiting from investment in energy infrastructure, which is a particular interest there. It is also benefiting from the transport investment, and as we take forward this agenda to improve the economy in the north of England, we will ensure that every part of the north of England, including his constituency, benefits from that process.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Was the Chief Secretary as alarmed as I was by this morning’s comments by the Northern Ireland Attorney-General that the Royal Bank of Scotland has been involved in “criminal fraud” with regard to its banking treatment of those who fell behind in their mortgages? If that is the case, will he make a statement to the House, telling us how he intends to deal with the matter so that we can bring back certainty to customers?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
This Government take very seriously any accusations of wrongdoing by the banks. We will be looking at this case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those comments have been strongly denied by RBS, and we will certainly be taking advice on the matter and looking into it carefully and taking appropriate action.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) would have been called earlier, but she was not here. She is now, and she can have a go if she prefers asking a question to talking to a Government Whip, albeit a distinguished Government Whip.
Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and my apologies. I wanted to ask about tax avoidance. At a time of falling incomes when many people are finding it difficult to make ends meet, does the Minister agree that those on high incomes should avoid using expensive lawyers—if they can afford to use them—to assist with tax avoidance? Does he share my hope that tax avoidance, like drink-driving, will become a moral taboo?
Danny Alexander
I agree with my hon. Friend. This Government have taken consistent action to tackle tax avoidance and to reduce tax evasion, raising billions of pounds to help avoid some of the pressures to which she refers. Dodging taxes is as morally reprehensible as claiming the wrong benefits or doing what she described. Those are all things that we, as a society, want to see stopped, and the Government are taking action to see that they are.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
On infrastructure spending, the Government’s claims earlier this year that flood defence spending had increased were rubbished not by insignificant people but by Sir Andrew Dilnot, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, the Channel 4 “FactCheck” programme and many others. On that basis, what confidence can we have that spending on flood defence will increase, when it went down £200 million in the first four years of this Government?
Danny Alexander
This Government’s investment in flood-risk management has increased in real terms by 5% compared with spending in the previous five years. We will be spending more than £5.2 billion over the course of this Parliament on flood and erosion risk management compared with £2.7 billion in the previous five years. That is a record of which I am proud.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry but demand always exceeds supply. Last but not least, Stuart Andrew.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend heard earlier, there is currently a connectivity study on Leeds Bradford International airport. As someone who has been campaigning for that rail link, because the road network is always so congested, may I urge him to look at that study in great detail, as it will help us to contribute to that great economic powerhouse in the north?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of the study. We noted it in the national infrastructure plan as something that has produced some new arguments about that link. Clearly, the case must be developed locally, given the more devolved framework in which we are now operating. If he wants to join my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) in the meeting that my hon. Friend suggested, I would be delighted to talk to him about how we can take this important project forward.
Campaign against “legal highs”
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
In presenting this petition, I would like to thank my constituent Yvonne Chafey, who first began a local campaign to stop legal highs, and the Kilmarnock Standard and the Daily Record for publicising the issue. Hundreds of people in my constituency have signed the petition.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Kilmarnock and Loudoun,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the sale of substances commonly referred to as “legal highs” constitutes a clear and present danger to public health, and in particular to the health of young people; further that the Petitioners believe that, at present, there is a severe lack of information available to the public regarding the potential physical and psychological risks associated with the human consumption of such substances; and further that the risks associated with the human consumption of such substances varies depending on the consumer, but are increased if the substance is consumed in conjunction with alcohol or other psychoactive drugs.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider whether certain substances commonly referred to as “legal highs” should be reclassified in order to enhance public awareness of the risks associated with their consumption and further requests that the House urges the Government to consider whether greater support should be provided to individuals and families affected by the use of such substances.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Under-occupancy penalty
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I wish to put on record my thanks to Bolton against the bedroom tax, which initiated a postcard campaign that has now been expanded to a paper petition.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Bolton West constituency,
Declares that the bedroom tax (otherwise known as the spare room subsidy) punishes the most vulnerable people in society; further that many of those affected by the bedroom tax will need to downsize but there are not enough properties available for them to do so; further that in Bolton, there are only 13 available properties and 3,000 affected households; further that because many of those affected cannot downsize, it is simply a tax on households which are already struggling; further that seventy per cent of those affected are disabled; further that the revenue raised by this tax is a drop in the ocean compared to the money lost through tax evasion and avoidance; further that those affected cannot afford to wait for a change of government; further that lives are being ruined because parents are being ejected from the family home; and further that a postcard campaign in the Bolton West constituency on this issue resulted in 150 postcards being sent to the Member of Parliament for Bolton West. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to revoke the bedroom tax.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001406]
Railway line adjacent to North Werrington (Peterborough)
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The petitions are from the residents of the Peterborough constituency in North Werrington and Peakirk.
The first petition states:
The Petition of residents of Peterborough constituency,
Declares that Network Rail have upgraded the continuous railway line adjacent to North Werrington; further that Network Rail estimate that there will be substantial increases in freight traffic through the village of up to 23,360 additional trains per year; further that no mitigating measures have been offered to reduce the significant increases in noise, vibration and pollution created by the increase in freight traffic; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 582 residents of North Werrington. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enter into discussion with Network Rail to discuss and agree plans to introduce noise mitigation measures such as the erection of acoustic timber fencing and plans to fit secondary glazing and/or acoustic trickle vents where required for properties adjacent to the train line which runs through North Werrington; further request that the House urges the Government to encourage Network Rail to put in place plans to plant an evergreen tree belt to help absorb particulates emitted by diesel locomotives; and further request that the House urges the Government to ask Peterborough City Council to consider a reduction in council tax for those properties which will be directly affected by increases in freight traffic through North Werrington.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001408]
Railway line adjacent to Peakirk (Peterborough)
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
My second petition states:
The Petition of residents of Peterborough,
Declares that Network Rail have upgraded the continuous railway line adjacent to Peakirk; further that Network Rail estimate that there will be substantial increases in freight traffic through the village of up to 23,360 additional trains per year; further that no mitigating measures have been offered to reduce the significant increases in noise, vibration and pollution created by the increase in freight traffic; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 170 residents of Peakirk. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enter into discussion with Network Rail to discuss and agree plans to introduce noise mitigation measures such as the erection of acoustic timber fencing and plans to fit secondary glazing and/or acoustic trickle vents where required for properties adjacent to the train line which runs adjacent to Peakirk; further request that the House urges the Government to encourage Network Rail to put in place plans to plant an evergreen tree belt to help absorb particulates emitted by diesel locomotives; and further request that the House urges the Government to ask Peterborough City Council to consider a reduction in council tax for those properties which will be directly affected by increases in freight traffic through Peakirk.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001409]
Points of Order
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are very concerned about good behaviour in this Chamber, but I think you share my view of the importance of good behaviour in Select Committees, too. Is it not time that we had some sort of rules on the use of electronic gizmos in Select Committees? Otherwise, the House of Commons will fall into disrepute if, during an important Work and Pensions Committee hearing, a Member of Parliament is seen to be playing electronic games. Could we make it clear that the use of electronic devices at certain times, both here and in Select Committees, is not appropriate?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, the answer to which is as follows. There are rules on these matters. I think it is fair to say that it is quite within the competence, in the literal sense of that term, of the Chair of the Committee to take charge of the matter and to rule accordingly. Therefore the expression of legitimate interest by a Member of 35 years’ standing in the House is greatly appreciated, but I imagine that although the Chair of the Committee will be encouraged to enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s support, he or she is probably able to handle the matter without further assistance—but the point is on the record, and I thank him.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you assist me in obtaining from the Department for Work and Pensions information which I have been trying to obtain for over a year? In a written answer in March last year, the then Employment Minister told me that the amount of jobseeker’s allowance withheld in fixed sanctions had gone up more than tenfold between the election and October 2012. In October 2012, a new, harsher, sanctions regime was introduced, and I have been trying to obtain an updated answer to my question ever since. I have been given various reasons why the question cannot be answered, none of which I think is convincing. Can you give me advice or assistance in obtaining the information I seek?
Mr Speaker
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman, in his point of order, may be investing me with powers and wisdom that, sadly, the Chair does not possess. I do not think he will object to my communicating to the Chamber the fact that he has sent me a substantial academic essay on the matter, which I had the opportunity this morning to digest. The nub of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman received what he regarded as a more expansive and informative answer to a previous question; he is now displeased that, on tabling a similar question and seeking that greater elaboration, it is being denied to him. Sadly, it is not within the power of the Chair to prescribe the level of expansiveness of ministerial replies.
I can say only two things: first, Ministers should attend to the terms of the question and seek to inform, rather than to avoid informing; and secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is both a doughty fighter and a cerebral character, so he will know that there are many ways of achieving one’s objective. If seeking the information through written answers does not avail him, he can always seek an Adjournment debate on the matter, and the ballot being operated in the Speaker’s Office might yield fruit for the right hon. Gentleman. We will leave it there for now.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are an avid listener to everything that happens in this place, and you will, like me, have noticed that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has admitted that he only believes in collective responsibility a little bit, and it is pretty evident that it might not last until May. Would you, Mr Speaker, find the appropriate words to describe what is happening to the Government? Do you, like me, think that the Lib Dems are preparing to leave the Government before May and the general election, or do you think they are going to hang on? Do you, the Speaker, have any responsibility for people who do not really believe in Government, but do so only a little bit? Can the Speaker comment? You have access to all those wonderful words, so I give you a chance.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. In the run-up to elections there tends to be a degree of spontaneous creativity on the part of individual members of different parties. My first point to the hon. Gentleman is that there is a coalition Government; it is somewhat different from previous animals. My second point is that the hon. Gentleman ought to know me well enough to know that my ambitions do not stretch to a detailed interpretation of ministerial nuance. My preoccupation is with Arsenal playing Galatasaray tonight. The third point I would make to the hon. Gentleman on the strength of my respect for his 44 years’ uninterrupted service in the House is that on Sunday afternoon I hugely enjoyed finishing reading his autobiography, and shortly my copy will wing its way to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that he might be gracious enough to sign it for me.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my question to the Treasury I may have inadvertently named the Royal Bank of Scotland instead of the Bank of Scotland, and I would like to set the record straight.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has achieved his objective, and we are grateful to him.
Funeral Services
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of funeral affordability and costs; to require the providers of funeral services to offer a simple funeral service; to require the Secretary of State to make certain arrangements relating to funeral payments; and for connected purposes.
Losing a loved one can be one of the most devastating experiences we face. Everyone who loses someone close to them wants to give them a decent send-off, but sadly fewer and fewer people are now able to afford even a basic funeral. We do not hear a lot about this problem: because of its deeply personal nature, funeral poverty remains taboo. Today I am proposing measures to end that taboo and to ensure that no one has to endure the agony of worrying about funeral costs at the same time as grieving.
A report released this month by Royal London shows that of the 500,000 families who are bereaved each year, one fifth struggle to afford the cost of a funeral. This is a problem that will only get worse, as the price of a service is accelerating far faster than inflation. Royal London’s research shows that the average cost is now £3,551 pounds, nearly twice the level of a decade ago. Depending on where someone lives, and the availability of burial space, costs can approach £7,000. The rising cost of a service, alongside squeezed household incomes and a failing system of state support, means that many people have to borrow from friends or family, sell possessions or take on credit card or payday loan debt to make up the shortfall. This often means finding themselves in serious financial difficulty.
One woman from my area approached the citizens advice bureau with unmanageable debts. She had been unable to get the money together to pay for a headstone for her brother’s grave. She ended up applying for a payday loan, and the cost of repaying this debt quickly got out of control. Sadly, her story is not an isolated one. Royal London estimates that 110,000 people are living with funeral debt, with each person owing over £1,300 on average. People are also turning to alternatives to the traditional funeral. Some are holding do-it-yourself funerals, and even having to bury relatives in their back garden. A number of companies are offering cut-price funerals, including “direct” cremations that have no formal service attached to them.
Increasingly, bereaved individuals who simply cannot afford a formal service are faced with having to opt for a public health funeral, or what used to be referred to as a pauper’s funeral. When nobody else is able to take responsibility for handling a person’s remains, the local authority has to step in. People have no control over the service, and of course there is a cost to the local authority as well.
My Bill has two main objectives. The first is to identify ways of reducing funeral costs by requiring the Secretary of State to conduct an over-arching review of funeral affordability in the UK. The second is to take immediate steps to help hard-pressed households facing funeral poverty, via specific measures to reform the funeral payments social fund system, and by introducing a simple funeral. The reason for an overarching review is the huge number of factors that contribute to rising funeral costs. We need to consider the amount of burial space available, how deaths are registered, the impact of competition between private and local authority crematoria, and the benefits system that supports those who are unable to afford a service. Addressing affordability will require careful thought and collaboration between several Departments, so the issue needs cross-departmental consideration.
The review would need input from those working in the funeral sector. Funeral directors, for example, are seeing their costs rise because of flaws in the funeral payment system. The amount that can be awarded towards what are called “other funeral expenses”, which include directors’ fees, is capped at £700. This amount was set more than a decade ago and has not risen with inflation, so it has not kept up with funeral directors’ own costs. This means that directors are seeing customers who cannot pay the full cost of a service.
The National Association of Funeral Directors tells me that many of its members are now offering funerals on credit, with no guarantee that the client will be able to pay back the full amount. Even those who can pay face the difficulty of having to return to their funeral director every week to pay back the cost of the funeral in instalments. This is unsustainable, it is awful for those families, it puts businesses at risk and it can lead to higher charges, which are eventually passed on to customers. This is just one example of a serious flaw in the funeral market, and that is why the review proposed in the Bill would need to include consultation with funeral directors, local authorities and other interested parties to look at affordability as a whole.
Outside the overarching review there are measures that could make a difference to funeral poverty right now. The state support available through social fund funeral payments is long overdue for reform. These are payments available through the Department for Work and Pensions, which are supposed to help those on low incomes with the cost of a funeral, but the system does not function well and even encourages some households to get into debt. Applications are lengthy and confusing, especially for someone who is just bereaved, and the outcome may take 17 days. The DWP requires an invoice to process a claim, which means that people who want to arrange a funeral quickly must agree their costs before they know whether they qualify for help. This is worrying when we know that 50% of claims are rejected—about 30,000 a year. These people will have bought a funeral service under the impression that they qualify for help, only to be rejected and left with thousands of pounds of costs that they cannot pay.
Changes to the way the system is run, such as removing the requirement for an invoice, could reduce the number of rejected claims, by allowing people to check their eligibility before they commit to funeral costs. This would help them make a more informed decision about the kind of funeral they can afford, and it would help them avoid debt. The DWP needs to look at how it could streamline the way such claims are processed so that decisions are made more quickly.
The second measure is the creation of a “simple funeral”, which would help people buying a service to understand how much they can expect to pay, and help them make sure they do not pay more than they should. At present many people do not have a good idea of how much a funeral should cost, and this measure would help them make a judgment about the kind of service they want. Funeral directors would be required to let people know how much a simple service would cost if it was bought through them. This would not stop people choosing the service they want; it would just be a clear, easily understandable option available if they wanted it. A simple funeral is already offered by many funeral directors. It helps people make an important decision at a difficult time in their lives, and it helps them choose a funeral that is affordable and right for them. It should be available to everyone.
These measures could make an immediate difference to the households that already struggle with funeral poverty, but the motion needs to be the start of a bigger conversation about how we plan for the future. We need to talk about addressing a failing benefits system, a lack of burial space, and challenges facing the sector overall. But we also want to encourage members of the public to have conversations about planning for the future and how to make sure that there is money set aside to pay for their funeral. I understand that these are difficult conversations, but they are important ones, and I hope that today’s motion can break the silence on funeral poverty. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Steve Rotheram, Ian Mearns, Julie Hilling, Meg Munn, Pat Glass, Ian Lucas, Andy McDonald, Mr David Anderson, Graeme Morrice, Jim Shannon and Sir Peter Bottomley present the Bill.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2015 and to be printed (Bill 133).
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 4, on page 8, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
This would remove the 200-mile limit on the Home Secretary’s ability to relocate people.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.
Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 9, line 33, at end insert—
‘6B Regulated Activity Measure
(1) The Secretary of State may impose on the individual restrictions on taking part in regulated activity relating to—
(a) vulnerable adults;
(b) children; or
(c) both.
(2) In this section “Regulated Activity” is as defined in Schedule 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults Act 2006.’.
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to prevent an individual on a TPIM working (including voluntary work) with children or vulnerable adults or both.
Clause 14 stand part.
Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 10, line 8, at end insert—
‘(3) Appointments required under subsection (1) may include appointments with persons involved in delivering programmes established under Part 5, Chapter 2 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2014.’.
This amendment would make clear that the Secretary of State can instruct an individual on a TPIM to attend de-radicalisation programmes.
Clauses 15 and 16 stand part.
Diana Johnson
Part 2 of the Bill relates to terrorism prevention and investigation measures. This grouping includes clauses 12 to 16 as well as Labour’s amendments, so I intend to use my contribution to address all the issues concerning TPIMs in part 2. The amendments are all probing, as we are broadly supportive of the changes the clauses introduce, especially the U-turn on relocation powers, which clause 12 reintroduces.
The Home Secretary introduced TPIMs in the first Session of this Parliament to replace Labour’s control orders. She claimed at the time that that was a fundamental rebalancing of security and liberty. In fact, there were only two major differences between control orders and TPIMs, or control orders-lite, as they have been called: the relocation power and the two-year limit. She also said that she had been forced to introduce TPIMs because too many control orders were being challenged in the courts. Although judicial oversight was of course a key element of the control orders regime, the courts had continued to find that control orders, including the power to relocate, were both necessary and proportionate in a number of cases, including all those that were later transferred to TPIMs.
I think that every Member of this House would agree that it is always better to prosecute individuals, wherever possible, for terrorist offences. No one wants TPIMs or control orders; we would all much rather see prosecutions for those involved in terrorism activity. However, in a very small number of cases evidence is inadmissible, for example because it would compromise security, and therefore prosecutions cannot be brought. That means we need an alternative measure to deal with the threat those individuals pose.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that TPIMs have never led to a terrorism-related prosecution and that they are therefore not only against human rights, but counter-productive and ineffective?
Diana Johnson
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will move on to that point shortly, because one of the claims that the Government made was that the new regime would lead to more prosecutions.
It is worth remembering that we are talking about a very small number of individuals, but they pose a serious danger to the public and we need some powers to manage that risk. David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has made it clear that those who are subject to TPIM notices are accused of terrorist activities
“at the highest end of seriousness, even by the standards of international terrorism.”
TPIMs are a set of restrictions imposed on an individual who is suspected of, but has not been convicted for, involvement in terrorism. A TPIM order, like a control order, is imposed at the behest of the Home Secretary, with judicial oversight, but can be appealed to the High Court, which must find that the TPIM and all the measures it includes are both necessary and proportionate.
When the Government scrapped the control order regime, they argued that their new regime would allow more suspects to be prosecuted—this relates to the point just made by the hon. Lady. The Security Minister has repeatedly said that the aim of the regime was to secure more prosecutions and that extra resources were being provided to achieve that. I wonder whether he could confirm today exactly how many successful prosecutions for terrorist-related activity there have been for individuals on TPIMs. Like the hon. Lady, I understand that there has not been one successful such prosecution. David Anderson has commented that the TPIMs regime has not aided the prosecution of individuals, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has stated that it
“failed to find any evidence that TPIMs have led in practice to any more criminal prosecutions of terrorism suspects.”
All three of the prosecutions attempted in 2012 for breaching the conditions of TPIM orders collapsed. When Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed absconded, he had just answered bail on 20 charges relating to breaches of his TPIM. Some of those breaches lay on the file for 18 months. Given that prosecutions were meant to be a priority, as the Government had said on numerous occasions, perhaps the Minister can explain why he thinks there was such a delay in taking that case to court and whether the Government actually opposed Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed being granted bail. Will he also confirm how he believes the changes proposed in part 2 will deliver what he had attempted to do when the TPIMs regime first came in—secure more prosecutions?
The number of people on TPIMs, as with control orders, has remained very small, but they are believed to pose a serious threat. There were nine people on the control orders regime when it ended in January 2012, all of whom were British citizens, and the Crown Prosecution Service has consistently said that none of them could be prosecuted. All those individuals were transferred to TPIM orders, and another individual was subsequently put on a TPIM order. We believe that there is currently just one person on a TPIM order. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that when he speaks.
There are other concerns about the TPIMs regime. In January 2014, the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated:
“We are left with the impression that in practice TPIMs may be withering on the vine as a counter-terrorism tool of practical utility”.
I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to those comments and how he feels that part 2 will deal with some of the criticisms raised.
I now turn to clause 12 and the issue of relocation, and amendment 4. As I said, the key difference between control orders and the TPIMs regime was the power of relocation, which was removed. It is helpful to give specific examples of how the relocation power was used under the control orders regime and the effects of the changes introduced by the coalition through the TPIMs legislation.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
indicated dissent.
Diana Johnson
The Minister is shaking his head. It would be interesting to hear his views about the resources available to carry out surveillance and what additional resources might be needed for the relocation power proposed in the Bill.
I want to turn to the practical issues involved when someone is subject to a TPIM, and where they would actually live. Clause 12 allows for the Secretary of State to provide a residence, but there is no requirement. Presumably, the Home Secretary would find somewhere for an individual to live if they did not have a place to stay. What would be a local authority’s responsibilities if there was a power of relocation several miles away from where the individual usually resides? Would local councils have a responsibility to provide accommodation? What standard of accommodation would the Minister expect to be provided to somebody subject to a TPIM relocation order? What type of accommodation would it be? Would the Home Secretary consider a prison to be a suitable place to accommodate an individual? If the individual lives in the private rented sector, who would meet the costs of that accommodation? Would the individual be able to make a claim for and obtain housing benefit? Concerns have also been raised in the past about immediate close family members, including children, young children, husbands and wives. Would accommodation be provided for them?
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I am certainly not an expert on this area, but is the shadow Minister suggesting that an organisation’s standard Criminal Records Bureau check fails to pick up the people to whom she is referring?
Diana Johnson
That is the very question I am asking. The Disclosure and Barring Service obviously keeps records of people who should not have access to children in a regulated activity, such as working as a teacher in a school. However, because of the coalition’s changes, volunteering at a school is not considered a regulated activity, so no information would necessarily be given by the DBS. Most people would be concerned if someone subject to a TPIM had access to young people. Will the Minister help us to be clear about what exactly that means?
Clause 15 allows the Secretary of State to require an individual to attend meetings with such persons as the Secretary of State may specify, at such locations and at such times as the Secretary of State may by notice require. The specified persons may choose the time and place of the meeting.
We think that clause 15 is rather vague and very broad, and we have tabled a probing amendment. Amendment 6 is designed to tie down the clause on the specific issue of Channel—the deradicalisation programme —which we will come on to later. It is important that the Secretary of State can make people attend Channel meetings and appointments, and possibly those relating to other parts of the Prevent programme. The probing amendment is an attempt to tease out exactly what such appointments are about. We certainly think that the appointments such a person is required to attend should cover the Channel and Prevent programmes.
Clause 16(1) amends section 3(1) of the TPIM Act so that, to meet condition A, the Secretary of State must be
“satisfied, on the balance of probabilities,”
that an individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. That changes the current wording for the test under condition A, which is that
“the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity”.
As I have set out at great length, the Secretary of State spent four years arguing that relocation was unnecessary and impossible, because courts kept overruling it. We know that the independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have always taken a different view on that point. The relocation power is now being reintroduced, and the Home Secretary has toughened up the test.
I want to make it clear that Opposition Members have always been comfortable with having robust oversight of TPIMs, because we think that good and strong evidence—such evidence ensures that TPIMs are used only in exceptional cases—would pass the test the Home Secretary is now introducing in clause 16. It is important not only to have such a test, but to continue to have judicial oversight so that TPIMs are always considered in the courts.
Caroline Lucas
I will say only a few words, but I want to explain why I will not support amendment 4.
My opposition to TPIMs and their predecessors, control orders, is on the record. The latest proposals do nothing to address my long-held concerns. The measures before us will take us back in time to when the Secretary of State could require an individual to live in a residence and locality in the UK that he or she considered appropriate. That was a feature of the previous Administration that was abandoned by the current Home Secretary for good reasons. She has now taken a step backwards. Given that these measures will make it possible for individuals to be removed from their families and communities and placed, effectively, in isolation, I do not share the pleasure that is apparent on the Opposition Front Bench, nor the view of the Opposition that it is acceptable to allow people to be relocated without any limit on the distance.
The courts have ruled on a number of occasions that internal exile, in conjunction with the imposition of other restrictions, constitutes a violation of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. That stands whether someone is relocated 50 miles, 150 miles or 250 miles away from their home. In one case, Mr Justice Mitting ruled that, on the basis of evidence provided by the wife of the individual who was subject to a control order, the threat that the detainee posed would be reduced if he were able to remain with his family. That brings us to the crux of the matter. There is not a scrap of evidence that such a brutal and punitive regime plays a role in countering terrorism. In fact, it may well be counter-productive.
When a suspect is subjected to a TPIM, it tips them off, making it much more difficult to gather evidence of terrorism-related activity. TPIMs exacerbate the potential for increased alienation and radicalisation, because they can be made against those who pose no direct threat to the British public. Moreover, as Liberty and others have reported, and as the shadow Minister just said, TPIMs have never led to a terrorism-related prosecution. If the purpose of such proposals is to counter terrorism and make us more secure, TPIMs have little to recommend them and neither did control orders before them. I believe that we should move forward, rather than take a step backwards, as the amendment would have us do.
Clause 13 removes the defence of a reasonable excuse for those who breach a TPIM and leave the UK. The measures in the Bill undermine some of the basic tenets of our justice system. Clause 13 will allow for somebody to be imprisoned for up to 10 years for breaching a TPIM, even though a TPIM can be imposed without any need for them to be arrested, charged or convicted for a terrorism offence. In other words, it will allow somebody to be criminalised and locked up for 10 years for breaching a civil sanction. That move will turn our justice system on its head. It is at odds with everything we ought to hold dear. I hope that Members will not stand by and let such a draconian measure pass.
One former Law Lord, referring to the control order regime, said:
“They are, and always have been, a blot on our jurisprudence.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 2010; Vol. 717, c. 1528.]
That criticism stands, with or without the changes that have been outlined today. I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is advocating more of what Justice calls
“an ineffective and draconian diversion from prosecution of criminal behaviour.”
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
These are terrible amendments. They are so sadly and typically new Labour. The control order regime was the centrepiece of what is commonly described as the new Labour anti-civil libertarian state. It had all the usual new Labour features: suspicion, restrictions without trial and sweeping powers for the Secretary of State to make up her mind about convictions. New Labour was always on the wrong side of the crucial balance between making our nation safe through security-related legislation and upholding civil liberties. The control order regime was part of the central agenda that new Labour constructed, which included the suggestion that suspects should be locked up for 90 days without trial, ID cards and national databases. Under new Labour, we became probably the most restrictive, anti-civil libertarian state anywhere in the European Union.
As Members have said, there have been no prosecutions of people on control orders or TPIMs. That suggests that they are either really good or really rubbish. I supported the Conservatives when they moved against control orders. They did the right thing in abolishing control orders. We did not like TPIMs because they had features that were sadly reminiscent of new Labour’s control order regime, but the Conservatives seemed to be rowing back from the anti-civil libertarian state that had been constructed by new Labour and we supported them on that basis.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman have an alternative proposal to put to the Committee?
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. These measures are counter-productive in trying to make our country safe. All they do is tip people off that there is a particular issue with an individual. If there is a terrorist community, the first thing that they will take note of is the fact that somebody has been the subject of a TPIM or a control order. It alerts them to the fact that something is going on. I am all for making our country safe, but have there been any prosecutions? No.
The saddest and most bizarre feature of control orders and TPIMs is that they are all about suspicion. There is never enough evidence to test these matters in court, to take them to trial, to have a judge and jury decide whether something is going on. It is all about suspicion. That is the critical feature of TPIMs, as it was of the control order regime. How can anybody try to secure their innocence when they are subject to such measures? They have no opportunity to do so at all. They just have to accept the situation.
Unfortunately, the relocation measures will bring TPIMs right back to where we were with control orders. That was the defining difference between TPIMs and control orders. It is therefore particularly depressing that relocation is a feature of the new TPIM regime in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will resist Labour’s call to extend the powers further by making relocation even more restrictive and having another list of qualifications in the TPIM regime. I know that he will resist that and ensure that Labour, in its new Labour guise, will not have its way.
Diana Johnson
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He should have listened to what I said, which was that these are probing amendments to allow us fully to understand the Government’s thinking. They are intended not to extend the powers in the Bill, but to seek clarification. I hope that he will take that on board.
Pete Wishart
I am a bit more satisfied, but on the face of it, the amendments do call for further restrictions. If they are just probing amendments, that is fair enough and we will hear the Minister’s response. Regardless of whether the amendments are probing or active, I hope that he is not convinced to back anything that Labour is suggesting, because that would make matters worse.
It seems to me that the Labour leopard has not changed its new Labour, anti-civil libertarian spots. Labour still wants further restrictions. It still wants the Government to go further, despite the critical balancing act that we always have to consider between the necessary steps to keep our nation safe and the civil liberties that we cherish and value in a democracy. New Labour got the balance drastically, appallingly wrong. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are moving on to that territory once again. I hope that the amendments are resisted. I understand that they are just probing amendments, and that is fine, but I hope that the Minister will not be probed into accepting what is being suggested by the Labour party.
Ian Swales
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he remember that the previous Government introduced a raft of new offences under terrorism legislation, and therefore the gap that TPIMs or control orders are there to fill should be, and indeed has proved to be, negligible? Are they needed at all?
Pete Wishart
I think I took part in practically all the debates in this House on these issues—indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I would have sat on the same Benches when arguing against what new Labour was trying to create with these measures. He is right: are such measures necessary? One individual in the country is subject to a TPIM, yet we are discussing the issue in Parliament and ensuring that what will probably be expensive resources are allocated to ensure that this new restrictive measure goes through. Is it worth while?
I do not like TPIMs—the Minister knows that—and I disliked control orders even more. Are they necessary? I suspect not. Do they do anything to make our nation safe? No, they do not. Should we be doing other things to make our country safe? Yes, we should, but unfortunately no amendment has been tabled that will deal with those issues. I hope that the Minister is not in the mood to accept Labour’s suggestions—
Pete Wishart
I see by his response that he is not. I hope the amendments are rejected and that in future we do something that will make our country safe without having to resort to measures such as TPIMs.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I wish to take slight issue with the hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The hon. Gentleman’s speech seemed to play to a particular event that will take place over the next few months in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and it was more about distancing the Scottish National party from the position taken by Labour. That is fair enough; he is entitled to do that but he seemed to be putting rather more heat than light into the debate. To be slightly more serious—as I am sure he intended to be—the problem with the approach taken by him and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is that they describe a black and white world where either we have the evidence, in which case we go through the court system, prosecute someone and if that is successful they receive an appropriate sentence, or else there is not enough evidence to bring forward a court case so someone is not controlled at all. The difficulty is that the world is not black and white in that way.
Suppose one of our intelligence agencies has information from a liaison partner—the United States, for example—about somebody’s connections, or plans that they may be involved in with a third party elsewhere in the world to commit an act of terrorism in this country. There is a problem with taking such a case through the courts because the information it is based on is governed by the control principle—namely that that information is the property of the other agency, which in this case is in the United States. To allow that information to appear in a court case as evidence would undermine the relationship between the UK and that liaison partner.
Mr Howarth
There is an argument against that, which I suspect the hon. Lady is about to make, but an inescapable choice has to be made.
Caroline Lucas
No one is suggesting that the issue is black and white. There are shades of grey and balances of judgment, but the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and I are saying that with TPIMs and control orders, that balance of judgment is wrong. If we look at things such as intercept evidence, we can see that there will be other ways of bringing evidence to bear to help us reach a solution, rather than the draconian and counterproductive measures suggested by those on both Front Benches.
Mr Howarth
I am interested in the hon. Lady’s intervention. Later in the proceedings we will discuss intercept evidence, although I suspect that she will take an entirely different view on that from me, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the Minister. I hope to comment on the limitations of intercept evidence because it is not always feasible to rely wholly on evidence that in some cases may not exist. Some people may operate in a world where they are not connected online, and do not make telephone calls or give any indication of their intentions. The obvious example is Roshonara Choudhry who was convicted and is now serving a prison sentence for trying to kill a Member of this House. It would have been impossible to find out through intercept evidence what she was intending to do, so there is not always the possibility of relying on that entirely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked the Minister a series of questions and I hope he will respond positively. For some people the court system is not appropriate although they are known to be a threat for various reasons, and there must be some way of dealing with that.
James Brokenshire
The contribution by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, encapsulates some of the challenges and difficulties surrounding the principles of this debate. It is notable that contributions over the past hour have been about some of the principal issues concerning the types of measures that should be available to deal with the threat of terrorism, as well as—obviously and rightly—more detailed examination of the Bill.
We have had this debate on previous occasions, and I respect the view of the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whose approach has been entirely consistent. In some cases, however, there will be an inability either to prosecute or deport an individual, yet a significant risk will be attached to them—the point made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. The Government have a responsibility to deal with that risk.
My strong preference would be for prosecutions—absolutely, there are no two ways about it—but that is not always possible for a range of reasons. That is the challenge the Government face in terms of seeing the threat and the risk, and being able to assure national security, as the public and the House would expect. Therefore, reluctantly, a measure is required, and we judge that TPIMs are the appropriate way to meet that risk and challenge. I would prefer that that were not the case—in that I agree with the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion and for Perth and North Perthshire—but from the intelligence picture that I have seen and the advice I have been given, sadly and regrettably I believe that TPIMs are necessary to be able to guard national security in that way.
Since April 2010 more than 750 people have been arrested for terrorism-related offences. More than 210 have been charged and more than 140 successfully prosecuted. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) that the introduction of TPIMs was part of a careful and considered counter-terrorism review. She will recall the debates. Consideration was not rushed, but made on the basis of careful analysis of all counter-terrorism legislation to examine the risk and the threat, and what was appropriate and proportionate. That led to a number of changes under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the point that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire was underlining. An assessment was made of which powers were no longer necessary because they no longer added to the protection of the public. That is why we made a number of changes and I was proud to be the Minister leading that Bill through the House. It was part of the process of constantly evaluating and assessing the measures in place in order to consider what is proportionate, appropriate and necessary to guard our national security. In our judgment it is appropriate to make further changes, which is why we seek to bring these measures before the Committee today.
TPIMs have always been part of a package of legislative measures and investment provided to the police and security services to undertake further investigations. That investment will have led to other prosecutions. People who not have gone on to a TPIM have been brought before the courts as a consequence of that investment in capabilities. That is a positive result and something I think right hon. and hon. Members wish to see.
The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 provides a powerful range of measures to manage the threat from terrorists who cannot be prosecuted or deported. TPIM notices are imposed only in cases that require stringent measures, but where they are used, they provide a valuable capability. The Government are committed to ensuring that the appropriate tools are available to our security services and the police for the protection of national security. That is why clause 12 introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to compel a TPIM subject to reside anywhere in the UK, subject to the restrictions we have talked about in the debate thus far. It is important to recognise the benefits that accrue and that there are safeguards in place. The Secretary of State has to make an assessment to determine whether a TPIM should be granted, why we judge it is human rights compliant and how that view has been upheld by the courts.
Caroline Lucas
Perhaps I am pre-empting the Minister, but I wanted to press him on clause 13. He talks about safeguards and so on, but how can he justify the fact that a 10-year prison sentence could be handed down to someone who may never have been arrested, let alone convicted, of a terrorism offence? That length of sentence is higher than that given for many violent offences that have been properly proved.
James Brokenshire
It is a question of the seriousness of the measures. We recognise, because of the changes we are making, that there should be a higher burden placed on the Secretary of State in determining whether one of these measures should be provided. That is why we have moved this up to the “balance of probabilities”. Let us not forget that under the previous control orders regime it was not at that level, but two notches down at “reasonable suspicion”. Under TPIMs, we brought it up to “reasonable belief” and, on the balance of the measures we now have, we judge that moving to the “balance of probabilities” is the right stance to take. I will come on to clause 13 later.
The changes are being introduced in the light of the changing threat picture: the ongoing conflict in Syria and Iraq; the fact that 500 subjects of interest have travelled to that region; the risk that they may pose on their return; and the risk of more people seeking to travel out. It is against that assessment that the threat level has been raised to severe, the second highest threat level, and that has had an impact on our assessment of the measures that need to be available to the police and the Security Service, and it is why we have brought forward the measures in this way.
The measures also follow the recommendations from David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, in his most recent annual report on TPIMs. As he has said, however, there is no need to turn back the clock. Control orders were not working and were being struck down by the courts, whereas TPIMs have been consistently upheld and therefore provide a basis in law that is robust and has withstood the scrutiny of the courts. TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts, counter-terrorism reviewers, the police and the Security Service. This change enhances the powers available to manage TPIM subjects by moving them away from harmful associates and making it harder for them to engage in terrorism-related activity. That is why we judge, at this time against the threat picture we see, that it is appropriate to introduce these measures.
It is important, however, that appropriate limits are placed on the use of the powers, and the Bill seeks to do that. We are also acting on David Anderson’s other recommendation to increase the test for imposing a TPIM notice, so that the Secretary of State must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that an individual is, or has been involved, in terrorism-related activity, as well as narrowing the definition of what that activity can entail.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I intervene on my hon. Friend as someone who supported the original move from control orders to TPIMs and thought the Government had got the balance about right in the original proposals. I am just wondering what the particular reason is for reintroducing the location requirements. What has been revealed to be missing by getting rid of them? They were thought to be a great restriction on freedom. The shadow Minister appears to believe that two people absconded because there was no location requirement. I think it is possible to put on a burqa wherever one is living and that it is quite possible to get into a black cab if someone has let one keep one’s passport. If that is being used as a reason, it strikes me as an excuse for letting two people go.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. An intervention is meant to be short. It is not meant to be a speech. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to speak, he could have done so earlier. Please, let us shorten these interventions.
James Brokenshire
In large measure, it has been the changing nature of the threat picture. My right hon. and learned Friend will know from his time in government that in the past two years we have seen a very altered threat picture and, as he will no doubt recognise, a rise in the threat level earlier this year. The Government need to consider, in a responsible fashion, that changed threat picture and the advice we received from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The proposals in the Bill are formed with that insight clearly in mind and David Anderson’s specific recommendation on this point. It has been against all those factors that we have judged that the right thing to do is to introduce the measures in this way, subject to the safeguards I have spoken about in respect of the change in the burden of proof and the specific limitation on relocation being limited to 200 miles from the location of the individual. I will come on to speak on that in a more direct fashion, recognising the point the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North rightly raised in her amendment.
Pete Wishart
I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), with his years of distinguished service to the House, deserves a better answer than that pathetic response from the Minister. The question the Minister has to answer is: why? What evidence does he have to suggest that relocation is now necessary? Why relocation? Why now?
James Brokenshire
If the hon. Gentleman is not able to recognise the change in the nature of the threat and the evolving picture taking place in recent months, I am sorry he is blind to it. The Government have a responsibility to respond to it in a fair way. We have to take into consideration the advice we receive from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and listen to the Security Service and the police, who we have consulted, to ensure we have the right package of measures, challenging ourselves and others, to do all we can in a proportionate and necessary way to ensure that those agencies have the appropriate powers to guard against the changed risk picture, as well as ensuring an appropriate balance between privacy and security. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and learned Friend on the issue of absconds. A point that David Anderson made directly was that the only way in which one could be absolutely certain that someone was unable to abscond was by putting them in a prison cell, which is why my preference always is to seek a prosecution, when the evidence is there. The challenge is that it is not always available.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I came somewhat late to the debate—for which I apologise—so I may have missed this. There is an issue about the counter-productive nature of control orders, as was, in terms of radicalising sections of the community, just as internment did with regard to the Irish community in Northern Ireland. Is there any estimate, or provisional estimate, of the scale of the use of TPIMs as envisaged in the Bill?
James Brokenshire
This is intended to be a very focused power on the basis—rightly, as we have discussed—that our strong preference is to see prosecution, and that it is only in the cases where prosecution, or indeed deportation, is not available to us that we would need to rely on the use of the TPIM measures. As no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there have been 10 TPIM notices imposed since their introduction. Perhaps that gives him some reassurance that this is not reached for as the first option. Indeed, we always look for prosecution, and there is a requirement in the TPIM legislation to show that those steps have been explored and that there is no reasonable prospect of being able to secure that.
The impact on communities was carefully considered at the time of the counter-terrorism review and, indeed, led to the creation of the TPIMs Act and the measures that we now have on the statute book. In placing this type of restriction—now that we are saying we believe that relocation is appropriate in the light of the changed picture—it should not be unbounded; hence this restriction is in place so that an individual may only be a few hours’ away from their family rather than relocated to the other side of the country.
Should exceptional circumstances arise that require more stringent measures, we retain the ability to enact the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, which has passed pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill includes a range of more stringent powers, including curfews of up to 16 hours. As we said at the time of the counter-terrorism review, we reserve the right to be able to do that in those exceptional circumstances.
Clause 13 amends the TPIMs Act and allows the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on an individual from leaving either the UK or a specified area within the UK within which they reside, and increases the maximum sentence for breaching this measure to 10 years, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has said. This underlines the Government’s commitment to ensuring that TPIM subjects are appropriately managed, but that if they breach their TPIM notice, appropriate sentences will be given to recognise the seriousness of the issues at hand. I hope that the House is reassured that these measures strike the right balance between privacy and security and, on this basis, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 7 would insert a new clause 6B after clause 14, which is entitled “TPIMs: weapons and explosives measure”. Both the weapons and explosives measure and the proposed new clause 6B are designed to put beyond doubt what a TPIM subject is permitted to have access to on a TPIM notice. This amendment seeks to add an additional requirement in that respect.
The hon. Lady asked a series of questions that were linked to this issue in relation to the vetting and barring service and what might apply. Perhaps I can reassure her that someone who wants to work in a school or other educational establishment will be eligible to obtain an enhanced criminal records certificate from the Disclosure and Barring Service, as the hon. Lady will know. The certificate will include convictions and cautions held on the police national computer, plus any other information that is available to the police and which a chief police officer both reasonably believes to be relevant and considers ought to be disclosed. This may include the fact that a person was or is subject to a TPIM notice. In addition the legislation governing barring allows specific criteria to be prescribed that would require someone to be automatically barred. There would be scope to use the provision in relation to a TPIM if that were considered appropriate. This is something that we already cover in the TPIM legislation, in that the Act provides the ability to prevent TPIM subjects from taking part in a regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults and children under the association measure in schedule 1(8) or the work or studies measure in schedule 1(9).
The association measure in schedule 1 allows the Secretary of State to impose a requirement that a TPIM subject must not associate or communicate with specified persons, or specified descriptions of persons, without permission. In addition, the work or studies measure allows the Secretary of State to impose a restriction on a TPIM subject carrying out specified types of work, which includes unpaid work, or studies without the permission of the Secretary of State. We can and do use these measures to prevent TPIM subjects from associating with particular people or working or studying in areas that are assessed to be inappropriate. The measure proposed in this amendment duplicates that measure, which is why we judge that it is neither appropriate nor needed.
Diana Johnson
Just to be clear: if somebody is subject to a TPIM order, work that is voluntary and is not in a regulated activity could, under the current legislation, be something that the person is not allowed to take part in by decision of the Home Secretary.
James Brokenshire
That is the very point; we have that ability from the work and studies measure to be able to control that, and the Secretary of State effectively has to give permission for work to be conducted. There is an additional measure, plus the information that will be provided. The police update the police national computer when a TPIM subject has a notice imposed to ensure that this information can be taken into account in relation to any decision and checks on the subject, so it is flagged in that way. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady assurance on that specific point.
As I said, amendment 7 would amend the appointments measure in clause 15, which allows the Secretary of State to require an individual to attend meetings as specified by the Secretary of State. The appointments measure is already a broad power that allows the Secretary of State to require a TPIM subject to meet relevant organisations or people who can contribute to their ongoing management. The measure already includes the ability to require TPIM subjects to attend a deradicalisation programme, with persons involved in delivering programmes established under part 5, chapter 2 of the Bill. In our judgment, it is therefore unnecessary explicitly to specify this as part of the appointments measure. In essence, the existing language is broad enough and sufficient to allow us to require the link with deradicalisation programmes.
The hon. Lady flagged up some other issues relating to offensive weapons and explosives. On that, we are seeking to put the issues beyond doubt. There is, of course, existing legislation that governs some of these issues, and it is our judgment that it ensures that these items are properly and firmly addressed. As I have indicated, the link to the police national computer is already there. This further underlines and underpins each of the specific issues already on the statute book.
On the boundary that could be imposed, there is further specific provision on the requirement for the Secretary of State to provide certain guidance and indications on the factors that will be used in the assessment. These can include the original location of the TPIM subject; access to services; ability to prevent or restrict involvement in terrorism-related activity; proximity to airports or ports; and proximity to other TPIM subjects or prohibited associates. Those are the sort of factors that can be taken into account.
The definition of terrorism-related activity, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North referred, was followed through in David Anderson’s recommendations. His concern about the existing definition was that it has people almost three steps removed from the activity. We have consulted the police and security services in respect of this amendment, and they have been reflecting on David Anderson’s consideration. We continue to judge that the measures remain appropriate.
I will gladly answer any of the hon. Lady’s questions if I have omitted to do so, but I think what I have said covers the bulk of what she asked.
Diana Johnson
I do not recall the Minister responding to my point about families and whether a relocation of an individual could also include young children and a partner. It would be helpful to understand that situation.
James Brokenshire
Yes, families could live in the accommodation to which the TPIM subject has been relocated. In that relocation situation, it would be for the Home Office to provide the accommodation, as has happened under previous arrangements. We would seek to adhere to the same circumstances.
With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will be minded to withdraw the amendment.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the many lengthy questions I put to him. We have had a useful opportunity to understand the thinking behind clauses 12 to 16. As I indicated at the outset, the amendments I tabled were probing ones, intended to allow us to have this debate and to understand more fully the thinking behind the Government’s approach.
It is clear, however, that no one absconded under a control order with a relocation power, and it is worth reiterating that, but on the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Retention of relevant data
Diana Johnson
I beg to move amendment 5, page 11, line 3, at end insert—
(iii) is beyond that which is necessary to allow the identification of the user from the public Internet Protocol address.”
This amendment would make it explicit that the extra data retention provided for in Clause 17 does not extend beyond that which is necessary for the purpose of identifying a user from the IP address. This amendment is not intended to impact on the rest of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, only the extra retention requirements created by Clause 17.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 17 stand part.
New clause 1—Access to retained data; judicial oversight—
“(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 22 insert—
“22A Access to retained communications data: judicial oversight
(1) This section applies where a person designated for the purposes of this Chapter believes that it is necessary on grounds falling within section 22 to obtain relevant communications data retained under section 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 relating to professional activities covered by a duty of confidentiality.
(2) Before granting an authorisation or issuing a notice under section 22 the designated person must have obtained the permission of the court.
(3) In determining whether to grant permission under subsection (2) the court shall in particular balance the reasons why the designated person believes it is necessary to obtain the data against the public interest in upholding the duty of confidentiality.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify—
(a) the court or courts that shall determine applications for permission under this section;
(b) the process for the court or courts to determine whether to grant permission;
(c) the period for which permission shall apply before being renewed by the court; and
(d) the process for a person or persons to appeal against a decision to grant permission.
(5) Regulations under this section may not be made until they have been laid in draft before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
(6) In this section “professional activities covered by a duty of confidentiality” shall include, but not be limited to, the professional activities of journalists, legal advisers, medical professions and Members of Parliament.”
New clause 2—Review of timing for disclosure of Relevant Internet Data—
“(1) The Secretary of State must instigate a review of the time taken for communications service providers to comply with a request for subscriber information made under Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
(2) In this section “subscriber information” means relevant internet data as defined in section 17 of this Act in so far as it relates to information required to link a public internet protocol address to an individual user.”
This New Clause would require the Home Secretary to instigate a review regarding the time taken by communications service providers to disclose information which links an individual to an IP address.
Amendment 11, in clause 42, page 25, line 5, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State shall not make regulations under subsection (3)(a) until a report by the Interception of Communications Commissioner on the use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to access the records of journalists has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Diana Johnson
I shall speak to new clause 2 standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It would be helpful to start by providing some background to clause 17, although I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister’s comments. I must say at the outset that clause 17 is not the easiest clause to follow, and reference was made to that on Second Reading.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Will the shadow Minister explain a bit more of her party’s thoughts on making further changes in communications data and retention, because as she knows we need to do much more in this area and this is only the start?
Diana Johnson
If the hon. Gentleman will be little patient, I shall move on to that subject in a few moments.
As I was saying, the Opposition accept that this extra category of data will be a vital tool for law enforcement—not just in protecting national security, but in combating a whole range of online crimes, including online child abuse, on which I shall speak in greater detail when we come on to new clause 2. The provisions for this extra category of data were first proposed in the Government’s ill-fated draft Communications Data Bill—I think that might help the hon. Gentleman in respect of his intervention. Although initially reluctant to provide any public evidence for why these extra data were needed, the Government did then provide the evidence that convinced the Joint Committee on the draft Bill of the necessity of this extra retention. The draft Communications Data Bill has been subject to much coalition grandstanding over the past few years, with the Home Secretary proposing a Bill of unprecedented, and in our view unnecessary, scope, while the Deputy Prime Minister refuses to accept the need for any legislation at all. Of course there was room for compromise and the Opposition have always supported this compromise. Some additional data retention is required, but not on the scale the Home Secretary proposed.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
How can the hon. Lady say that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did not see the need for any legislation at all when we are sitting here in this Committee this afternoon considering the legislation which we think properly balances the privacy issues with the need for public safety?
Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, and we will obviously disagree on what I have just said.
Our view, agreed with by most of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, is that the data required to link an IP address to a device is one such category of data that is required and therefore we welcome what in principle clause 17 seeks to achieve. I say “in principle” because we do have some concerns about the drafting of clause 17, which is why we have tabled amendment 5.
Diana Johnson
I will give way, but, as I have said, I do want to get on to the substantive issues.
Julian Smith
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. Will she just clarify briefly the further categories that she sees becoming more important, and where the Government and coalition can expect Labour’s support as they seek to put more of these areas on to the statute book?
Diana Johnson
What I will come on to say about some of the concerns we have might help the hon. Gentleman, but his question obviously leads into a debate that goes wider than this particular grouping, which is specifically on clause 17, and in the Committee stage of the Bill. I will therefore continue with my points on this grouping, because I am sure I would be in trouble if I did not do that.
To repeat, although in principle we support clause 17, we have some concerns about its drafting, which is why we have tabled amendment 5. Because of the broad label “relevant internet data”, we want to put it beyond doubt that the category of data to be retained under clause 17 does not extend beyond what is strictly necessary to link an IP address to a user.
In the Bill, the definition of “relevant internet data” is data which
“relates to an internet access service or an internet communications service”
and
“may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, which internet protocol address…belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.
While this appears to include a whole host of other traffic data, including web logs, clause 17 also states that “relevant internet data” is not “communications data” as defined by the schedule to the Data Retention Regulations 2014 or information as defined in clause 17(3)(c), which is supposed to exclude web logs from this provision. We have concerns about the accuracy with which subsection (3)(c) captures the nature of web logs, which is why we have tabled amendment 5. I hope the regulations this clause will enable will be clearer than this primary clause in the legislation. It is disappointing that, unlike with the DRIP Bill, the draft regulations have not yet been published alongside the Bill. This has caused problems for Parliament’s ability to provide proper scrutiny of this clause.
As well as accepting our amendment 5, which I hope the Minister will be able to do, I urge him to go back and look again at the drafting of clause 17 before Report. In order to increase public confidence in the use of retained communications data we need to be clear about what is retained and I believe clause 17 and the accompanying explanatory notes could be better in this regard.
Julian Smith
The hon. Lady talks about web logs. Will she clarify the Opposition’s long-term position on that issue, and what she sees will happen in the future, when on many sides of the security spectrum there seems to be a consensus that there is a need to bring these areas in eventually?
Diana Johnson
I will just reiterate that we are dealing with clause 17, and we are very mindful that we want to ensure that web logs are not included under this clause. My focus is on getting clarity on that from the Minister. What might happen in the long term is perhaps a debate for another time. I am concerned that we get the drafting of this clause as accurate as we can.
I was talking about making sure the public are confident about what we are trying to do through clause 17, and what is included and what is not included. The data at the heart of clause 17 appear to be what is commonly referred to as “IP resolution data”, but this term does not appear in the text of the explanatory notes, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain whether they do refer to the same thing, as there is some confusion here.
As I explained, clause 17 is meant to plug a gap within the current framework for data retention, but when we compare the language of the Bill with the text of the current regulations, the gap is not immediately obvious. Clause 17 refers to data which
“relates to an internet access service or an internet communications service”
and
“may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, which internet protocol address…belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.
However, part 3, paragraph 11 of the schedule to the existing regulations refers to the subscriber information
“to whom an Internet Protocol (IP) address, user ID or telephone number was allocated at the time of the communication.”
I ask the Minister to look at this and see whether he cannot amend the language to make clear on the face of the Bill the exact data category that will be provided for in the regulations.
I am also concerned about the degree to which clause 17 relies on definitions provided from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I am sure the Minister is aware of the findings of the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill that the definitions used in RIPA were out of date and needed to be replaced. Given this, it is surprising to see both the definition of “communication” and section (3)(c) of the clause rely so heavily on RIPA definitions.
I would also like the Minister look again at the definition of “identifier.” According to clause 17
“‘identifier’ means an identifier used to facilitate the transmission of a communication”.
This is at least partly circular, and again adds to the confusion around this clause. Finally, in subsection (2)(b) will the Minister confirm that he does indeed mean “paragraph (a)” rather than subsection (a)?
In addition to the five questions above regarding the drafting, I have 10 questions about the implementation that I hope the Minister will be able to address in his comments. First, will he tell the House whether he expects to introduce new retention regulations under DRIPA section 1, or will the Government be seeking to amend the Data Retention Regulations 2014? Secondly, and on a similar note, will he update the House on when he expects to publish these draft regulations and when he hopes they will be in force? Thirdly, when the data covered under clause 17 is traffic data, while the relevant authority wants to reveal the subscriber information behind this, will this be covered under a single request under RIPA, or could clause 17 data simply lead to a disclosure which requires a further RIPA request to be made? Fourthly—this is particularly relevant to amendment 5—will he assure the House that the retention by the Crown Prosecution Service of this relevant internet data can be done in such a way that does not require deep package inspections of the type that would be considered intrusive surveillance? Fifthly—and again relating to amendment 5—will the Minister explain in practice how the regulations will separate out communications going to a device, which could be a web log, such as access to an app, which would be considered a website, and communications going to a device which enables a communication, such as an app which facilitates web e-mail storage?
Sixthly, will the Minister confirm that the extra reporting requirements imposed on the interception of communications commissioner by the DRIP Act will extend to the data retained and subsequently requested under clause 17? Will the Minister be providing additional resources to the commissioner to meet those additional requirements?
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Lady has produced a formidable list of questions, but I only have one for her, on amendment 5. It seems to me that the process we are describing does not enable people to discover who the user of an instrument was; it locates or identifies only the instrument from which the communication was made. Therefore, amendment 5 would be inoperative, because it could never be demonstrated that it was being used to establish who the user was as it cannot be guaranteed to do that.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s observations on amendment 5. As with the previous grouping, the amendment was tabled to give us the opportunity to look at the specifics of clause 17 and to understand fully the thinking behind the Minister’s approach. I take on board what the right hon. Gentleman has said, which may be correct, but the amendment allows us to debate what would be disclosed and what information would be available.
I have just bombarded the Minister with a whole range of questions and I know that, as usual, he will be very thorough and go through each in turn. However, I want to turn briefly to new clause 2, which seeks to move on from the retention of data to a review of whether the form of storing the data is allowing the key authorities to access it in a timely manner. I will say, so everyone understands where I am coming from, that this proposal aims to probe the Minister’s argument, and to look at the clause to see what more can be done and whether we need to be aware of any issues for companies.
My concern arises from the police’s apparent problems in pursuing the majority of suspected paedophiles identified through Operation Notarise. My understanding is that Operation Notarise identified between 20,000 and 30,000 individuals whom the communications data suggested were taking part in online abuse. From that, only 700 people have been named, investigated and arrested, so well in excess of 20,000 IP addresses have been identified, but that information has not been translated into named users. At this point, I am not even talking about arrests, but about identifying the users to enable effective safeguarding interventions.
Once a user is identified, even if it is just an address, the police can make several key checks: first, against the police national computer to see if there is a known sex offender living at the address; secondly, against the Disclosure and Barring Service database to identify anyone who might be working with or have access to children; and thirdly, against the Department for Work and Pensions database to see if a child is registered at the property for the purpose of claiming child benefit.
At the moment, the police do not know how many of the people they have identified are known sex offenders working with children or living with children. Most people would see that as unacceptable and would believe there should be a response. This could start with a review of the degree to which the difficulty of linking IP addresses to users is behind the police’s problems with moving this forward.
Finally, I turn to the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), on the degree to which RIPA is being used to access the records of certain professionals, including journalists. They address a real concern that Members and the general public have about the use of RIPA to access the records particularly of journalists and those in the media.
As the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has said, this issue has to be addressed. Indeed, a key concession secured by the Opposition during the passage of the DRIP Bill was that a review of RIPA would be conducted by David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and that it would include the use of RIPA to look at the records of journalists. It is because we have confidence in that review that we do not feel amendment 11 is necessary.
However, that is also why the Opposition have a great deal of sympathy with the aims of new clause 1, which would require a court order before relevant authorities could access communications data that could be covered by a professional duty of confidentiality. The clause does not state whether the role of the court would be simply to ensure that due process is followed, or to apply some test of proportionality or necessity. However, the clause provides for the right of appeal for the individual. That means that an individual would have prior knowledge that their communications data were to be disclosed to law enforcement agencies. It is also important to note that the clause would apply not just to journalists but to doctors, lawyers and others, including Members of Parliament, when a professional duty of confidentiality could be construed.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Lady referred to journalists, but how broadly would she or her colleagues define “journalists”? We are living in a world of bloggers and of a whole range of individuals who would consider themselves to be part of the media overall, but presumably she would not necessarily want each and every one of those self-professed journalists and bloggers to be caught by these potentially restricting and constricting provisions, essentially watering down elements of RIPA?
Diana Johnson
I have the disadvantage of speaking first on this group of amendments, and obviously, this is not my amendment, so I am very much looking forward to hearing what the proposers feel would happen. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, because we are not only talking about a limited group of people who describe themselves as journalists and who, in the past, we would have been able to identify clearly. Perhaps the proposers of the amendment would be able to address that when they speak to it.
I want to make a further point about the broad definition of professional duty that concerns me, especially when combined with the right of appeal. As I have said, a large number of professionals have some form of duty of confidentiality, and in many cases it is not clear, particularly when discussing communications data, how that potential duty of confidentiality would be separated from other investigations about which we would not allow the individual to have prior knowledge. There is a clear case for preventing a journalist from being targeted for their sources unless there is an overwhelming need to do so. However, the case is less clear in respect of other professions, particularly as we may be investigating issues involving criminal misconduct. Let me give an example for the Committee to consider: the case of Myles Bradbury, the doctor recently convicted of a string of horrendous sexual assaults of boys in his care. As a doctor, he would potentially have been covered by the new clause, especially in respect of some of his communications, and the Committee would be concerned about that. If he had been alerted to the fact that the police were investigating him, he would have had some time to delete much of the evidence which was then used to lead to his prosecution. I just give that as an example of the care we have to take in considering these matters.
I hope the Minister will respond in detail—I am sure he will—to the issues I have raised on this group, particularly the need for the drafting of clause 17 to be made much clearer so that the general public can be reassured about exactly what it is attempting to do.
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is right to seek clarification to satisfy herself and her colleagues that clause 17 achieves its intended purpose and no more. Its intended purpose is reasonable: to keep up with the technological changes that lead evildoers to move from one technology to another, and become more difficult to track as they do so.
Julian Smith
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this provision does not keep up with the technology, and that much more has to happen and will happen? Will he clarify his party’s position on the changes that will have to come?
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman has a strange desire, which he has expressed during a previous speech, to extend the debate beyond the bounds of clause 17 and the amendments to it. I do not think we should be drawn into that at the moment, except to make the general point that all processes involving intrusion into people’s private communications should have high levels of justification before they are used at all, and protections should be provided by various safeguards and authorisations. Finding the right balance for different levels of communication is a difficult task, and I expect a great deal of work will need to be done. Most of us in this House, and certainly most in my party, do not want, either by design or accidental discovery, a great deal of personal information about people to get in the hands of the state and its employees without any reasonable justification. On a matter that will be raised when the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) speaks, nor do we want the processes of investigation by journalists to be impaired by a fear that sources will be compromised from the beginning. There are very good reasons for extreme caution in this area, but I believe the Government have exercised that caution and sought to devise a process to deal with a particular and recognisable difficulty.
Mark Field
The right hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly valid point. In the midst of the more hyperbolic phrases that get used, such as “snooper’s charter”, does he recognise that legislation such as this—and further legislation, which will inevitably be required whoever is in government in the years to come—should also be designed to protect the individual? It is not just about the state getting more powers; it is about codifying the rules and protections for the individual. It is very important that we have that in mind when looking at any new legislation that comes into play.
Sir Alan Beith
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s observation, which points to part of the purpose of the process, of which this is only a part. The clauses we are talking about in RIPA—or DRIPA, as it has become known—are the subject of a sunset provision, because significant further review is to take place and new legislation will be required on the outcome of that review. So those who think that detailed discussion of matters that often feel technically beyond us is just an occasional thing in this House will have to recognise that we are going to be coming back to this issue. That does not apply to me, because I do not anticipate being a Member in the next Parliament, having announced that I am going to retire, but Members in the next Parliament will certainly be engaging with these issues.
I simply wished to place on the record that my view—and, I hope, that of my right hon. and hon. Friends—is that the Government have striven hard to find a sensible way to identify the instrument or apparatus that has been the point of communication. In many cases, that will enable them to identify the individual, but I stress that it does not guarantee that, any more than knowing a telephone number guarantees that the person who used the telephone—that instrument from that number—is the person who engaged in the criminal activity. It is more complicated than that, but this provision is a necessary aid to investigations ranging from the activities of paedophiles through to the serious threats we now face.
Mr George Howarth
I wish to begin by providing some context. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report in February 2013 referred to the Home Office’s assessment that there was a
“25% shortfall in the communications data that public authorities would wish to access and what they are currently able to access.”
That is, of course, an estimate, as it is not possible to be precise about what is unknowable, but the existence of a shortfall is a legitimate cause for concern. The report goes on to suggest that
“left unchecked, this gap will increase.”
Perhaps the Minister will be able to say whether it has increased and, if so, whether by an appreciable amount. It would be interesting to know that, and I suspect it has increased.
It is worth spending a little more time examining what we know about both the scale and the sources of interceptions that take place. In his annual report for 2013, the interception of communications commissioner, Sir Anthony May, noted that the total number of authorisations for interception of communications data under part 1 of RIPA stood at 514,608, down from 570,135 in 2012. He pointed out that these figures do not represent sole individuals, because
“public authorities often make multiple requests for communications data in the course of a single investigation but also make multiple requests for communications data in relation to the same individual.”
The figures give some indication of the scale of this, rather than the number of individuals who are covered. Under the same process, Sir Anthony notes that 87.7% of authorisations were at the request of the police and law enforcement agencies, 11.5% were from the intelligence agencies, and the rest were from local and other public bodies.
Worldwide, the scale of online communications is daunting. About 3 billion people have access to the internet, and during the time I have been speaking more than 200 million e-mails will have been sent, 2 million Google searches will have been made and there will have been 6 million Facebook views. So why is it considered important that the police, intelligence agencies and other bodies have access to some of the data records of these online communications? Overwhelmingly, internet traffic is benign; it is people using the various platforms for perfectly legitimate and legal purposes. However, a small proportion—I estimate it to be no more than a tiny fraction of 1%—is used for illegal purposes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) referred to some other purposes that are cause for concern.
My hon. Friend’s new clause 2 would, if agreed, require the Home Secretary to review the time taken by communications service providers to disclose information linking an individual to an internet protocol address. That is important for two reasons. The first is that, as we tragically discovered with Fusilier Lee Rigby’s murder, CSPs will, on occasion, receive information that in some cases could crucially be the catalyst for a warrant to enable greater surveillance measures on an individual to take place. In turn that can, in some cases, prevent a terrorist attack.
IP addresses are the key to unlocking who is contacting whom, and that can be critical. But they are not straightforward. Typically, a communications service provider with, say, 10 million to 15 million customers would have allocated to it 100,000 IP addresses. For the larger commercial bodies or public bodies, a series of static IP addresses will be allocated. But for the vast majority of users, IP addresses are dynamic. In practice, a range of numbers is allocated randomly to customers, which is why the former head of GCHQ used the analogy of finding a needle in a haystack.
Secondly, the range of platforms is constantly changing, with new ones entering the market all the time. A good example of that is WhatsApp, which was recently acquired by Facebook for $22 billion. On 1 April, that platform, which is adaptable and easy to use, handled, over a 24-hour period, 64 billion messages, 20 billion of which were sent and 44 billion of which were received. In such a dynamic sphere of activity, it is vital that procedures are in place and properly monitored to ensure that, when the security and intelligence services need to locate a needle in a haystack, the haystack is still in place, and that is what this section of the Bill seeks to ensure. It means that urgent inquiries of either a historical or planned terrorist or criminal activity can be located.
Julian Smith
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for us to go further. What would he do now? He has made it clear that there are many technologies that need much more scrutiny and oversight. What would he do if he were in charge?
Mr Howarth
Had the hon. Gentleman waited a while longer, I was about to say what more could be done. It is right that we have a statutory provision, and, subject to the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North highlighted being satisfied, the provisions contained in the Bill are appropriate. However, there is a problem that we cannot resolve within the context of our own domestic legislation. Many of the communications service providers are not based in the UK; they are based mostly in the United States. Increasingly, the Republic of Ireland is seen as a location of choice for some companies. Google and perhaps one other CSP have already relocated there. It is increasingly clear that whatever legislation we put in place, it will not, of itself, be enough to resolve the problem.
Mark Field
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the increased knowledge of the general public and—dare I say it—of individuals who would do us harm about the techniques adopted by the security services and others have also helped to ensure that there is now much more sophisticated encryption in place, which also plays an important part in further reducing our capacity to know precisely what is happening on the internet?
Mr Howarth
The hon. Gentleman is quite right and he, like me, is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We have good reason to believe that there are any number of encryption packages that can be bought quite openly on the internet. It is a matter not just of the communications service providers encrypting communications that take place but of individuals buying packages that enable them to do that themselves, which makes the situation even more difficult.
What more can we do? It is no use pretending that this problem is unique to the UK; it is a very difficult international problem. I know that the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and others are in constant dialogue with their opposite numbers in the United States, but there needs to be a growing understanding between ourselves and the places where CSPs are located that there cannot be this ungoverned space within which criminal activity can take place unchecked on the basis that it is in another jurisdiction from where it is being perpetrated. That issue can only be properly resolved by states, either bilaterally or multilaterally, agreeing protocols and ways of dealing with these issues. Obviously, it is much more easy to do that with friendly states—states with which we share common values—than it is in some other areas where internet providers might decide to locate because there will not be many controls on them. Clearly, that is another matter that needs to be seriously avoided.
We need to have order in this ungoverned space. I am talking about legal compliance and there not being this free space in which crime, terrorism and other activities can illegally take place. It is also important that the CSPs take a more responsible view of what they are being used for. Like the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), I have seen some CSPs washing their hands of such responsibilities, saying, “That is a matter of jurisdiction. We are not in that jurisdiction so we will comply with the laws where we are.” That might be good for their reputations with their customers, but it is a fairly cynical way of operating. I hope that, through the intervention of our own Government and Governments elsewhere, CSPs can be brought to the view that they should behave responsibly and in such a way that upholds the law right across the world—except in cases where the rule of law does not operate.
Mark Field
Is the right hon. Gentleman happy for me to put it on the record that it is also the case that many CSPs do a very good job of co-operating with the police and law enforcement agencies? Part of the difficulty has been that the revelations of the past 14 or 15 months have exposed what some would call an over-cosy relationship between those service providers and the state. I am talking about not so much here in the UK, but in mainland Europe and the United States of America, and it has been commercially damaging to many of those providers.
Mr Howarth
As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Sometimes the difficulty is that the amount of data and communications that providers store means that they are unable to know what is there. Very often, controls are triggered electronically, and so human eyes might not necessarily see the communication that relates to a terrorist plot, organised crime or even, in a hidden corner of it all, some kind of child abuse. Quite often, no human eyes see it, and it may be that only after an event—as in the case of Fusilier Lee Rigby—do people become aware that there was a communication that indicated that someone was about to or was likely to do something, and that knowing about it could have made a difference, as we concluded in our report the other week. Perhaps I have presented too cynical a picture of communications service providers. I know that, on occasion, they do co-operate constructively, but I believe that increasingly we need the space in which they operate to be better regulated, and that requires international controls agreed between responsible allies and CSPs themselves.
Mr Howarth
I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say. I acknowledge that he and his supporters have a valid point to make. I just think it is a tricky area in which to legislate and there might be a better way of doing it that we have not thought of yet.
John McDonnell
Everyone else who has spoken so far seems to have explained my amendments, and I am grateful to them. I tabled new clause 1 and amendment 11 because there is now a sense of urgency about dealing with this matter. I speak as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists group in Parliament—a group of MPs drawn from various political parties in the House. Throughout proceedings on RIPA and DRIPA and now this Bill, we have been discussing this issue. To put it simply, this House has always recognised in legislation the need to protect journalists, because we see journalism as one of the bulwarks of democracy in this country. Although we may not be enamoured of journalists or individual newspapers at times, we believe they play a vital democratic role in exposing what happens, particularly in regard to the behaviour of public authorities, Governments, corporations and others. That is why over the years we have written into legislation protection for journalists, as well as for other professions where there are issues of confidentiality, and the House has accepted that in all the debates so far.
Sir Alan Beith
It might be better expressed as “protection for sources”, because the primary concern is not to give a special elevated status to the journalist, but to avoid a situation in which the questions are asked, “Who told him and how can we get him?”
John McDonnell
Exactly. I was not arguing for preferential status for journalists—God forbid that I do that here. I was coming on to that point: this is about the ability to make sure a source is protected—as we all know, sources are often whistleblowers, blowing the whistle on abuses by public authorities and others—but it is also relevant to the protection of journalists themselves. We have seen across the world how, when the confidentiality of journalists’ sources is undermined, journalists become just as much a target as their sources, and in recent years large numbers of journalists in various countries have died as a result of persecution. What I am trying to say is that it is critical that we protect the role journalists play and enable them to undertake their work.
We have legislated in accordance with that principle—in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for example. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) that it is always difficult to find the mechanism, but the mechanism under PACE was the ability of the court to determine whether a production order should be made. We gave it over to the courts to determine that. What was important about that is that the journalist was notified of the application and could contest it before the court, and a decision would then be made that commanded the confidence of all those involved. The classic case since then is when the police failed to get an order under PACE and then used RIPA to obtain an order against a journalist to get information relating to articles that were being written, including the sources of that information. I think it was generally felt in the House that that was not what we intended when we passed PACE and was not in the spirit of RIPA. We have for some time consistently tried to get Government and this House—the responsibility falls on the shoulders of us all—to do exactly as my right hon. Friend said and to find an appropriate mechanism.
I tabled new clause 1 because I cannot find an effective mechanism other than the use of the courts at some stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked whether it is a mechanism to enable the court to determine whether due process has been followed or the merits of a case. I have left that open for now because I welcome the discussion, but in my view, it is both.
John McDonnell
I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to ask me a detailed question about my long-term future policy.
Julian Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a mechanism is already in place, because David Anderson is conducting a review of the rules and regulations? In tabling the amendments, the hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun. Surely we have to wait for David Anderson’s report.
John McDonnell
That is a valid point. I tabled the amendments to say that there is a sense of urgency. Something needs to be done now; some steps need to be taken immediately—before the Anderson review, to be frank.
I have raised this matter previously and engaged in dialogue with the Minister. I have a clutch of papers here, because I wanted to be sure of the accuracy of my remarks. I raised it way back on 22 July, in the debate on regulations made under DRIPA. The Minister responded in a letter received on 28 July:
“The Government…intend to bring forward amendments to the Acquisition and Disclosure Code of Practice to make this clear”.
What he was making clear was, I think, the importance of some form of understanding of the role of journalists and their sources, and therefore sensitivity in the approach taken. That becomes even more important now that in this legislation we are extending the range of the data to be collected. I take the point that this does not identify individuals, but on the information provided by Big Brother Watch and contained in the House of Commons research paper, the definitions have been narrowed. Big Brother Watch is concerned about
“the possibility of more personal information being accessed than first implied. … This means that the identity of an individual has the potential to be fully revealed by these powers.”
There is thus some uncertainty about how the powers could be used to drill down into the information to identify an individual and therefore a source and put everyone at risk.
I do not believe that the code has yet been published. I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to tell me.
James Brokenshire
I intend to address that point specifically when I respond to the debate, which I hope will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
John McDonnell
I am never sure what it means when a Minister says that he is about to be helpful. He was helpful when I led a delegation from the NUJ with its lawyer to meet the civil servants who were drafting the new code of practice. We put some suggestions to them. I note—I am sorry to scramble around with these bits of paper—that the new code of practice on covert surveillance comes into effect on 10 December, and it covers legally privileged and confidential information. It demonstrates that particular care should be taken in cases in which the subject of the investigation or operation might reasonably expect a high degree of privacy or where confidential information is involved. Confidential information consists of communications subject to legal privilege, communications between a Member of Parliament and another person—the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley raised—on constituency matters, confidential personal information or confidential journalistic material, so there is an element of reference to privilege and the role of journalists in other codes coming into force this week.
At this stage, it is critical that the code is published and implemented as quickly as possible, as a stepping stone to what might then come out of the wider review. I tabled an amendment to ensure that the legislation should not be implemented until the review is concluded, and I can argue that case. Hon. Members can see where I am coming from. I want a sense of urgency to give at least some protection to journalists in the interim before the review is published, which I believe it will be in a period of time that has been designated. I hope that the review will contain a recommendation that there should be some process in which the courts are involved. I do not believe that there will be sufficient protection against in-house decisions by any authority, be it the police, the intelligence services or, as we have seen with RIPA, local authorities and other agencies, which have used RIPA to investigate their staff, journalists and others on some of the most trivial grounds. In one instance, it was for the protection of the council’s reputation. I do not believe that in-house procedures would satisfy the general public or Members of this House. That is why I hope that some process will come out of the review which will involve the courts. My view is that there should be not just a review of the process but in some instances a review of the merits of the case itself.
I note that not just this review but a range of reviews are taking place. I also note that some momentum is building for involving the courts. The Deputy Prime Minister and—well, blow me—the Mayor of London have called for the law to be changed to require a judge to sign off applications involving the data of journalists. The Government would be wise, once the review is finished, to come forward with proposals that involve some form of judicial oversight of the process. That would build the confidence of professionals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North raised the issue of other professions. I understand her particular example involving the medical profession, but that would be determined by a court. The merits of the case plus the process would be argued in such a case.
Mark Field
I very much agree that we should be proud of the traditions of a free press in this country. The hon. Gentleman has not yet answered on the extent of the definition of journalism. I accept that new clause 1(6) is not exhaustive, but he has not mentioned religious counsellors, whom many would consider to have a similar duty of care. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on that, though I accept that he has not made an exhaustive list at this stage? [Interruption.]
John McDonnell
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley says that my local parish priest rather optimistically describes me as a lapsed Catholic. The secrets of the confessional need to be included; otherwise, there might be an excommunication.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) makes a good point about journalism. I would like the definition to be membership of the NUJ, but there you are. These days, I would have the widest interpretation, but if it is to be contested, I would like to see a court make the decision on the basis of the evidence before it.
Sir Alan Beith
It is important that we distinguish what we are talking about here—the protection of the conversations that take place between lawyers and their clients and between doctors and their patients, discovered by entirely different processes. We are looking at the identification of the person who tipped someone off or provided some information. There may be good criminal law reasons for finding out who that person is, but I agree that some kind of measure is needed to ensure that those who warn a journalist or perhaps a Member of Parliament that something serious is going wrong have protection.
John McDonnell
Let me give one example of where RIPA was used. The case of Kirsty Green was in the evidence presented to the Home Affairs Committee by Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the NUJ. Kirsty was a former regional newspaper journalist. Derby council spied on her meeting with local authority staff in 2009. Two Derby city council employees watched her when, as Derby Telegraph’s local government correspondent, she met four current and former council employees in a Starbucks coffee shop. The local authority said that RIPA was used to get surveillance authority for officials because they were protecting the council’s interests. The consequences for those individuals was a risk to their job in the local authority.
It is important that communication is protected, but names and sources also have to be protected, especially for whistleblowers, as we have seen when social workers have come forward in child abuse cases. The right hon. Gentleman makes the point well, but to me it emphasises even further the need for some judicial process in the oversight of access to the data and the way in which the legislation has been proposed.
James Brokenshire
We have had an interesting and informative debate focusing on the broader aspects of the ability of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to do their job in a fast-moving environment where technology continues to change, and their ability to continue to protect us in those circumstances. I will argue that we have an eroding capability and although the measure will deal with one element, there is still more that we need to do. That is a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has intervened on other speakers in the debate and he is right to make the point. I will come on to the possible next steps in the context of the various reviews that are taking place.
The gap was highlighted by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). I know that his Committee is looking carefully at the issue of privacy versus security. The need to strike a balance between them and some of the issues arising from that have rightly been played out in the context of interception, data retention and communications data. I look forward to the publication of the Committee’s report, which I expect to be extremely informative in this regard.
Mark Field
Without giving a preview of anything in the Committee report, I think it is important, for the benefit of the House and those Members who take the matter very seriously, that we should remember that privacy and security are not a zero sum game. Although my hon. Friend uses the word “balance”, as many of us do from time to time, there is also a sense that these are important safeguards individually and in their own right. One of the broader recommendations that we make from the evidence we took from a wide range of people is that the notion that there is a balance and a zero sum game should be dispelled.
James Brokenshire
I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he will recognise the challenges. He is right to underline the significance and to reiterate what I said on Second Reading—that security and liberty should be mutually reinforcing. His point about it not being a zero sum game is well made.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who speaks for the Opposition, identified a list of 10 points, and I will do my best to respond to some of them. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) underlined the role of sensitive categories of person and additional safeguards that may be provided in respect of them when we consider communications data and the ability of the police to request such data. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) pointed out, we are looking at metadata—who said what to whom, when and where—rather than the content.
It is clear from the contributions that we have heard that gaps in communications data capability have a serious impact on the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to carry out their functions—the point that was made clearly by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the shadow Minister. One such gap is internet protocol address resolution. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 maintained our lawful data retention regime. It did not create any additional powers, nor did it address any of the gaps in capability. To respond to the point made by the hon. Lady, we remain confident about the manner in which it did that in seeking to address the points raised by the European Court of Justice.
Clause 17 amends that Act—DRIPA—to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time. Every internet user is assigned an IP address to ensure that communications service providers know which data should go to which customer and route it accordingly. Addresses are sometimes assigned to a specific device, such as a broadband router located in a home or within the work environment, but they are usually shared between multiple users—hundreds or even thousands—and allocated automatically by the provider’s systems. Many providers currently have no business reason for keeping a log of who has used each address. It is therefore not always possible for law enforcement agencies accessing the data to identify who was using an IP address at any specific point in time.
The provision would ensure that these data are available to law enforcement. It would improve the ability of the police and other agencies to identify terror suspects who may be communicating with each other via the internet and plotting attacks. It would also help to identify and prosecute paedophiles, organised criminals, cyber-bullies and computer hackers, and to protect vulnerable people. For example, it could be used to identify a child who has threatened over social media to commit suicide. The IP address has direct relevance to all these issues and it is evidence that can be brought before the court. In the context of the previous debate, it is often instrumental in bringing prosecutions. Communications data are used in about 95% of all serious crime prosecutions, so they have a direct utility.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Just a question to the Minister—does this also apply to medical in confidence communication between, say, a doctor and a patient, and documents being intercepted, or am I totally out to lunch, as it were?
James Brokenshire
I am not sure that my hon. Friend would ever be out to lunch, particularly at 3.26 in the afternoon. I think he is talking about interception. The clause is about the connection, the metadata—about who communicated with whom—rather than the content of the communication. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke specifically about interception and the way in which certain protected categories of individual may be affected. My hon. Friend highlights a specific point, but I will come on to communications data, DRIPA and the codes of practice, and the status of certain individuals in respect of requests that may be made for that information.
Amendment 5, as the hon. Lady explained when she moved it, seeks to limit the scope of the provision to the retention of data that is necessary to allow the identification of a user from a public internet protocol address. I am pleased to say that there is no difference of principle between us on this issue. It is important that this provision goes no further than necessary to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time.
I can confirm that the provision is already limited in the way the Opposition propose. Subsection (3) defines the data to be retained as data that
“may be used to identify, or assist in indentifying, which internet protocol address, or other identifier, belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.
As such, any data that cannot be used to identify, or assist in identifying, the user of an IP address are already outside the scope of the provision. A requirement to retain the data may be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
On the hon. Lady’s specific point about web logs, I can assure the Committee that the Bill is already tightly drafted. In particular, clause 17(3)(c) excludes so-called web logs. It provides for the retention of data relating to IP resolution, and only such data. Anything else is already beyond the scope of what the clause permits. Accordingly, although I entirely agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary.
Mr George Howarth
I have a suggestion. Where a situation is changing rapidly, such issues are sometimes dealt with in legislation by adding a schedule that can then be updated by order. It is not necessarily the best way, but it is one way of dealing with that type of situation.
James Brokenshire
I recognise that in certain circumstances that might be appropriate, but the challenge in this case is the fast-paced nature of technology, which means we would always be playing catch-up. The original RIPA legislation was therefore intended to be technology-neutral so that, if the technology moved on, it was still able to capture that, just as our criminal law is intended to cover all forms of communications. I think that might be a better way of seeking to achieve that. However, that is part and parcel of David Anderson’s review of RIPA, and therefore the existing legislation and a number of the themes that have been touched on by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate, and also the continuing utility of these provisions.
Julian Smith
It will be almost two years since the Liberal Democrats and one or two other Members scuppered the Communications Data Bill. What is the Minister’s assessment of the risk of waiting until next year, because my concern is that the enemy is not going away?
James Brokenshire
This issue is not going away, and we need to make further changes. I can see the eroding capability of our law enforcement and security agencies. While this plugs an element, there is still more to be done to ensure that our police and security services are able to protect us, and that there is evidence that can be presented in court. On these issues relating to communications data, we are talking about evidence, not merely intelligence. These are hard pieces of information that can be presented in court to secure prosecutions. This is really essential because of the underpinning that it provides to our prosecutorial system.
The Bill does not incorporate provisions on weblogs, but apps and weblogs can be directly instructive in this respect, and the House will need to confront that in, I hope, an informed way. The reviews that the Intelligence and Security Committee and David Anderson are undertaking will inform that debate rather than its being completely informed by belief or emotion, important as those elements are to ensure that it is properly reflective of the view of our communities and the public. We must ensure that the facts are there as we examine the picture, in order to provide the basis for a rational debate when the House considers the legislation it will need to pass before December 2016.
Mark Field
Does my hon. Friend accept that another issue, which was skilfully outlined by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is arbitrage, in the sense of authorities being able to choose one piece of legislation rather than another—for example, as he said, RIPA rather than PACE? Given the complications arising from there being more and more legislation in this area, is it not almost essential to move towards a consolidation to ensure that we entirely understand our rights and responsibilities?
James Brokenshire
I am sure that that issue will be presented in representations made to David Anderson as part of his examination. Clearly, none of us will wish in any way to prejudge the way in which that evidence is presented. He intends to report back by May. That is the right timing to ensure that the new Parliament after the next general election has the benefit of seeing his report, which will have examined these issues in close and careful detail.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about the role of the interception of communications commissioner. He will oversee the acquisition of data retained under clause 17, just as he oversees the acquisition of all communications data retained under DRIPA. The Home Office will ensure that he has the necessary resources to discharge his function.
The hon. Lady referred to multiple requests for traffic and subscriber data. Public authorities can request communications data only when it is considered necessary and proportionate for one of the purposes set out in DRIPA. A communications service provider could disclose only data that have been requested. It is an operational matter for the public authority as to how it makes such requests for data. Where it holds limited information at the outset of the investigation, it is likely that it will need to make more than one request, which means there may be multiple requests relating to a particular criminal inquiry.
The hon. Lady highlighted the issue of costs. The totals that were put into the impact assessment published alongside the Bill were based on studies of IP resolution conducted by the industry and prior work with service providers and the industry on similar projects. This has been an informed process in which there has been consultation with individual service providers likely to be most affected by the provisions of the Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling new clause 2 to highlight the oversight of the acquisition of communications data retained under these provisions. The data retention regulations passed earlier this year specifically require communications service providers, subject to a data retention notice, to retain data in such a way as to ensure that they are available without undue delay in response to requests. I assure the Committee that in the vast majority of cases, data retained under this obligation are disclosed in a timely fashion. Of course, things may not always work perfectly, but there are systems in place that seek to resolve such issues should they arise. Indeed, there are industry groups that work on precisely that. The law enforcement community works closely with the communications service providers, and the Home Office seeks to establish the best technical solutions to support that.
The issue that we hear about more often than that highlighted by the hon. Lady is the broader one of key categories of communications data which communication service providers do not currently retain and which are therefore unavailable to the law enforcement and security agencies that require them. The hon. Lady raised the issue of additional regulations. The provision amends the definition of “relevant communications data”. The regulations use that definition, so there is no need to amend further or to put it in other regulations, because the intention is that they will follow the change being made to this Bill.
On deep packet inspection, no solution will provide for the retention of or access to the content of a communication. Obviously, it is for the companies themselves to decide how best to implement the legal requirements that would be put upon them, but I wanted to make that point clear.
On compatibility with the European Court judgment, we are confident that the legislation passed by Parliament this summer, and this Bill, are fully compliant with all relevant legal provisions.
Although I share the Opposition’s wish to see the most efficient and timely provision of data, I do not believe that the special review proposed by new clause 2 is required. Indeed, if there are concerns they can be referred to David Anderson as part of his review. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will be minded to withdraw her amendment.
In new clause 1, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington raises the specific and important issue of the position of journalists and others in relation to sensitive provision. He and I debated the issue when the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 made its way through Parliament this summer. Let me be clear that a free press is fundamental to a free society, and the Government are determined that nothing be done to put that at risk. Although most of the focus in the debate has been on journalists, the same issues arise equally in respect of other sensitive occupations, as Members have highlighted. Individuals should be able to speak freely and frankly to their lawyers if we are to have justice in this country. Similarly, patients must be able to speak freely to doctors, and constituents to their Members of Parliament.
I do not believe that anyone would question that those are important principles, but equally I hope that no one would take issue with the proposition that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies need the tools to carry out their vital roles. They carry out a difficult job day in, day out, protecting the public from crime and from terrorism. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides a clear legal basis for many of their critical investigative powers, including the acquisition and disclosure of communications data. The current process is clear and accountable and includes a strong and rigorous system of oversight. I have already explained what communications data are, but they do not contain the content of the communication.
I should like to point out that the interception of communications commissioner has said that communications data
“do not contain any details of what was said or written by the sender or the recipient of the communication. As such, the communications data retained by CSPs do not contain any material that may be said to be of professional or legal privilege—the fact that a communication took place does not provide what was discussed or considered or advised.”
The point that the data do not attract any form of legal or professional privilege is important. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that they are sensitive data that need to be protected accordingly.
The process of acquiring communications data requires a designated person—a senior officer of a rank stipulated by Parliament—to examine applications for such data, which can be authorised only when the officer is fully satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate to acquire those data. The applications are facilitated by individuals known as single points of contact, who are trained in this area and can provide expert advice and support to the designated person.
John McDonnell
I am grateful to the Minister for launching the consultation on the code of practice. It is important to have a balanced view of the Home Affairs Committee report, which concluded that
“RIPA is not fit for purpose”.
Although it did go so far as to make a specific recommendation on the involvement of the courts, the Committee suggested that
“the Home Office use the current review of the RIPA Code to ensure that law enforcement agencies use their RIPA powers properly.”
What action has the Minister taken on that point, bearing in mind that a legal action is also taking place at the moment?
James Brokenshire
I am constrained in what I can say because of the legal action that the hon. Gentleman highlights, but I hope he will see that the code of practice and the consultation address a number of the key recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee report that was published on Saturday, such as those on the manner in which the existing legislation is operated in practice.
The hon. Gentleman will know that David Anderson is conducting a broader examination of the legislation, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and will report in May. That will inform consideration in the next Parliament of the provisions that are on the statute book. I assure him that it will address the issue of separation and the need for additional consideration to be given to requests that touch on protected professions.
However, I would not want an amendment that was passed today to pre-empt the interception of communications commissioner’s inquiry. We do not know what he will conclude. It is right that we should wait for him to report and then consider his recommendations, rather than make a major change now, when questions have been raised about the benefits and utility of such an approach.
Finally, I hope to deal swiftly with amendment 11, which would prevent the provisions relating to IP resolution from being brought into force until the interception of communications commissioner had completed his review of the accessing of journalists’ communications data, to which I just referred. I think I can reassure hon. Members on that point. As I have said, the commissioner intends to report by the end of January. The Bill will not complete its passage through this House until after the Christmas recess. After that, it needs to go through the House of Lords and there might have to be consideration of Lords amendments in this House. Even without that, there seems to be no way the Bill could achieve Royal Assent before the commissioner reports at the end of January. We therefore do not believe that amendment 11 is required.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.
Diana Johnson
I thank the Minister for going through all the questions that I posed. On the basis of what he has said, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Authority-to-carry schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 19 and 20 stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
James Brokenshire
Part 4 and schedule 2 deal with aviation, maritime and rail security. For the benefit of the Committee, I will go through each of the provisions, listen to right hon. and hon. Members’ contributions and then respond to their questions. I welcome the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to the Opposition Front Bench. He has taken a close interest in these issues.
Clause 18 provides a new legal basis for the operation of authority-to-carry schemes, which are commonly known as no-fly schemes. We have a scheme in place that relates to passengers being carried to the UK. The clause makes provision for a broader scheme that relates to individuals who are arriving or are expected to arrive in the UK, and individuals who are leaving or are expected to leave the UK.
Authority to carry is necessary to prevent the entry or return to the UK of foreign nationals who pose a terrorism-related threat and to mitigate the threat of an attack, primarily on aircraft. It is also necessary to disrupt the return to the UK, and prevent the departure from the UK, of British nationals who are subject to legal restrictions on their travel. Under the clause, any scheme must set out the carriers to which it applies and the classes of individuals a carrier may be refused authority to carry to or from the UK. Classes of individuals may be specified in a scheme only if it is necessary in the public interest. When travelling to the UK, that could include persons who are excluded or have been deported from the UK, individuals whose presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good, and those who would otherwise be inadmissible to the UK. It may also include individuals subject to a temporary exclusion order under clause 2.
When travelling from the UK, carriers might be directed not to carry individuals subject to a TPIM or a post-custodial licence preventing travel following a conviction for a terrorism-related offence. The scheme may also include individuals who have had their passport cancelled or not issued on public interest grounds, or seized under powers in schedule 1. Any scheme must set out the process for carriers to request authority to carry, and state how that authority is granted or refused. That may include requirements for carriers to provide passenger information by a certain time before departure, or for carriers to be able to receive information that grants or refuses authority to carry in a way compatible with the Government’s border system.
We will work with carriers to resolve any compliance issues, but if a carrier fails to comply, clause 19 provides regulations to impose a civil penalty on those who breach a scheme. The new regulations set out how a penalty will be calculated, imposed and enforced, and must provide a means for carriers to object to a proposed penalty. The regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, and the authority-to-carry scheme to which the regulations refer must be laid in Parliament at the same time.
Clause 20 makes provision for schedule 2 to the Bill. Part 1 of schedule 2 amends passenger, crew and service information relating to aircraft and ships, and may be extended to international trains through secondary legislation. Paragraphs 1(2) and 1(3) mean that a carrier may be required to be able to receive communications about information that it has provided to the border authorities in a way compatible with the Government’s border system. That might be a simple receipt, or an alert about errors in the format of the information.
Paragraphs 1(4) and 1(7) of schedule 2 allow the regulations to introduce requirements for advance information about persons on flights or voyages to and from the UK that do not operate to a published schedule—collectively referred to as “general aviation” and “general maritime.” The regulations will set out the classes of ships or aircraft to which they apply, the information required, the time by which it must be supplied, and how it is to be supplied. That will allow a much clearer picture of incoming and outgoing traffic and the identification of aircraft and ships that require close attention from the border authorities. Those paragraphs also provide for regulations to impose a civil penalty for a failure to comply with new requirements to provide information. The regulations may set out how a penalty will be calculated, administered and enforced, and make provision for an appeal.
Bob Stewart
The Minister has not mentioned this so far, although I assume he will come to it, but is it correct to say that if a carrier brings someone to this country whom we do not want to come, not only will it receive a civil penalty, it has a responsibility to take that person back to whence they came immediately?
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will realise, provisions in the Bill overlap with other issues and provisions. He will be aware of sanctions that are already available and establish penalties for those who have no lawful authority to be in the UK, and of the checks that are obliged on people to ensure that appropriate visa or other requirements are in place. These measures build on that and there are established processes for the return of individuals who should not be here.
The new transport security provisions in part 2 of schedule 2 build on existing powers and enhance our ability to respond effectively to transport-related terrorism threats. They amend transport security legislation to strengthen existing powers and require certain security measures to be implemented before an operator may operate into the UK or, in the case of ships, a UK port. The schedule makes similar provisions for services in the aviation, maritime and rail transport industries.
The schedule inserts provisions into the respective aviation, rail and maritime statutes enabling faster collection of security related information from operators. It provides enabling powers to make regulations, imposing a wider range of methods for electronic service of security directions or requests for information, to ensure that security directions become effective in the shortest possible time. In addition, it inserts a power into the Aviation Security Act 1982 for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce civil sanctions for non-compliance by the aviation industry, with information requests or security directions subject to the affirmative procedure.
Julian Smith
We are all aware that Eurotunnel is expanding its services, with more train services going to the continent. Will the Minister confirm that the provisions will apply to those services?
James Brokenshire
Under existing regulations and requirements, existing Eurostar and freight services through the channel tunnel are already obliged to meet security requirements on screening and other steps. The intent behind the provisions in the Bill is to look to a future where we have open access, and ensure we have the ability to impose similar controls, assurances and protections in relation to security. It is precisely for that future-proofing that we are introducing the provisions. I hope that explanation is helpful to the Committee.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
There has been a change on the Opposition Front Bench, while the Minister has had to continue, but I assure him that he will have our support on this group.
There is a substantial and severe threat of terrorist attack in the United Kingdom and the Opposition support the broad thrust of these measures. The Minister did not explicitly say it, but the explanatory notes indicate that about 500 individuals have travelled to Syria and Iraq because of their wish to join terrorist organisations, in particular ISIL. The measures are designed to enhance legislation—section 124 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, put in place by the previous Labour Government, and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012—in response to the changed circumstances. We support the broad thrust of the measures.
I have a few questions for the Minister and I hope he will reflect on them. They relate mostly to consultation, cost and scope. The Minister said that clauses 18 and 19 form the main provisions for the changes to authority-to-carry schemes, and that clause 20 and schedule 2 amend the law on the provision of information from carriers to the Secretary of State. The explanatory notes state that the Minister has undertaken a consultation, but I think he will recognise that the consultation was swift, if I may say so, and relatively short. I would welcome information on who responded to the consultation and what the responses were. If he does not have that information today, perhaps he could write to me.
I raise those issues because the Government’s impact assessment makes it clear that the measures, although welcome, relate to border security and will cost UK-registered businesses about £2.1 million net cost a year, with start-up costs approaching £10 million, at £9.7 million. The Minister has information relating to 11 scheduled registered carriers, but he will know that 144 carriers were not included in the assessment. Many carriers do not currently have the systems, which are referred to in previous legislation, in place. Scheduled carriers may be required to install interactive systems that would mean no-fly alerts and passenger screening requirements provided directly into carriers’ systems. The impact assessment makes it clear that while there are 11 registered carriers, of which only one already uses the system the Government want, there are 144 carriers operating scheduled flights into and out of the UK that are not UK-registered, of which only 11 use the system the Government want to introduce. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister not just as to the discussions he has had with the registered carriers, but on what assessment he has made of the wider costs for those carriers that are not registered. For a non-interactive carrier, the estimated cost of implementing an interactive system is £975,000, with annual maintenance costs of £125,000. That means that there could be costs of around £139 million to non-UK carriers who do not have those systems in place.
The impact assessment says:
“The consultation to gather relevant data was brief. Whilst data was provided by a sample of UK carriers we cannot be sure they are fully representative. In addition different carriers may face different costs dependent on their size or their existing systems. In the absence of this data we assume that carriers are all affected in the same way.”
That is the Government’s own impact assessment and it is really important that, as part of our consideration this afternoon, we have some indication from the Minister of the consultation responses. He may well already have published these—sometimes things pass one by in opposition—and if so, I would be grateful if he could refer me to where they are. If not, I would be grateful if he published the responses to the consultation.
It is also important—the Minister has touched on this—that the clauses ultimately include rail, maritime and non-scheduled aviation traffic as part of the regime that he is seeking to introduce. But I believe—I would welcome his confirmation—that there has been limited, or dare I say nil, consultation with rail, maritime and other suppliers. The Minister has indicated that there will be affirmative resolutions on these matters, but I would welcome him confirming at what stage he intends to undertake further consultation on costs and implementation with rail and maritime providers.
I have had a helpful brief from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which has raised a number of issues, some of which the Minister will be able to answer. But it is important that we are clear that the Minister’s aspiration—one shared by the Labour party—to have exit and entry checks undertaken at the earliest opportunity is separate from the measures in the Bill, particularly given the difficulties we have had with the e-Borders programme recently, the cancellation of e-Borders and the progress that the Government seek on an entry and exit check by April 2015. Helpfully the Minister has today answered a parliamentary question to indicate that that is still the Government’s objective but I just wanted to examine the relationship between the proposals in the clause, which may not be in law until February or March next year, and the wider exit and entry checks the Government are seeking to introduce.
I would particularly welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the measures in the Bill are fully compatible with EU law and with the laws of other states that passengers will travel to and from and with whose laws carriers must comply. It is important that we put in place measures in our own legislation, but I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of the compatibility between them and our obligations to our European colleagues and elsewhere.
The Labour party supports the measures because of the threat and the need to monitor and to take effective action against not just those coming to the UK, but those leaving the UK. The need to ensure that we prevent individuals leaving these shores from undertaking terrorist acts is paramount. The Minister will not find a cigarette paper between us on dealing with that issue, but I hope that he is able to reflect on the points I have made today on three issues: cost, compatibility with other legislation in Europe and beyond, and the key question of implementation, not just in terms of current carriers but in terms of the carriers who are not registered but who do currently travel both to and from the UK.
Mr Khalid Mahmood
While endorsing everything my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has said and in restating some of the issues around costs and capability, I think it important in considering this part of the Bill not to experience the same things that we have experienced before. I am thinking of Abu Rumaysah who unfortunately made his way across the sea to join ISIS, putting on his Twitter account:
“What a shoddy security system Britain must have to allow me to breeze through Europe to the Islamic State.”
I am sure that we all want this part of the Bill to work to prevent that sort of thing from happening. In doing so, however, we must ensure that we provide proper consultation and enough time to deal with this properly.
There are concerns about how we look at the problem, particularly in respect of what notice carriers have when people can book tickets on their phones, their iPads or any other electronic instrument and can get straight to the port, sometimes by rail and sometimes by air. There are important issues about the speed with which people are able to get to the port after booking at the last minute. How do we move forward and improve that system? Answering that means contending with some very serious issues.
I want to bring to the Minister’s attention some of the reasonable work that has been done on this issue, particularly by Sussex police. The police there have a programme called the “BIG MAC”, but unfortunately this does not mean that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is having a late lunch. In fact, it refers to evidence-based risk factors for assessing people when they travel to or exit a port. It is based on “identifying, assessing and referring”, and as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, this entails having sufficient staff and security personnel at the border. She said she was prepared to commit additional staff to deal with this issue, and I would fully endorse that sentiment.
BIG MAC is based first on behaviour, the B. It is assessed during an exam, and looks at the person’s mental health, physical health, reaction when they are stopped, and their beliefs when they are questioned at port. The next aspect is identifying, the I, and meaning and belonging, and the attitudes expressed when the following issues are raised: family, friends, society, cultural change, integration and diversity, dissatisfaction with life, and seeking change, adventure and excitement.
Then there is a section on grievances, the G, which involves injustice, threats and vulnerabilities. This covers the “them and us” thought process; the dehumanising of identity, beliefs, culture, society and religion; people’s place in society, culture and religion; any history of violence, whether victim or offender; and setting events such as past police interventions, bullying, abuse at home, drinks, drugs and so forth. The next part deals with motivations, the M, either personal or externally driven, and covers religious, political, ideological, cultural, single issues or personal issues; financial aspects; and family or friends. It then deals with attitudes, the A, towards criminal offending, harmful means, being dominant, controlling or submissive and susceptible, and activism and participation.
Finally, the C in BIG MAC means capability factors, and these cover knowledge, skills and competencies such as fighting, training, ideologies, occupation-related skills, IT, medical and so on; access to these through equipment, networks, clubs, individuals and IT; criminality and intervention factors, including the use of violence and attitudes towards violent means; and travel history. This BIG MAC process allows security personnel to do their job in accordance with strategies that have been developed. I would be pleased to pass this information to the Minister if he wants to understand how the Sussex police are dealing with the problem.
The particular person associated with the project is Detective Sergeant—perhaps he should be Superintendent —Mike Redmond. He is based at Gatwick and has done a huge amount of work on psychological assessment in relation to these issues. He has put this plan forward, and is working with the port authorities and security personnel to ensure that these sorts of recognition factors are in place so that people can be stopped and dealt with properly and formally. It is very important that we look at these sorts of factors, but that will only happen if we have the processes to do it.
Bob Stewart
In the old days, when I was working with the security services in Northern Ireland, it used to be called profiling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are looking at a form of profiling again?
Mr Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is far more informed on these matters than I am, and I certainly would not argue with him about that. This is a similar approach, but it psychologically categorises the processes within that and shows how it can be dealt with. It is easier for the people operating these systems to be able to recognise particular behavioural patterns and to deal with them. This does do what the hon. Gentleman says, therefore, but it is important that this has already been designed and that security personnel are working with it. In order to meet the issues raised in clause 18, it is important that we have such a system in place, but the only way we can do that is by sharing best practice. That has already been done by Sussex police, and I commend that approach to the Minister and hope he takes lessons from the work that has already been done by Detective Sergeant Mike Redmond. We should all acknowledge the great work he has done.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful for the warm welcome given to these provisions from all parts of the House this afternoon. That is because there is a recognition of the nature of the threat we now face, and of the fact that we face an enduring threat from terrorism. There are particular terrorist groups that will seek to attack aircraft and other forms of transport, which is why we must remain vigilant and continue to challenge ourselves on what further improvements can be made to legislation and the schemes that are in place to ensure we have the right information to prevent those intent on conducting such acts from boarding aircraft, trains or other forms of transport—and, indeed, ensure that our various forms of transport conduct appropriate searches and checks to make sure that appropriate standards are met and adhered to. We seek to respond through that approach and the pragmatic, practical measures set out in the Bill.
As the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) highlighted, there is the further requirement for additional regulations and details of specific schemes to be brought before this House. As that detail is then added to, it is appropriate that ongoing consultation take place with the relevant industry sectors. I shall say a little more about that in response to the various points the right hon. Gentleman raised.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) for bringing to my attention the work of DS Mike Redmond and the Sussex police based at Gatwick airport, and how bringing forward proposals is obviously about their practical implementation. Where there is good practice, there should be networks through which it can be shared, leading to greater consistency of approach. I know the police take that seriously, with the relevant structures they have enabling them to look at practice and share knowledge and learning. The work mentioned by the hon. Gentleman sounded very interesting, and I look forward to seeing further details of the BIG MAC that he will no doubt be sending through to me.
In terms of the utilisation of the powers, if it is necessary and proportionate we will use powers as a means of putting special additional measures in place to combat current threats. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his previous experience how we look at the threat assessments that are maintained by the joint terrorism analysis centre, and how that may mean that additional security enhancements need to be put in place in respect of particular routes or modes of transport. That will inform some of the additional protective security-type powers that could be drawn on in respect of these provisions, and therefore, those specific provisions would be used where justified by the prevailing terrorist threat and the assessed risk.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the issue of costs, and rightly referred to the regulatory impact assessment that was published alongside the Bill. On the number of airlines that were engaged—I will come on to talk about who was consulted—many airlines within the big global groups of airlines will share common booking systems. Therefore, whether they are part of one alliance or another, that will determine a number of the elements of the systems that may be in place, and smaller airlines may piggyback on some of the bigger airlines’ systems. All airlines are not necessarily operating specific individual systems; they may be utilising some of the bigger carriers’ systems as part of their global booking systems, because of the alliances and groups that they are part of.
The cost to the Government of an interactive advance passenger information system is currently £1.2 million per year, and the staffing costs of maintaining a help desk to assist with interactive API is around £302,000 annually. Border Force estimates that an additional £82,000 will be required for additional staff to bolster the help desk as a result of the legislation. Consultation with airlines has shown that they recognise the significant security and financial benefits that flow from interactive API systems.
Various Governments are increasingly requiring that their own carriers implement these types of systems and solutions, and carriers are likely to incur set-up costs, whether required to do so by the UK Government or not. The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the reference in the explanatory notes to 500 subjects of interest having travelled to Syria and Iraq from this country. It is important to understand, given the nature of the travelling threat, that individuals have travelled to that area from many other countries across Europe and across the globe, and there is a growing recognition of the utility and importance of being able to use advance passenger information. A number of countries globally are seeking to align that approach in this area.
On the proportion of advance passenger information that we hold, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his parliamentary questions to me, we receive advance passenger information for just over 80% of all passengers travelling to and from the UK, which is up considerably from just over 60% at the end of 2009. That includes 96% of all air passengers. According to the European Commission, that is the highest for any European country and is among the best in the world.
As the impact assessment indicated, we consulted all UK-registered airlines, and their comments are reflected in the impact assessment, which the right hon. Gentleman has obviously seen. I will reflect after this debate on what further details it may be possible to provide, and if I may, I will write to him on any further information or background that can be shared.
On briefing others, we have briefed maritime carriers and Eurotunnel, but we will be consulting further on the detail of the regulations to be put before Parliament. With regard to rail, as I indicated in a previous intervention, the existing operators are already covered by a great deal of the existing legislative framework, but we will seek to continue to consult those that may be affected by any further changes introduced under authority-to-carry schemes, and it is absolutely appropriate that we do so, as the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted. On the broader legal issues he proffered, it is not for me to give legal advice on the Floor of the House, but I can say to him genuinely and directly that we have undertaken a full assessment of the legal implications of these proposals and consider them to be compatible.
On the work the Government are doing to introduce exit checks by spring next year, the provisions before this House are connected but separate, if I may put it in those terms. Information about passengers departing from the UK will inform the operation of outbound authority-to-carry arrangements, which the Bill will put on a statutory basis. Obviously, that is a significant difference between what is in this Bill and the existing authority-to-carry scheme introduced just before the Olympic games, which is focused purely on the inbound. The intent is to have statutory underpinning and a statutory framework in respect of the outbound, too.
I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr that legislation is in place to direct carriers on the form in which they must provide passenger information to the Government’s border system. That includes the timeliness with which data are provided relative to when the passenger departs to or from the UK. Obviously, the Bill’s provisions will also give specific statutory underpinning to that, to ensure that information is provided in a timely fashion.
I noted what the right hon. Member for Delyn said about e-Borders. The tone of this afternoon’s debate has broadly been one where everyone has shared the same approach, but I say to him that this Government have had to deal with some significant problems with a number of the previous Government’s systems, e-Borders being one of them. We have therefore made the necessary changes and checks to ensure that we have a system that delivers what it needs to deliver.
I am grateful for the support that has been provided from all parts of the House for these provisions, and I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.
Business without Debate
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petitions
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
In presenting this petition, I would like to thank my constituent Yvonne Chafey, who first began a local campaign to stop legal highs, and the Kilmarnock Standard and the Daily Record for publicising the issue. Hundreds of people in my constituency have signed the petition.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Kilmarnock and Loudoun,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the sale of substances commonly referred to as “legal highs” constitutes a clear and present danger to public health, and in particular to the health of young people; further that the Petitioners believe that, at present, there is a severe lack of information available to the public regarding the potential physical and psychological risks associated with the human consumption of such substances; and further that the risks associated with the human consumption of such substances varies depending on the consumer, but are increased if the substance is consumed in conjunction with alcohol or other psychoactive drugs.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider whether certain substances commonly referred to as “legal highs” should be reclassified in order to enhance public awareness of the risks associated with their consumption and further requests that the House urges the Government to consider whether greater support should be provided to individuals and families affected by the use of such substances.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I wish to put on record my thanks to Bolton against the bedroom tax, which initiated a postcard campaign that has now been expanded to a paper petition.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Bolton West constituency,
Declares that the bedroom tax (otherwise known as the spare room subsidy) punishes the most vulnerable people in society; further that many of those affected by the bedroom tax will need to downsize but there are not enough properties available for them to do so; further that in Bolton, there are only 13 available properties and 3,000 affected households; further that because many of those affected cannot downsize, it is simply a tax on households which are already struggling; further that seventy per cent of those affected are disabled; further that the revenue raised by this tax is a drop in the ocean compared to the money lost through tax evasion and avoidance; further that those affected cannot afford to wait for a change of government; further that lives are being ruined because parents are being ejected from the family home; and further that a postcard campaign in the Bolton West constituency on this issue resulted in 150 postcards being sent to the Member of Parliament for Bolton West. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to revoke the bedroom tax.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001406]
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The petitions are from the residents of the Peterborough constituency in North Werrington and Peakirk.
The first petition states:
The Petition of residents of Peterborough constituency,
Declares that Network Rail have upgraded the continuous railway line adjacent to North Werrington; further that Network Rail estimate that there will be substantial increases in freight traffic through the village of up to 23,360 additional trains per year; further that no mitigating measures have been offered to reduce the significant increases in noise, vibration and pollution created by the increase in freight traffic; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 582 residents of North Werrington. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enter into discussion with Network Rail to discuss and agree plans to introduce noise mitigation measures such as the erection of acoustic timber fencing and plans to fit secondary glazing and/or acoustic trickle vents where required for properties adjacent to the train line which runs through North Werrington; further request that the House urges the Government to encourage Network Rail to put in place plans to plant an evergreen tree belt to help absorb particulates emitted by diesel locomotives; and further request that the House urges the Government to ask Peterborough City Council to consider a reduction in council tax for those properties which will be directly affected by increases in freight traffic through North Werrington.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001408]
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
My second petition states:
The Petition of residents of Peterborough,
Declares that Network Rail have upgraded the continuous railway line adjacent to Peakirk; further that Network Rail estimate that there will be substantial increases in freight traffic through the village of up to 23,360 additional trains per year; further that no mitigating measures have been offered to reduce the significant increases in noise, vibration and pollution created by the increase in freight traffic; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 170 residents of Peakirk. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enter into discussion with Network Rail to discuss and agree plans to introduce noise mitigation measures such as the erection of acoustic timber fencing and plans to fit secondary glazing and/or acoustic trickle vents where required for properties adjacent to the train line which runs adjacent to Peakirk; further request that the House urges the Government to encourage Network Rail to put in place plans to plant an evergreen tree belt to help absorb particulates emitted by diesel locomotives; and further request that the House urges the Government to ask Peterborough City Council to consider a reduction in council tax for those properties which will be directly affected by increases in freight traffic through Peakirk.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001409]
Patient Safety and Medical Innovation
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Like books, one should never judge a Bill by its cover. Later this week, the Medical Innovation Bill reaches Report stage in the House of Lords, but I would like to demonstrate that it is fundamentally flawed in its premise, it is unnecessary, it removes essential protections for patients, and it increases the risks of their exposure to maverick doctors. I believe it will undermine not only patient safety but medical innovation and so will have precisely the opposite effect to that intended.
Under current law, a doctor is negligent if he or she acts in a way which no responsible body of medical opinion would support, or which is irrational or illogical—the so-called Bolam test, as refined in the case of Bolitho. The Bill would rewrite the law on clinical negligence and a doctor whose decision to treat would not be supported by any responsible body of medical opinion, or was illogical or irrational, would be able to call on a new Saatchi defence if they fulfilled the procedural requirements of the Bill. That is important: the Bill’s protection of doctors applies if the procedural requirements are met. The Bill states:
“For the purposes of taking a responsible decision to depart from the existing range of accepted medical treatments for a condition, the doctor must…obtain the views of one or more appropriately qualified doctors in relation to the proposed treatment”.
There is no requirement for the second doctor to have seen the patient or even read their notes, and no requirement for them to be independent. They could be working at the same private clinic. It is of little reassurance that the treating doctor must
“take full account of the views”
of the second doctor if the second doctor is in collusion with the first in that treatment, which may be unreasonable.
If the Bill is passed, we will put patient safety at risk and we will no doubt have to return to amend the legislation subsequently. Let me quote from a letter forwarded to me by a constituent who had met a visitor to my constituency who managed to convince him utterly that this individual’s company had found a cure—a miraculous treatment—for cancer, but was being obstructed by a vast conspiracy in the medical community. In the letter, David Noakes, who describes himself as the chief executive of a biotechnology company, refers to a compound he calls GcMAF, which he describes as
“a human protein, present in 5 billion healthy people, that removes a number of diseases, including terminal stage 4 cancer. It has no side effects.”
He attaches a couple of scientific-y looking papers, which have no bearing on proving its clinical effectiveness. Mr Noakes continues:
“It’s always difficult to get feedback, but we have hundreds of superb results. In Guernsey, we treat over 100 people and…have 50 successes including 10 excellent cancer results. We have perfect feedback in our German and Swiss clinics, where our 7 doctors reduce tumours at the rate of 25% a week”.
He says that he cannot do it in the UK
“because the law is so destructive.”
Here is the bit that really worries me. Mr Noakes states:
“But we state that if you have terminal stage 4…cancer, have not had chemotherapy, and you do the”
so-called
“GcMAF protocol, you have an 80% chance of being cancer free in a year.”
In other words, what the company is specifically saying to people is that they can look forward to that result if they do not have chemotherapy—it is actively encouraging people not to have evidence-based treatment and promising that it has a cure for cancer.
Mr Noakes says that
“The pharmaceutical industry is not interested in”
this treatment, because there is no profit in it—
“it is too cheap, and can’t be patented”.
He says:
“The chemo lobby is so powerful it has changed British law so that doctors are only allowed to prescribe the poison of chemo for cancer when there are…better treatments.”
He adds, specifically:
“Lord Maurice Saatchi is trying to get that law changed with his Medical Innovation bill, but against so powerful a lobby”—
and so on. In other words, for this individual and the seven doctors to whom he refers, the Bill would be carte blanche. They see it as a Bill that would provide them with protections. The Bill specifically refers to medical practitioners and doctors as the people who can take this forward—not homeopaths or unregistered doctors. He says that he has seven doctors in his company. If one of those seven consulted another doctor in the clinic, it is highly likely that they would agree that this was an eminently sensible treatment.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate on an important subject. It is a shame that more people are not in the Chamber to discuss it. There are some very real concerns. Does she agree that people who are terminally ill may be desperate for treatment, and that simply makes them prey to people who may be unethical, who may be trying to push the envelope, and who may be doing things that would harm them but that sound quite good?
Dr Wollaston
I agree with my hon. Friend. In my constituency a medically qualified individual attempted to set up a cancer conference. It had to be pointed out that under the Cancer Act 1939 it is not legal to advertise cures for cancer. The Bill would allow people to circumvent the Cancer Act. How easy is it to get a reference to a miracle treatment planted into a magazine article, for example? This is the real danger here. While the Cancer Act protects people against blatant advertising, it does not provide protection against the back-door advertising that we already see. What is to stop individuals who are absolutely desperate—as my hon. Friend has said—going to doctors with articles saying, “This is a cure. I want you to refer me to this clinic.”
Dr Huppert
I will try to resist the temptation to intervene too often. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about cancer? We have already had homeopathic doctors, who may practise medicine as well as homeopathy, claiming that they have powerful treatments for Ebola that the World Health Organisation will not let them work on. The Bill would open the door for all sorts of quacks who will do serious harm in the name of medical innovation.
Dr Wollaston
I agree. I thank my hon. Friend for making the point that this is not just about cancer treatment but about a wide range of surgical treatments and therapies for any number of conditions.
If the Bill is about reducing medical litigation so that doctors are free to undertake innovative treatments, why do those who are involved in medical litigation say that there is no need for it? The Medical Defence Union, the Medical Protection Society, even the NHS Litigation Authority, are clear that the law, with the Bolam and Bolitho tests, is well established. They feel that the Bill could increase uncertainty. The MPS briefing says:
“Fundamentally, current law allows doctors acting responsibly to innovate, and this Bill is unnecessary. The time has come for the debate to shift towards improving education about the present law, rather than confusing the law through a new piece of legislation.”
That is another point that is worth bearing in mind.
Far from promoting medical innovation, the Bill could undermine recruitment to genuine clinical trials. If someone had been persuaded by the likes of the doctors in the letter that I read out that there was a miraculous treatment for their terminal cancer, why would they wish to be enrolled in a clinical trial and be part of a randomised trial? If they could circumvent that and go along to a private clinic, why would they do that? Medical research does not just answer the question about whether a treatment works; it also helps answer the question whether a therapy or procedure has serious side effects. The history of medicine is littered with good intentions and innovations that seemed like a good idea but turned out to have disastrous side effects. I think, for example, of the use of 100% oxygen for premature babies, which led to blindness, or the use of steroids after head injury, which might have seemed like a good idea at the time but led to many, many deaths until it was realised that it was a dangerous innovation. There is an assumption that all innovation must be good innovation, but much innovation can be dangerous.
The randomised double-blind trial has been one of the greatest advances in medical science and has provided enormous protection for people. I look back at my time in medicine. Fairly soon after I qualified in 1986, I was a junior doctor on the Hedley Atkins breast unit. The newly appointed consultant is now Professor Sir Mike Richards, who is one of the country’s foremost and respected experts in cancer, formerly the cancer czar. He does not think the Bill will protect patients. We need to listen to the opinion of those who have serious concerns about such Bills. When I was working on that cancer unit in the 1980s, very many of the patients who did not survive at the time would survive today going to the same unit with similar conditions. That is because we now know what the best treatments are. We know that not from a series of unlinked anecdotal treatments, but because of former patients who were enrolled in clinical trials.
The accusation sometimes made is, “Aren’t clinical trials just experimenting on people?” Far from it. There seems to be a benefit for everyone taking part in a clinical trial, even those who are not receiving a treatment that turns out to be more effective. If the Bill is passed and undermines enrolment in clinical trials, we will be doing a grave disservice to medical innovation, and it will be to our great shame to have done so. I would like the Minister to address that point when he responds.
That is a fundamental flaw in the Bill. There is also a fundamental flaw in the premise that separate anecdotal treatments can progress medical research. Interestingly, clause 1(5) states:
“Nothing in this section permits a doctor to carry out treatment for the purposes of research”.
In other words, it specifically precludes the treatments being linked in any way, so we will learn nothing from these treatments. Lord Saatchi’s premise is that his Bill will advance medical knowledge, but there is no evidence that it will advance medical knowledge an inch because we will not be able to answer that fundamental question about whether there are unintended harms from the treatments or any long-term benefits.
Where will the evidence be of benefit from those “innovative treatments”? Will the Minister look carefully at that, and be clear in responding? The list of bodies opposed to the Medical Innovation Bill is very long—the Academy for Healthcare Science, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, Action Against Medical Accidents, the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the British Medical Association, the British Pharmacological Society, Cancer Research UK, the Good Thinking Society, Healthwatch, the Medical Protection Society, the Medical Defence Union, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the NHS Health Research Authority and the NHS Litigation Authority.
Richard Francis QC, one of our most respected national authorities on patient safety, opposes the legislation. I think that we ought to reflect carefully on his words:
“If there is misunderstanding then it should be corrected by guidance, not by legislation which exposes vulnerable patients to unjustified risk and deprives them of remedies when mistreated by those who have no acceptable justification for what they have done.”
Those are very serious words indeed. The legislation is also opposed by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Radiologists. That is an important list.
There is a powerful lobby in favour of this legislation that purports that those who oppose it are somehow dinosaurs.
I urge the Minister to read the letter from 100 leading oncologists that was published in The Times on 13 November, which states:
“We devote our professional lives to treating patients with cancer and advancing research that contributes to finding more effective treatments for cancer. We neither want nor need Lord Saatchi’s bill. We do not believe that it will help our patients or future patients. We are dismayed that the bill is being promoted as offering hope to patients and their families when it will not make any meaningful difference to progress in treating cancer.
The law of medical negligence does not hinder our work or prevent innovation. There have been significant advances across all the modalities of cancer treatment over recent decades. There was no call for this change in the law from the medical profession. The current law already allows us to use off label drugs and to try new treatments when they are in patients’ best interests.
We are concerned that rather than promoting responsible scientific innovation in the treatment of cancer, the Medical Innovation Bill will actually encourage irresponsible experimentation producing nothing more than anecdotal ‘evidence’, at the potential expense of causing serious harm and suffering to patients, their families and carers. Innovation is best carried out within the discipline of controlled clinical trials, not by individual doctors acting on a whim.”
I think that sums it up well.
Were we to title the Bill correctly, it would be called the medical anecdote Bill. We should be saying that it makes provision in relation to anecdotal treatments in medical treatment. If we titled it correctly, there would be no question whatsoever of its having Government support. I urge the Minister in the strongest terms please not to give the Bill Government backing. To do so, I think, would be to our great shame. We would undoubtedly have to return to amend it. It would put patients at risk, and it would put recruitment to clinical trials and genuine innovation at risk.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and about the many good things the Government have done to promote genuine innovation. I will not detain the House by offering that list now, because I know the Minister has done more than anyone I can think of in the House to promote true medical innovation. I therefore hope he will recognise that the Bill would do quite the opposite, and ensure that it does not progress.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and the excellent comments she made, although she should keep an eye on her Committee—I am sure she will—which I believe is currently questioning on the subjects of complementary medicine and homeopathic doctors in her absence. It is also good to have the Minister here. Between the three of us, we have a commitment to the idea of evidence-based medicine, which sadly not all Members of the House appear to share. I hope we are all singing from the same hymn sheet in that regard, as my hon. Friend has already set out so eloquently.
Suffering from terminal cancer, or any other serious condition, is clearly awful for anyone, so I understand why people would want to try something in the desperate hope that it might alleviate the problem and help them to survive. I absolutely understand that rationale. However, it does have real risks, and that is part of the problem with the Bill.
Of course we should innovate. We come up with new techniques all the time. As my hon. Friend said, we are far better at treating things now than we have been over time. However, we must avoid using the politician’s syllogism: we must do something; this is something; therefore, we must do this. That is not how it works, but unfortunately it seems to be the approach taken in the Bill.
As we have heard, there does not seem to be a serious problem of stultification and lack of innovation. Oncologist after oncologist will say how they are able to innovate. However, there is a system of research ethics regarding how we decide what is acceptable and what is not. There are ways of making sure that we do not just look at things with a selective bias. The paper that my hon. Friend mentioned described two patients who had had some reductions in tumour sizes, but it said nothing about how many patients had been looked at, or about the outcomes for those who had not been treated. If we pick people out from a large enough pool, we will always find strange things that we can write about or make a lot of money from by setting up a company, if we are allowed to go ahead.
We have to avoid dealing merely with anecdote, because that will lead to people getting substantially sub-optimal treatments. The safeguards in the Bill—I have been through all the proposed amendments as well—are very thin. As my hon. Friend said, asking another doctor makes little difference when that doctor could be somebody else who believes in the same slightly bizarre theory. Moreover, the doctor could be asking another doctor who works for them, because there is quite a hierarchy in medicine. A junior doctor would not feel able to challenge a more senior doctor on something like this.
This Bill tries to solve a problem that does not seem to exist, according to the doctors and lawyers involved. It puts patients at risk, especially if these innovative treatments replace standard treatments that are known to be effective. It opens the door to quacks of all persuasion who want to try out their pet theories but have no proper background and no evidence.
I hope that on Friday, their lordships will see the problems with the Bill and that they will not proceed with it and bring it to this place. I sincerely hope that the Minister, whom I respect for his efforts to improve innovation and his understanding of the role of an evidence base, will make sure that we do not have Government backing for such a Bill. If it does make it here as a private Member’s Bill, I am confident that this House will make the right choice to protect patient safety.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (George Freeman)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for securing this Adjournment debate and giving the House, albeit only a few of us, the chance to debate what is, I agree, a very important issue that is the subject of live discussion in another place. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for his comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is a tireless campaigner for good health care and good medicine, as Member of Parliament for Totnes, as a member of the medical profession, and as Chair of the Health Committee. I very much welcome her contribution. I will first deal with the points that she made, then set the scene and provide a little context about the Government’s view of this Bill, and then close with what I hope may be some reassurance about our commitment to patient safety.
My hon. Friend made a number of important points, which I repeat merely to signal that I have heard them loud and clear. She said that the Bill might risk creating a carte blanche, or open door, situation as an inadvertent side effect of unjustified and unsubstantiated claims. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned homeopathy and other non-evidence-based forms of medicine. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes highlighted the danger of relying too heavily on the protection of a clinician merely seeking the endorsement of a fellow clinician. Implicit in her concern is the fact that most of us could probably find one person in life to support our own prejudices, however well intentioned.
My hon. Friend highlighted the risk of unethical approaches and the danger of back-door promotions, which none of us wants to see. On the danger of undermining public and patient trust in clinical trials, she knows that I am passionate about achieving precisely the opposite. We are very proud in this country that more and more of our patients are enrolling in clinical trials. The NHS is running a fabulously successful programme of promoting research medicine, and this year the numbers are up by 24% or 25%. That is good for patients, good for NHS research, and good for our life sciences sector.
My hon. Friend has highlighted the danger of accidental errors across the system today. We live with that risk, but I hear her point that it would be a disaster if the Bill inadvertently made errors more likely, rather than less. She also raised concerns about the Bill not promoting evidence-based medicine or requiring claims to be based on clear patient benefit. She made a specific point about the Cancer Act 1939, which I will follow up and deal with by letter, if I may.
Most concerning of all, my hon. Friend ran through a very long list of medical and health organisations that she described as being opposed to the Bill. I will look into that following the debate because—I will say more about this in a moment—we do not want the measure to be divisive or to alienate or undermine the consensus about the importance of good medical research in the UK and the NHS. I take that point seriously. My hon. Friend flagged up the letter from 100 oncologists that appeared in newspapers recently. Since that was published, there have been a number of discussions about—and, indeed, amendments tabled to—the Bill in the Lords. I want to have a look and make sure which, if any, of those concerns are extant as the Bill completes its passage through the Lords. I will say more about that in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge endorsed those comments. I note in particular his comments about the importance of evidence-based medicine. As with so many issues that we deal with in this House, a good test is to ask: would I apply this to myself? Certainly, for myself and my family, I am a strong believer in evidence-based medicine. I am a believer in innovation as well, but my hon. Friend made an important point. I particularly enjoyed his mention of the politician’s syllogism: “We must do something; this is something; ergo, we should do it.” I assure him that that is not in any way the reason for the Government’s benign support for the Bill’s principles and the case it seeks to make to promote innovation. I align myself hugely with his comments about not wanting to open the door to quackery.
Dr Wollaston
Lord Saatchi has said that 20,000 people support his Bill, but if people are asked whether they are in favour of medical innovation, they are likely to answer yes, and if the same people are asked whether they are likely to support medical anecdotes, I think they are likely to say no. Sometimes the answer depends on the question being asked.
George Freeman
I am sure my hon. Friend is right. She makes an excellent point about the nature of the question having an impact on the answer one gets. I have repeated the concerns because they bear repetition and are important, and I want to signal that I am taking them seriously.
I want to set the scene in terms of the Government’s commitment to patient safety, the context in which innovative medicines are being developed, and the changes in the sector that are challenging some of the traditional methods of drug development. I will then address some of the specific points that my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and for Cambridge have made and say something about the Government’s position on the Bill.
The Government’s response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry, led by Sir Robert Francis, “Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First”, demonstrated beyond any doubt, I hope, the Government’s absolute commitment to creating a new culture of openness, compassion and accountability and a renewed focus on patient safety right at the heart of the NHS.
The truth is that the NHS is one of the safest health care systems in the world. I am delighted to report that, in the recent Commonwealth Fund report comparing the US health care system with those of 11 other nations, the UK came top. However, there is always scope to improve health care standards universally and to reduce avoidable harm further. That is why the Secretary of State set the ambition this June, at the launch of the Sign up to Safety campaign, to reduce avoidable harm by half and save 6,000 lives over the next three years.
We have put patient safety right at the heart of the Government’s agenda for health. For that reason, I am delighted that the Government are actively supporting the Bill on patient safety sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). The Bill has several important provisions on the use of data to drive safety across the system and to ensure transparency and accountability in health outcomes.
Why do we need to look at mechanisms for promoting innovation? My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes was kind enough to signal her awareness that the Government—particularly me, as the first Minister for life sciences—have taken an active role in trying to promote it. The reason is that we face a challenge in the field of drug discovery and development, as well as in medical technology generally. There is a challenge and an opportunity.
The challenge is that the more we know about disease, genetics and data—the datasets at our disposal in the NHS, and the history of drug reactions and the way in which patients respond to diseases differently—the more we realise that patients respond to the same disease or the same drug in different ways, and that those ways can often be predicted. These insights are beginning to change the way in which drugs are developed.
Increasingly, we do not need the one-size-fits-all, blockbuster drugs that we have traditionally expected the industry to bring us after long, slow, protracted and increasingly expensive clinical trials and randomised, double-blind trials. Of course, those trials have a strong part to play in our system, but the more we know about the nature of disease and the extraordinary breakthroughs that our biomedical and life sciences sector is making, the more the agenda shifts to designing around patients, as well as around tissues, data and genomics. That is why the Government are so committed to shifting our policy landscape to support the extraordinary role that our NHS can play globally. It is a uniquely well positioned, integrated national health care system, with extraordinary leadership in genomics and informatics, which the Government are actively supporting.
My hon. Friend made the point that the randomised, double-blind trial has given medicine great service in the 20th century, and I agree. As we move further into the 21st century and see the transformational power of new technologies, it is equally true that the system of expecting the industry to go away and spend 10 to 15 years, and an average of £1.5 billion, to develop a new drug—many of them fail in late-stage clinical trials, because of some toxic side effect in one patient or a few small number of patients—is leading to a crisis in the industry and in the pipeline for new drugs and new treatments, and to patients increasingly suffering because we cannot give them innovative medicines.
Part of the agenda for this Government and all western Governments is to look at how to accelerate the way in which our health systems support research and to bring innovative medicines, as well as devices, diagnostics and other innovations, to benefit patients more quickly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did not realise that the business had moved on so fast. In the university in Belfast, we have developed some great partnerships in relation to finding new drugs. Nearby Belfast city hospital works together in partnership with the university to address the issue of innovation for new drugs and to address how best to utilise them and make them available. I know that the Minister is aware of that, but does he recognise that such a partnership—with Queen’s university, financed by big business, alongside the NHS in the form of Belfast city hospital—is a precedent for how to innovate?
George Freeman
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work being done in that cluster at Queen’s. I am delighted to say that I will be coming in the new year to support it and to show, as the UK Minister, that there are great clusters in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I very much look forward to that visit.
The truth is that the landscape is changing. Part of the challenge that we all face is to find ways to accelerate earlier access to innovative treatments for patients, and earlier access for those developing innovative drugs, devices and diagnostics to our health system, so that we can more quickly design innovations that are more targeted and personalised. We are seeing the first genuinely personalised cancer therapies and drugs that, in the unfortunate event that one is diagnosed with cancer, can be designed around one’s genetic profile. I was at a seminar on that development this morning. It is changing the landscape of drug development. We are keen to ensure that we benefit from it in the UK and that we use every mechanism in the NHS to support it.
Dr Wollaston
Does the Minister accept that a doctor who uses such innovative treatments within the NHS is protected under existing law and that we do not need new legislation to make them available to patients?
George Freeman
I will happily come on to the existing law and the protections within it.
Three weeks ago, I announced a major review of the landscape of innovative medicines development, which will involve a review of NICE and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. It will look closely at how we can develop a new landscape for the quicker development of innovation with patients in the NHS.
I reassure the House that the Government are committed in all this work to putting patient safety first and developing a landscape of evidence-based medicine. I have listened carefully to the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and for Cambridge. I reassure them that I and the Government take their concerns very seriously.
Lord Saatchi has identified the threat of litigation as a potential barrier to innovation. The purpose of his Bill is to set out a series of steps and a clearer legal framework that will make it less likely for doctors to be put off reasonable innovation because of the rather circular defence that the best treatment is one that is already well established. The intention of the Bill is to tackle the risk that the fear of clinical negligence could undermine the commitment of doctors to embracing innovation in the system. It does not claim to be a panacea or silver bullet to solve all our innovation challenges, but to be one measure in the broader landscape.
In Committee in the House of Lords, the Government supported Lord Saatchi’s amendments to the Bill, which added an objective test of responsibility to the doctor’s decision to innovate. The amendments exclude any doctors who act irresponsibly from enjoying the protections of the Bill.
The amended Bill provides a number of other safeguards for patients, including the requirement for doctors to take full account, in a responsible way, of the views of other appropriately qualified clinicians. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes argues that that does not go far enough. I would be interested to hear the views of Members of the upper House who are more qualified than I am when they debate Third reading at the end of the week. The package of amendments is intended to ensure that there is expert peer review of any doctor’s proposal. Furthermore, it ensures that the doctor must act responsibly in taking account of that review, thereby applying an objective standard to their conduct. In addition, the Bill requires any doctor to consider the risks and benefits associated with the proposed treatment, alternative treatments and doing nothing. That provides a further safeguard.
Let me be clear that we do not want the Bill to prevent patients from taking doctors to court when there is a good reason to do so. Doctors who follow the steps set out in the Bill or the steps required in normal practice should be able to demonstrate more easily that they have acted responsibly, because they will have considered the necessary steps in advance of any innovation. However, by invoking the freedom to innovate that is set out in the Bill, one does not in any way avoid the scrutiny of the courts. Doctors will still have to justify their actions if any case is brought against them, just as they do now.
Dr Huppert
At the beginning of the Minister’s comments, he said that he and the Government were keen to ensure that this would not be a divisive issue, and that they would not progress with it if it became one. He now sounds like he is being very supportive of the Bill. Will he provide an assurance that if the Bill continues to have the vast weight of medical and legal expertise against it, whether that is expressed in the House of Lords or by the organisations that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned, he will ensure that the Government do not back it?
George Freeman
I am merely trying to set out a balanced review of the arguments. In closing my speech, I will give an assurance that I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend on that point.
On protection, under existing common law and in the Bill doctors must show that they have acted responsibly. They cannot simply go through the motions and seek advice from an inappropriate source as that would not be “responsible”, which is the key test in the Bill and common law. Even if doctors follow the steps in the Bill when deciding to adopt an innovative treatment, they might still carry it out negligently and be subject to a negligence claim in the same way. When something goes wrong it is right that patients are free to seek compensation, and that will continue to be the case. The Government do not want any undermining of protection for patients against clinical negligence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made a point about the Bill not requiring doctors to seek the prior agreement of an appropriately qualified doctor, and instead being required only to take account of their views. I would not want the Bill to give a carte blanche to quackery or non-evidence based medicine. The Bill requires a doctor to take full account of the views of at least one appropriately qualified doctor, just as any responsible doctor would be expected to do, and they would not be able to ignore certain views or give them minimal weight by just “noting” them unless there were reasonable grounds for doing so. All doctors will be bound by the core and primary duty of responsibility and care to their patients. If the Bill were to require the explicit agreement of another doctor to innovate—that is one suggestion made in the other place—we are worried that that would open the possibility of a new negligence action against the countersigning doctor and lead to more confusion. We would not be able to give the countersigning doctor any certainty about their legal position, and they would not be able to rely on provisions in the Bill.
My hon. Friend made a point about undermining confidence in clinical trials. Although the Bill has raised awareness of innovation in medical treatment, it does not confer additional rights on patients to demand innovative treatment. It will still be for the doctor to decide the most appropriate course of treatment in discussion with their patient and using their best professional clinical judgment. Nothing in the Bill allows doctors to bypass any processes or requirements set by their trust when undertaking innovative treatments in the NHS, which includes ensuring that the commissioner would fund the treatment if it is to be provided within the service.
Individual innovation is important but no substitute for medical research and testing the efficacy of new treatments in a systematic way. A large part of my work is about ensuring that we use all of our £1 billion a year for the National Institute for Health Research infrastructure in the NHS, to ensure—as the Prime Minister set out in his speech when launching our life science strategy—that every willing patient is a research patient and every hospital a research hospital, and that we learn from evidence that we develop daily in our interaction with patients. Lord Saatchi and Ministers are determined that doctors should learn from innovative medicine as we go along, and a large part of the NIHR and our data programme is about ensuring that we pick up and track innovations and outcomes more accurately across the system.
Dr Wollaston
Does the Minister accept that that cannot happen under the Bill, and that those things will remain a series of unlinking anecdotes? In medical science and for the safety of patients no one will be able to track whether there were unintended consequences or benefits, and it will not advance the cause of medical innovation whatsoever.
George Freeman
I would be interested to see the Bill once it has completed its passage through another place and ensure that it contains adequate provision for evidence-based medicine, and that, by encouraging innovation, we are not in any way encouraging medicine that is not supported by the best evidence available.
My hon. Friend spoke about consultation. The Department of Health carried out a full consultation on the issues raised in the Bill, which ran from February to April this year. It was delighted to receive 170 responses to that consultation, making clear a range of opinions. Responses came from a range of audiences, professional bodies, patients and clinicians. Four regional public consultation events were also held. Lord Saatchi attended those events and it was in no small part thanks to his involvement that a number of changes were made to strengthen the oversight mechanisms in the Bill. At every stage, the Department of Health has engaged with Lord Saatchi to develop amendments to align the policy of the Bill with the legal and expert clinical advice we have taken, including from Sir Bruce Keogh.
Dr Huppert
The Minister is being very generous, although we do appear to have quite a lot of time. He talked about 170 responses. How many were supportive of the Bill and how many were not?
George Freeman
I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I will happily look into it and come back to my hon. Friend if I may.
Crucially, following the Committee stage, Lord Saatchi and the Government have continued to engage with peers and key stakeholders. Let me take this opportunity, on the question of the Government’s support, to reiterate that this is a private Member’s Bill. This is not a Government Bill. We are very supportive of the Bill’s aims and intent to promote a culture and regulatory framework that is supportive of innovation within the NHS, but it is equally important that we do not in any way damage or undermine public or patient confidence in research in this country and in the NHS. I stress that the Bill has not been given Government time. We are supportive of its principles, but it is very important that when it leaves the House of Lords, where it will have been subject to extensive scrutiny by very eminent medical and legal opinion, it comes to us in a format, even if not every single point is unanimously supported, that has the very strong support of our most senior lawyers and medics.
I want to close by highlighting the fact that the Bill has generated substantial interest, both in Parliament and outside. In many ways, if those concerns can be reflected in high-quality scrutiny and the tabling of amendments, we should be able to demonstrate that democracy works and end up with a Bill that both achieves the aims of Lord Saatchi and reassures those with concerns. I want to be clear that, as the Bill completes its passage in the House of Lords, I hope it returns to this House in a form that the vast majority of medical opinion and respectable bodies in the medical field feel able to support. It is not our intention to have a Bill that undermines public or patient trust in research medicine.
We cannot legislate for best practice; we can only legislate to support our front-line clinicians to do what they believe is best for their patients. At the heart of that is a sacrosanct duty of care that all clinicians share, and which the Bill does not in any way weaken or undermine. That duty is to do what is best for patients.
I want to close with some supportive quotes the Bill has received from a number of important people, lest the House should form the view that it is unanimously opposed, which is not the case. Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, has said:
“I am confident that, with the amendments made in Committee stage, the Bill is safe for patients and has the potential to encourage responsible innovation.”
Sir Bruce Keogh, at NHS England, said:
“Encouraging innovation in medicine and protecting patients are both of vital importance. That is why I am pleased that amendments have been devised to address concerns about patient safety.”
Sir Michael Rawlins, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said that the Bill will allow responsible innovation and treatment:
“I believe the use of the provisions in the draft Medical Innovation Bill will benefit patients, especially those with rarer diseases, and the furtherance of medical science.”
A letter to The Telegraph from 40 leading medical professionals, including David Walker, professor of paediatric oncology at Nottingham university, and Riccardo Audisio, the president of the Association of Cancer Surgery, said the Bill
“legally protects doctors who try out innovative new techniques or drugs on patients when all else has failed. This Bill will protect the patient and nurture the innovator. It will encourage safe medical advancement, while at the same time deterring the maverick, thereby recalibrating the culture of defensive medicine. Finally, it will work with evidence-based medicine and provide new data that will inspire and support new research.”
I hope very much that that is the case and that when the Bill leaves the House of Lords, the vast majority of qualified senior opinion in this field is able to agree with it. It is absolutely our intention to support the Bill’s noble intent to promote medical innovation, but equally our intention is to not undermine in any way the Government’s commitment to patient safety or the duty of care that all clinicians share and owe to their patients.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Education of Children with Cerebral Palsy
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for securing this debate and generously asking me to open it. My first event as a Member of Parliament was a fundraising evening for the Rainbow Centre, a charity set up by parents to enable their children with cerebral palsy to benefit from conductive education, a therapy pioneered at the Peto Institute in Hungary. At that point, the Rainbow Centre was above a carpet shop in the centre of Fareham; they were not the most salubrious premises, but it demonstrated the parents’ commitment. They were prepared to go there during the week and on weekends, often carrying their children upstairs so that they could benefit from the education provided there. Children came from as far afield as Hampshire, Sussex, Dorset, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight.
Now the Rainbow Centre is in a purpose-built building in Fareham, and can offer support to more parents and their children. It also uses the techniques of conductive education to help adults with multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease and those who have had strokes. My engagement with the Rainbow Centre led me to become involved in a parliamentary inquiry supported by Action Cerebral Palsy, an umbrella organisation for charities across the country supporting children with cerebral palsy. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys led the inquiry, and a final report will be published next month.
I will say a little about cerebral palsy to set the context for my later remarks. It is a motor disorder caused by damage to the immature or developing brain that occurs before, during or immediately after birth. In the UK, 1,800 children a year, or about one in 400 born, develop cerebral palsy. The condition can affect those from all social backgrounds and ethnic groups. At some point very early in life, either while a baby is growing in the womb, during birth or shortly afterward, something happens to interfere with the normal development of the brain or to injure the brain tissues. That abnormal development or injury disrupts the nerve signals sent along neural pathways between the brain and the muscles, leading to problems with movement, posture and co-ordination as the child develops. This is called cerebral palsy.
As cerebral palsy is a condition of very early childhood, the implications for the developing child cannot be ignored. During the formative years, the central nervous system develops rapidly, enabling the child to learn, explore and connect with their social environment. It is during those crucial early years that the ability to learn develops. Children with cerebral palsy are hindered to varying degrees during that process as they battle to learn fundamental skills related to their symptoms. Therefore, cerebral palsy should to a significant extent be considered as a problem of learning, rather than a problem of functioning or communicating.
Early identification of cerebral palsy and early intervention can help tackle problems of movement, posture and co-ordination. Between the ages of nought and two, a child has a high degree of neural plasticity, which can be harnessed with appropriate programmes in order to remap the neural pathways between brain and muscle, enabling children to overcome problems of movement, posture and communication.
I have seen for myself the huge progress that children have made at the Rainbow Centre through early intervention. Children whose parents were told that they would not walk now can; children said to have high degrees of dependency are now independent. Everyone who has been to the Rainbow Centre or similar centres around the country comes away moved by the sight of children, parents and educators working together through an educational programme that helps children improve their motor skills and rebuild those neural pathways. We can make adaptations to accommodate the physical symptoms of cerebral palsy—for example, we can provide ramps for wheelchairs—but it is so much more powerful and rewarding to work with children to rebuild their neural pathways so that those ramps are not needed.
There were several recurring themes in the inquiry, including problems with early identification. Also, once CP has been identified, parents are more likely to have to fight to get the right support for their children than to find it easy to obtain. There is poor signposting to centres offering appropriate programmes, a reluctance among some local authorities—including Hampshire county council—to support the work of specialist providers, and reduced access to specialist services as children get older. In many respects, those issues are not unique to cerebral palsy, and I commend the Government for their reforms relating to special educational needs and disability.
Those giving evidence in our inquiry warmly welcomed the intentions behind the Government’s reforms, which are widely believed to have the potential—I emphasise the word “potential”—to transform the lives of people with cerebral palsy. The introduction of education, health and care plans, which will provide statutory protection, comparable to that provided by statements of special educational needs, to young people who are in education or training up to the age of 25—as compared with 16 now—was seen as a particularly encouraging development by respondents to the inquiry. If services for children and young people with cerebral palsy are to complement each other, the plans should facilitate that by ensuring that services are jointly commissioned and provision is decided in dialogue with parents.
The stipulation that provision in plans is set on the basis of the expected outcomes for the child or young person, as agreed between professionals and parents, has been welcomed. It is believed that if the measures are followed through on, they should create the promised cultural shift that will lead to assessments for special educational provision being based on a continuing assessment of a child’s needs and expected progress, rather than being simply a fight over short-term solutions to long-term issues.
I want to emphasise some particular concerns of parents and other participants in the inquiry. The first regards the local offer, which is hugely important because of its potential to give families access to specialist cerebral palsy services offered by third-sector organisations. However, the challenge is what will be included in the local offer. Let me illustrate that challenge with reference to the Rainbow Centre. The centre has applied to be included in the offer for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton, but councils in other areas served by the centre, such as Wiltshire and Dorset, have said that they will only include the centre if there is space available. That means that parents of children with CP in those areas will not know that the provision is available and will miss out on the support that the centre offers, and therefore on an education that could transform their children’s lives. Given the nature of centres dealing with CP, there will not be one in every county or unitary authority, so it is important that the local offer looks beyond council and area boundaries to ensure that all children with CP are signposted towards the right specialist services for them.
The issue of the local offer speaks to a broader point about the tension between tailoring services to local needs and a postcode lottery that results from a lack of national consistency. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that Ofsted, in its inspection of children’s services, should examine the local offer and how comprehensive it is. Best practice guidelines should be produced for education and health professionals who work with children and young people with cerebral palsy, to accompany the special educational needs and disability code of practice. The guidelines should explain how the lives of children with cerebral palsy can be improved within the framework of the new system. Although there are the best intentions behind the reforms, parents and practitioners told the inquiry that many years of battling with education and health authorities over support for children with cerebral palsy have left them doubtful as to whether the reforms will make a difference.
The negativity about the reforms’ potential is the legacy of an adversarial SEND system in which parents and practitioners have been left battle-weary and sceptical that change can be achieved. There remains the fear that while the reforms could slightly improve the situation for children and young people with cerebral palsy, they will not address the widespread lack of understanding of the needs of those children and young people, which contributes to a systemic antagonism whereby parents have to fight too hard to prove what support their children need.
Perhaps one of the biggest recurring issues that emerged from the inquiry was the striking lack of awareness among health and education professionals, even among those responsible for carrying out assessments for SEN statements, or for making plans about cerebral palsy that establish what support children and young people who have CP require. This results in late diagnosis, missed opportunities for early intervention and a general scepticism from professionals about forms of support that parents often say have transformed their children’s lives.
There is a need for an awareness-raising exercise, so that if cerebral palsy is diagnosed, parents are made aware by professionals of the options available to them immediately, rather than having to search for those options themselves. In addition, parents who spoke to the inquiry said that all too often they themselves were the experts on cerebral palsy, and the professionals they encountered not only provided little help but acted as obstacles to parents and their children, preventing them from accessing the best help available.
There is a particular concern about early intervention and about whether the reforms will do enough to help. The inquiry shows why more needs to be done to support children and young people with cerebral palsy, especially in the “golden years”—post-diagnosis, for those under the age of two—when intervention is at its most effective because of the plasticity in children’s brains at that age. However, this is often also the period when that type of intervention is most absent.
The inquiry found that children are not receiving the specialist invention they need during these golden years because there is not enough specialist educational intervention available for children under the age of two and, where it does exist, health professionals and parents are too often completely unaware of it. Moreover, even when they are aware of it, local authorities’ responsibilities for assessing the needs of those under the age of two are not spelled out very clearly in the SEND code of practice. That means that by the time an assessment is made and support is put in place, there is a risk that the opportunity to intervene in these golden years, and to improve significantly the early intervention services for children with complex needs, such as cerebral palsy, has been missed. More clarity is needed in the SEND code of practice. It is not clear how local authorities are involved in the assessment of children’s needs prior to the check at the age of two. Of course, as I have said, for many children, intervention after the age of two is of reduced effectiveness.
I would be keen to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to encourage local authorities to target early intervention, and how health and education services will be encouraged to work together in early years—for example, by ensuring that the requirement on health professionals to advise parents on not only the health support available to their child but the educational and developmental support that they may be able to access is followed through on.
I have discussed problems to do with the availability and quality of care for children with cerebral palsy in their earlier years, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we tackle these problems, they will be solved. It is clear from my conversations with parents, and from feedback from centres across the country, that far too many children with cerebral palsy can be isolated when they reach secondary school. Primary schools are often well prepared. Staff are able to work with children who have cerebral palsy, primarily because these schools are often laid out on one floor and are therefore very accessible. Children with CP can get around such schools without any issues, and they can take part in all the normal school activities. However, when they get to secondary school, they can often fall through the gap.
By their nature, secondary schools have much larger buildings than primary schools, with multiple floors and large complexes. Children with CP can often struggle to get around them, leaving them isolated from their classmates and often from parts of the curriculum. Children with CP have been unable to take subjects they love because of problems with wheelchair access. Those problems may prevent them from taking part in courses on the first floor of a building that does not offer access through lifts or ramps.
However, the problem runs much deeper than just physical access. Many secondary schools do not have the specialist knowledge to help children with CP to integrate, and that problem is compounded by the nature of CP. During their adolescent years, young people with the condition can physically regress if they are unable to continue the programmes that help them to remap and maintain their neural pathways. Ensuring proper integration between schools—both primary and secondary—and specialist services can make a huge difference. We do not want the advances in independence that are made in early years to be eroded because insufficient thought has gone into the primary and secondary education of a child with CP.
In conclusion, I hope that I have set out where I believe the debate is at regarding support for children with CP, based on my experience with the Rainbow Centre and my participation with the parliamentary inquiry that is supported by Action Cerebral Palsy. As I said, that report will be published next month, and I hope that the Minister will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and me, as well as representatives of Action Cerebral Palsy, to discuss it and find a way ahead, so that the Government can help to implement its recommendations and we can improve the lives of children with CP and their families.
If I think back on the remarks I have made, I must admit that my views are perhaps coloured by my experience of meeting parents of children with CP. They have often had to fight hard to get the help their children deserve and that can enable their children to lead more independent lives than was perhaps imagined when their condition was first diagnosed. These are difficult battles to fight, so parents welcome the Government’s reforms, which should enable their children to get the early intervention they need. However, because parents are battle-hardened, they are also sceptical. They want an end to the adversarial approach to educating their children; early intervention in practice, and not just in theory; and consistency in the local offer, so that every child with CP has access to specialist education, regardless of who provides it and where they live. These parents have clearly set the bar for success, and it may be high in comparison with what they have experienced, but the Government need to prove to them that these reforms mean that they no longer have to fight for the right education and health support for children with cerebral palsy.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
As this is an Adjournment debate nominated by the Backbench Business Committee, we will hear from the hon. Gentleman again at the close of the debate, because he is entitled to two or three minutes in which to wind up; this is one of those occasions when the Minister will not have the last word.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Hollobone.
Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) on his role in securing this debate and on an excellent speech, which teased out some of the issues from the inquiry very well. I also congratulate his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who of course has cerebral palsy himself, and who was also instrumental in requesting this debate. However, due to his other responsibilities in this quaint place, he now finds himself unable to take part in this debate.
As we have heard, children who have cerebral palsy, as with many other conditions and disabilities, are often reliant on early identification and intervention to ensure that they make progress in both their physical capabilities and their educational progress. As I have said previously, Labour will support the Minister if he wants to work to persuade his colleagues at the Department of Health that we should make it mandatory for all children who experience complications around the time of their birth to undergo early screening by specialist paediatricians and other experts for conditions such as cerebral palsy. That would be a wonderful example of the children and families legislation being used to show that the Department of Health is fully on board.
As we have also heard, identification of children from nought to two is vital. Action Cerebral Palsy has pointed out that this is the time when the brain’s development is at its most active, and we are most likely to achieve success in retraining damaged areas. It is in this very early period that children have the greatest chance of learning and adapting. Without sufficient support in the period from nought to two—what the hon. Member for Fareham referred to as the “golden years”—children are unlikely to get the specialist intervention they need, and that can set them back right at the outset.
As the hon. Gentleman said, cerebral palsy is a broad term designed to cover a range of neurological conditions that affect movement and co-ordination, and it is caused largely, we believe, by damage sustained during or shortly after birth to the part of the brain responsible for controlling muscle movement. I am told that three in every 1,000 babies are born with cerebral palsy, making it the most common motor disability in childhood. Estimates suggest there may be around 110,000 people in the UK living with the condition.
There seems to be a slightly greater likelihood of the condition affecting boys rather than girls, although as far as I am aware there is as yet no scientific explanation for this. The condition is not hereditary or genetic. Serious infections, extreme nutritional deficits in the mother’s diet or unexplained foetal complications are thought to be major factors, as we heard earlier, as is brain damage resulting from lack of oxygen during foetal development or during labour and delivery. About one in three children with the condition are unable to walk; one in four are unable to feed or dress themselves; three in 10 may also suffer from severe learning difficulties; and one in four may experience epileptic seizures. However, life expectancy is good for children who survive until at least the age of 10.
As with many other conditions, parents and support groups for those with cerebral palsy report a lack of awareness on the part of health professionals, teachers, educators and other local authority professionals they have to deal with, and they regard this as an impediment to progress for their children with cerebral palsy. In severe cases, children will need full support and therapeutic input, specialist schools and specialist equipment, but for a great many a supportive and assistive environment in a mainstream school can easily be the best option.
Since the introduction of the Children and Families Act 2014, an education health and care plan—previously, an SEN statement—may be needed to ensure that a child with cerebral palsy receives appropriate support and education, but that is not so in all circumstances. One of the greatest problems when it comes to good choices and appropriate education appears to emerge in respect of children with mild forms of the condition. This is about joined-up services, and the professionals and agencies actually listening to parents and providing appropriate assistance—all factors that the Children and Families Act was designed to address; all factors where the local offer will play a crucial role.
I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions about the local offer. I, too, am concerned about how well it will help to shape services across the country. It is for that reason that my party has concluded that the local offer needs to be subject to an annual assessment that takes account of the experience of parents and supporting organisations, so that we know what is happening out there, we can identify progressive and innovative developments and the local authorities and geographic areas that are really working in the spirit of the legislation, and we can recognise what is simply not good enough. Surely that is the best way to drive up good practice and make clear what we are not willing to accept.
A criticism I hear repeatedly of existing models is that there appears to be an over-emphasis on equipment-based interventions—perhaps a throwback to a bygone age—rather than hands-on, active, sensory, motor learning for children, as well as the accompanying training for parents and practitioners. When it comes to high-needs funding, there is insufficient evidence of a child-centred approach at this early stage. There tends to be a focus on equipment funding or support workers and ancillary development, rather than a child-centred approach. That strikes me as contrary to the spirit of the legislation that the Minister is responsible for.
At present, we do not seem to have the right balance in sharing the skills that are available, so that the expertise in specialist centres, voluntary organisations, support groups, charities and independent bodies is utilised properly to help to build knowledge, skills and training in the mainstream schools and nurseries that children with cerebral palsy attend. I am keen to see access to specialist provision and expertise in cerebral palsy made available as soon as concerns are raised about a child’s development. We need to ensure that every child who is capable of benefiting from such an approach has access to educational programmes that address movement skills as education, rather than therapy.
That was what the hon. Gentleman was referring to when he talked about his experience of conductive education through the Rainbow Centre in his constituency. The National Institute of Conductive Education, which is based just down the road from my constituency in Birmingham, has pioneered similar approaches. This education should be available to all children with sensory motor disorders. Clinical and education staff, including special educational needs co-ordinators, must receive both initial and ongoing training as part of their continuous development, so that they become fully acquainted with best practice in this area.
Many years ago, Baroness Warnock advocated a policy of inclusion for children with SEN; and, on the strength of her report, many special schools were closed. However, in 2005 the Baroness admitted that the policy had gone too far, leaving a disastrous legacy. Inclusion is fine where it works, but it does not work for everyone. Elsewhere, I have spoken of Labour’s desire to see a network of hub-and-spoke models—I do not think the Minister and I are that far apart on this—so that specialist centres develop skills, expertise and training, and share these with local schools and nurseries in their locality. Surely that is the answer to the inclusion debate: not one or the other, but what is appropriate for the individual and one supporting the other.
Like many of the other high hopes contained in the Children and Families Act, a key aspect of improving the lot of children with cerebral palsy is good joint commissioning and a constant dialogue with parents to help them to shape future provision, as well as to agree on what is best for their child. I read in a briefing from Action Cerebral Palsy—the hon. Member for Fareham alluded to this—that the
“negativity about the potential of the Children’s and Families Act reform is the legacy of an adversarial SEN system, where the parents and practitioner involved have been left battle-weary and sceptical that change may be achieved.”
I recognise that sense of frustration and exhaustion, and that cynicism. I, too, have met too many parents who have had exactly that experience.
I want to make it clear that the Minister and I have in common a desire to change that history—that inevitability—about being the parent of a child with special needs. The Minister’s legislation offers a way forward, and I will work with him to ensure that the implementation translates into action and not just nice words. We have to take the opportunity and make it clear to parents that we recognise their struggle and that the purpose of the legislation is to try to change things. It is not right that they should feel exhausted by the constant battle to achieve the support and services that their children deserve as of right.
I have said this to the Minister before, but we need to consider how best to review regularly the SEN code of practice, because it will play a vital role in how well the legislation is implemented. I want to see authorities and other agencies treating children and their parents as the legislation intends. That approach should be accompanied by a small implementation team at the Department for Education. That is the only way to ensure that the aspirations of the legislation are translated into action and that the sense of negativity that Action Cerebral Palsy describes is confronted.
We need to be confident that schools are developing communication systems that at the very least ensure home-school liaison books or phone texting or e-mail systems, so that information is regularly exchanged and acted upon. Where more than one service is involved, there should be regular “Team around the child” meetings, so that all those involved work together in the best interests of the child.
Fatigue can be a factor in many disability conditions, including cerebral palsy, and parents need confidence that the school is capable of constructing the right rest/exercise balance to ensure that the child is making progress, but not being pushed beyond what is appropriate. Schools should focus on those things. Many children with cerebral palsy also suffer from memory difficulties, which puts an emphasis on well-planned lessons with knowledge in advance, so that the parent and child know what is happening in the coming year, months, weeks and days. They can then prepare and make the most of their educational opportunities. The hon. Member for Fareham referred to transition periods being essential. Whether it be into secondary school or the various other transitions, it is vital that children make a proper transfer from one setting to another and that it does not happen haphazardly. Children with cerebral palsy, like many other children with disabilities, rely on their family and a network of support, and it is vital that that is kept intact during any transition planning.
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor made reference to a number of initiatives designed to improve the law, but I noticed that there was not any specific reference to this area. Since we are so close to Christmas, is the Minister in a position to tell us whether there are any surprise presents for those with cerebral palsy? Can he bring to bear any new money in this matter? To be clear, this is not solely a money issue; it is much more about how well services work together. I am conscious of the enormous pressure on local authorities. Making progress on early identification and the better use of available services and having a local offer that is fair to everyone and a properly implemented code of practice is not resource-free. I am curious to know how the Minister will check that local authorities and other agencies have sufficient resources to accomplish the things he has said he wants to achieve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also good to know that I will not have the last word, which I am sure is a relief to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) on securing this debate by proxy, if that is the right way to put it. Most importantly, he has brought to the attention of the House support for children with cerebral palsy, borne from his experience of going to the Rainbow Centre in Fareham, of which he is clearly a vocal and passionate champion. He was instrumental, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), in establishing the recent parliamentary inquiry into cerebral palsy, to which officials from the Department for Education and the Department of Health gave evidence. We look forward to seeing the final report in the new year.
At this juncture, I will say a little more about the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. First, having led the debate in the House for many years on how we better support children and young people with cerebral palsy with such expertise, candour and aplomb, he has, through being too good at that role, been recognised for his efforts, as well as his wider knowledge and skills. He now sits behind me as a valued Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Education. He is therefore unable to speak in the debate, although I know he is champing at the bit to do so. Secondly, and more importantly, it is only thanks to his tenacity, passion and leadership that we are having the debate at all. I put on record my own appreciation, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and many others in Blackpool and beyond, for his continued efforts in raising awareness of cerebral palsy and challenging us all to think hard about what more we can do to support children and families living with CP.
The Government’s ambitions for disabled children and those with SEN, including those with cerebral palsy, are the same as for all other children: for them to achieve well in their early years, in school and in college; to find employment; to lead happy and fulfilled lives; and to have more choice and control over how they are supported. The reforms introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014, which came into effect in September, should work to the benefit of all children and young people, regardless of their type of need or impairment. We want to ensure that the reforms work well for all children and young people with cerebral palsy. We are keen to build our understanding of the evidence on what works, and we will be more than pleased to work with many of the excellent organisations out there with expertise in the area, including Action CP. Our national voluntary and community sector grants programme is another opportunity for us to support good proposals, including on early intervention and identification. I know that Action CP has submitted such proposals to us in its bid through that programme.
Our special educational needs reforms and early years policies are designed to improve how we identify and support children and young people with special educational needs. Getting the right start in life is so important for all children, but particularly for those who are disabled or have SEN. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham is absolutely right that early identification and intervention for children with cerebral palsy is crucial if we are to put in place the right support at the earliest possible opportunity to help mitigate its physical, emotional and educational impact and ensure that we allow them to reach their potential.
A number of measures are in place to identify children’s needs as early as possible, including those with cerebral palsy. The key principle is that assessments have to be focused on the needs of the individual child and their particular circumstances. When they are between two and three years old, all children are offered a healthy child programme review, which is carried out by a health professional. That is a snapshot assessment on a given day looking at health and development outcomes. Where the child is in registered early years provision, the education practitioner, who is usually the child’s key worker, must carry out a progress check when a child is aged between two and three, and provide parents and/or carers with a short written summary of the child’s development in prime areas. I am also conscious that the golden years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham puts it, fall before the age of two. We must carefully consider what more we can do to establish as early as possible whether cerebral palsy is playing a part in a young baby or toddler’s life and to put in place support that will have a discernable, positive effect on their future development.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned some of the specific screening protocols for children who experience complications at birth, and I will pass on his views to my colleagues in the Department of Health. Decisions about conducting specific early screening protocols for conditions such as cerebral palsy are quite rightly made by specialist clinicians. Diagnosing cerebral palsy often takes time and no test confirms it or rules it out. In some cases when a baby requires special care in hospital after being born, it may be possible for a confident diagnosis to be made relatively quickly, which is good in order to ensure a quick response. In many cases, however, a clear diagnosis is possible only after a few months or years of screening. For those with milder symptoms, a diagnosis may not be rendered until the brain is fully developed at three to five years of age.
Under the healthy child programme, babies undergo screening, health checks or immunisations at birth, 72 hours, five to eight days, six to eight weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks, six to eight months, 12 months, two and a half years and at school entry. Each of those routine contacts with a health professional enables parents to discuss any concerns. They can then contact their health visitor or GP at any time should they have such a concern about their child’s development. As technology and science advance, we want to continue to push the boundaries of what is possible to ensure that we get that confident diagnosis at the earliest possible time. I am happy to work with my colleagues in the Department of Health to establish whether the national health service is doing all that is possible.
If significant concerns emerge or if a special educational need or disability is identified, practitioners should develop a targeted plan to support the child’s future learning and development, involving other professionals as appropriate. In doing so, to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and reinforced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, it is right that as much understanding as possible is in place as to what learning is and how it can manifest itself in each individual child’s circumstances, so that no opportunity is lost to develop every aspect of their potential.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham set out, the first few years of a child’s life are fundamentally important. They shape their future development and influence how well they do at school, their health and well-being and their achievements later in life. We fully recognise that, which is why, since September 2010, every three and four-year-old has been entitled to 570 hours a year of Government-funded early education over no fewer than 38 weeks of the year. Since September 2013, the most disadvantaged two-year-olds across England have been able to access a funded early learning place. By May 2014, more than 116,000 two-year-olds were already benefiting from early learning. That number has continued to grow since September 2014, when the number of children entitled to a place doubled to some 260,000.
Through the early years foundation stage, we seek to ensure quality and consistency in all early years settings, so that every child makes good progress, that no child gets left behind and that learning and development opportunities are planned around each child’s needs and interests. That is also at the heart of the reforms in moving towards to a birth to 25 single plan and assessment system to ensure consistency of approach from all professionals who come into contact with a child throughout their education. The EYFS currently calls for integrated working between health and education practitioners to assess a child’s development and needs at age two where possible, which is particularly important for children with cerebral palsy. We have asked for integrated reviews to be offered as standard practice from September 2015.
As ever, there are some excellent examples of effective integration of education, health and care services. I can point to ones in Cornwall and Wolverhampton that we have discovered through engagement with the relevant authorities, but we need to ensure a consistent approach to integrated working across health and education not only through legislation, but in practice on the ground. To follow that through, Ofsted will look for evidence of integrated working in all settings, from early years through to the compulsory school age, to seek assurances that early years providers and others are assessing children’s progress and needs appropriately and are doing all that they can to support each child’s development towards being ready for school and beyond.
A more holistic picture of a child’s needs is more likely to lead to the child getting the help that they need through early intervention. Supporting more timely and more accurate early intervention might be more effective, could lead to longer-term savings and could improve children’s life chances, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is why, for children of school age and beyond, we have ensured that the new special educational needs code of practice gives clear advice on identifying needs and providing support, based on effective practice from successful schools, including those in the achievement for all programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham welcomed the emphasis that the reforms rightly place on educational and life outcomes, both in early years settings, schools and colleges, and, for those with more complex needs, through co-ordinated assessment and a single education, health and care plan. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak reminded us, health bodies and local authorities now jointly plan and commission services for disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs. I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Department of Health throughout the development and implementation of the reforms, and will continue to do so, to ensure that health is an integral part of the drive to improve outcomes for children and young people, but where we could and should go further, we will look to do that. I had an extremely productive meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), and we have a clear and joint commitment to ensure that the work being done throughout the national health service to implement the reforms is as much a priority in the NHS as it is in education and social care agencies.
Better information for parents and young people has been a theme throughout the development of the reforms. There should also be an opportunity for them to feed back, so that improvements can be made that reflect their observations of where services may be falling short. Through the local offer, parents will know what they can reasonably expect their local early years provision, school, college, local authority and local services to provide without having to battle for the information, which was so disparately spread in the past. From his observations about the Rainbow Centre in his constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham made the point well that the local offer in his local authority area makes it clear that the centre is available to parents, but that that is not reflected in the surrounding local authorities, which do not necessarily see it as a part of their own offer.
We made it clear throughout the passage of the legislation—I am happy to reiterate it now—that a local offer is not confined to services within a local authority area, in particular when it relates to specialist services. We tend to operate within what many would see as artificial boundaries, but many parents need to look beyond their local authority to find the service that best meets their children’s needs. Local authorities should therefore be thinking long and hard about services not only within their own local authority, but in surrounding areas, so that the local offer genuinely reflects what they would reasonably expect to be made available to parents for all conditions and for all children who have special educational needs and disabilities. Local authorities must consult parents of children with SEN and disabilities, and children and young people themselves, when developing and reviewing their local offer and must publish the action that they will take in response to comments about it. That will help to ensure that local services are responsive to local needs and will make it even more important that the offer reflects what parents say is required.
Mr Hoban
I appreciate that I will have a second bite of the cherry in a minute, but I just want to press the Minister on this point about what the local offer includes. He rightly places emphasis on consulting parents, but if the parents do not know that there is a specialist centre in the next county, or the next city in the case of Birmingham, they will not know how to feed that back. What steps will the Department take, either directly or through Ofsted, to monitor the composition of local offers?
Mr Timpson
I was going to come on to the issue of accountability, but will bring it forward in my contribution as my hon. Friend has raised it. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak also made the point about how to ensure that implementation is taking place on the ground. A real difference for families would be if they had a different experience and a more coherent and cohesive response from each agency, involving them more in the process. That involves ensuring that the local offer sets out clearly for parents what the local authorities expect to make available. The regulations that underpin the Children and Families Act—not only the code of practice, but other delegated legislation—make it clear what local authorities should be doing to achieve just that.
In the early stages of implementation, we brought a network of SEN advisers into the Department to work with us, and they are out in the field the whole time, establishing with all 150-plus local authorities that they have complied with the legal requirements of the Act in the publication of the local offer—every single local authority has a published local offer—and that the offer reflects the spirit of the reforms. The SEN advisers have been working in the system for many years—they were hand-picked for that reason—and their knowledge means that they can establish where there is a shortfall in the local offer and in the information available.
Beyond the first year of implementation, we have been working closely with Ofsted. We have asked it to conduct a survey on local authority readiness for the reforms and whether there is a need for an inspection framework, so that parents may have confidence that education, health and social care services are genuinely working together with parents, families and children at the earliest possible opportunity, involving them not only in the development of their own plan, for their own child, but in the wider strategic plan for provision in the local area.
We will announce soon how the accountability framework will be shaped in future, but the Christmas present that I can offer to parents and families at this time of year is that we are clear with Ofsted about the need for a clear level of accountability that does not involve a direct relationship with the Department, instead relying on a local approach to accountability, which will help to provide consistency throughout the country. I hope that that will be a welcome development for many parents who were anxious to know how we intend to ensure that the reforms that we have set out and our vision will be translated into action on the ground.
The need to raise awareness among professionals is a key aspect of our reforms, as is the sufficiency of education and health care specialists with the skills to support children, including those with cerebral palsy, a point made by both my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. Transition points can often be a stage in a child’s life where support can fall away, causing a period of uncertainty and or decisions to be delayed. That is the whole reason why we have moved towards a clear birth-to-25 system, for a much easier way to transcend movement through the education system that does not include different plans and different people, but gives parents and children consistency of support through what can be a difficult time.
The Government have established a clear, national statutory framework for identifying, assessing and providing for all children with SEN and disabilities. Detailed arrangements are, rightly, made locally, allowing local provision to be more responsive to local need, but the needs of children and young people with SEN vary greatly. Indeed, the needs of those with cerebral palsy can vary greatly, as we have heard, depending on the precise nature of the condition and other factors in their life. Education settings therefore need to ensure that they give their staff the training necessary to support the individual needs of the children and young people for whom they provide.
Early years providers, schools and colleges are responsible for deciding what specialist expertise is required to meet children and young people’s needs and for securing that expertise. That is explicit in the SEN code of practice. We have been at pains to drive the point home that it is the responsibility of all teachers within a school or an educational setting to have an understanding and awareness of special educational needs and disabilities, so that they can play their part and not see it simply as the role of the SEN co-ordinator or other specialists. Specialist organisations can play a key role in increasing awareness of particular disabilities. My Department has supported such organisations in the fields of autism, dyslexia, and speech, language and communication needs, which are the most prevalent types of SEN, to provide information, advice and support to schools, early years settings and local agencies.
The new SEN and disability code of practice makes it clear that local authority and health partners should ensure that a designated medical officer is in place to ensure that assessment planning and health support are carried out. I am interested in securing the further spread of DMOs. There are some excellent examples of where they are making a significant contribution, but there is still scope for them to become more embedded in more parts of the country. I will be looking at that closely in the coming weeks and months. The code recognises that the DMO role would usually be taken by a paediatrician. The person appointed should have appropriate expertise and links with other professionals. That helps to bind health in, not only with the clinical role of the DMOs but with the role that they can play within schools, so that there is a genuine partnership to ensure that assessment, planning, and implementation and review of the plan are done as a collective response to the child’s needs.
The Children and Families Act places the views, wishes, feelings and aspirations of children, parents and young people at the heart of the new system. That is what the Green Paper set out in 2011 and what we have seen through to the conclusion of the legislation. To make it happen we have an active young people’s national advisory group, EPIC, who have been involved in the development of the reforms from the start, and they are still with us. I meet the group regularly and I find their involvement hugely valuable. They share with me their real-life experiences, not only of the consequences when they get suitable, solid and constant support, but of when the system fails to deliver and the fallout that occurs. Such input has helped us to focus on the practical implications of our reforms and led to some important and significant changes. Several of the young people involved in the EPIC group have cerebral palsy and have proved to be some of our most articulate and persuasive ambassadors.
We are also doing a lot to improve advice and support for parents, including funding, through our reform partner, the Council for Disabled Children, and the recruitment and training of independent supporters in every local authority. When we asked parents what, under the old system, would make the biggest difference to them in battling it and in trying to get some of the basic provision necessary to getting on, they suggested independent supporters. Parents said that they would value some independent support from someone who was not from the local authority or the health service, but had expertise in SEN and disabilities, in particular in the areas most relevant to their own child. Independent supporters will provide advice and support for parents of children with SEN and for young people with SEN through the statutory assessment and the education, health and care plan—or EHCP—processes. Such supporters will help to build the resilience of families and to tailor support to their individual needs.
We are also providing funds for SEN and disability parent carer forums in each local authority. Forums play a central role in helping to shape local policies and provision and they have been effective in co-producing local authorities’ local offers. From their knowledge of the services available in the surrounding area, they have helped to draw out some of the gaps in some local authority offers. We wanted to continue supporting them in that, for the good reasons set out by my hon. Friend. I am sure that parents of children with cerebral palsy will want to be active in those forums, if they are not already, and I would certainly encourage their involvement.
The reforms we have set in train are still at the early stages of implementation. We have set out a transition of about three and a half years from the old system to the new. Throughout that period, however, our knowledge should not remain static, and we remain open to the suggestions, views and concerns of parents and those working in the SEN system to make sure that the work we are doing to bring about a change in culture across that system takes hold in the way we envisaged.
In that endeavour, the work my hon. Friend has undertaken in this parliamentary inquiry, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, who is ably assisting me this morning, is most welcome. I hope—indeed, I am sure—they will continue their work in their constituencies and in Parliament. I look forward to seeing their final recommendations in the inquiry’s report in the new year.
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friends and representatives from Action Cerebral Palsy to see what more we can do to support children with cerebral palsy and their families. There is growing awareness of the issue, but still far too little. Although we are all exercised by the many points that have been raised in the debate, it is incumbent on us all to make sure that understanding and awareness are much more widespread.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak for their helpful, insightful contributions. If there is anything I have not covered, I will, in the usual way, endeavour to write to them to provide them with further details. The debate has been helpful in setting out some of the challenges that still lie ahead and the progress that has been made, although we recognise that there is still work to do.
Mr Hoban
It is a surprise and a pleasure to be asked to wind up the debate; I was not quite prepared for that when I came here this morning. The contributions by my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) are welcome. Given the time we have had available, they extended beyond the normal 10 minutes, which was hugely helpful in exploring some of the issues that children with CP face.
Despite having been involved with the Rainbow Centre for 13 years, I have learned so much from taking part in the inquiry, and it is a real tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) that he led the process. The inquiry demonstrated some of the complexities and challenges involved in helping children with CP, and that came out of today’s contributions in different ways.
The Minister and the shadow Minister talked about the golden years, and integrating health and education is pivotal. We heard from witnesses about some of the challenges involved in identification. We can help to identify children at a much earlier age, but there are barriers to that, and the more we can do on early identification, the easier it is to make a difference to children’s lives. In terms of the inquiry, we will want to talk with not only my hon. Friend the Minister but the Department of Health about those early years to ensure the right processes are in place.
Two big points came out of the debate. One is about integration, not only of health and education, but of the state and the private sector, or the state and the voluntary sector and charities. How can we maximise the resources that are available? One thing that strikes me is that we are in danger of operating in silos, to the detriment of children with cerebral palsy. There are great specialist services out there that are accessible, particularly in the early years, and a lot of centres are registered with Ofsted, are respected and benefit from Government funding. However, as a child grows up, the services seem almost to be teased apart. It is harder for a child at primary school to have time in their curriculum to go to a specialist centre to continue an educational programme that helps them with their motor skills, and the pressures become greater as children progress through the education system.
The more ways we can find for specialist support and mainstream schools to work together, the greater the advantages for the children and for society as a whole. We therefore need to make sure integration works, and that we see that through as part of the Government’s reforms, and it is clear from listening to the Minister what emphasis he places on the importance of successful integration.
The second point is about accountability. Accountability is important, because it is where the system will stand or fall. I am not often critical of the Government; as the Minister knows, I am a loyal supporter. His intentions are fantastic, and I know how committed he is on this issue, but we need to make sure that his intentions are followed through on the ground, and that local authorities and local health services respond, following not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the reforms he has introduced. A lot of people will be looking carefully at the framework Ofsted will publish, to see how we can manage local accountability and national consistency. The framework should be a powerful tool to support parents, who, at the moment, feel they are working through an adversarial system.
The implementation of the reforms and the role of Ofsted are vital, but we must do everything we can to ensure proper integration between specialist services, education and health to improve the life chances of children born with cerebral palsy. There is much we need to learn about what causes cerebral palsy and about the best interventions, but I am confident that, by working together, we will improve the quality of children’s lives enormously, which will be a real testament to the success of the Government’s reforms.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank all Members who have taken part in this important debate.
General Dental Council
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to air my concerns—although, because of the time restrictions, only some of them—about the General Dental Council. I am particularly delighted to see the Health Minister who is responsible for, among other things, regulation. I fear that, due to a quirk in the law, he may not be able to help me too much today, but any general hints will be gratefully received.
I must commence with a small selection of declarations of interest. First, as a registered dentist, I am subject to the dental regulators. Like other dentists in my position, I pay their annual fees and I am subject to their regulation. Secondly, I have a link with Lockton, an insurance broker specialising in professional indemnity, including insurance, for a growing number of dentists. Thirdly, I chair the all-party group on dentistry. Finally, as one can imagine, because of all that, I am under considerable pressure from a number of dental groups, some of which I am a member of, numerous dentists—the e-mails flooded in when this debate was announced—and dentistry-related organisations that wish this debate to take place.
As the Minister is aware—although you may not be, Mr Hollobone—the two main regulators of registered dental practitioners are the Care Quality Commission and the General Dental Council. They serve slightly different functions, although there is a feeling among the profession that they overlap. Both are funded by fees paid by dental professionals.
Virtually every registered dental professional, along with their organisations and registered staff, accepts and believes—as do I—in the need for dental regulation. On arrival as inspector of dental surgery, the CQC, although initially feared, spent some time finding its way. Many practitioners may not agree, but my personal feeling is that the CQC has become progressively more proportionate and tends to encourage the raising of standards, rather than riding in on practices in a heavy-handed way. In comparison with the GDC, the annual fee that I paid to the CQC for the next financial year dropped by 20%.
Also in contrast to the CQC, the reputation of the GDC has drastically deteriorated among the profession over the last year or so. The situation was foreseen in 2009, when Rick Haythornewaite, the then highly respected chairman of the Risk and Regulatory Advisory Council, gave a lecture to the GDC entitled “A practical approach to risk for 21st century regulators”. It is worth quoting a fairly long paragraph from that speech:
“When regulators get it right the customer and the public enjoy the advantage of choice, feel the benefit of unseen protections; when they get it right these people who serve the customer and public, whether they be company employees or they be professional service providers such as yourselves or whoever else, feel motivated, they feel empowered to perform, to innovate, to adapt. When they get it wrong though, the customer and the public feel the straitjacket of unnecessary regulation, the weight of disproportionate interventions and the frustration of curtailed civil liberties.”
That last sentence should be printed in a large font, framed and placed on every wall in every room at the GDC.
The Professional Standards Authority regularly reviews the GDC. Its most recent report stated that the GDC failed to meet two out of five standards for registration and six or seven standards out of 10 for fitness to practise procedures. Although I have not delved deeply into this, it would appear that the report indicated that the independence of the GDC investigating committee was in danger of being compromised. If so, that could reflect both on public protection and on fair consideration for referred dental practitioners. Among the profession at least, and to some degree outside it, there is a feeling that the GDC is—to use a hackneyed phrase—not fit for purpose.
Concerns were bought to a head when on 30 June the GDC embarked on a consultation concerning the proposal to raise its annual retention fee by 64%—and this in an atmosphere throughout the nation of financial restraint, with enormous pressure by Government to restrain fee rises among public bodies and organisations. As someone with considerable interest in the efficiency of local authorities, so as to keep local taxes down—which, incidentally, most have managed to do in the current environment—I believe that any increase over 1% is irresponsible. The outcry among the profession was considerable, particularly as many registrants do not normally criticise the GDC because their vocational life or death depends on it. The vast majority of complainants asked the GDC to justify the increase, as did leading dental organisations, including the British Dental Association.
At the last minute, the GDC postponed its decision and announced that it had commissioned KPMG to prepare an independent and “full review” of the assumptions underlying the suggested fee increase in the consultation. On behalf of its members, the BDA sought sight of the instructions to KPMG and a list of documents provided for its assessment—not an unreasonable request, bearing in mind that the BDA represents dentists who have to pay the fee. They were not forthcoming and freedom of information requests were refused.
The BDA had definite suspicions that there was a paucity of clear figures and that misleading data had been included. It maintained that no clear business case had been made for any increase. It was not alone in those suspicions, which were later compounded when the KPMG report apparently—although I have not had access to it—assessed that many of the key assumptions contained
“high levels of estimation uncertainty”.
The Australians have a short, sharp phrase to cover that English expression. In the event, the GDC lowered the increase from 64% to 55%. The bill is sitting on my desk at the moment.
KPMG’s advice alone leads to questions about the original proposal and the thinking behind it. I understand that the main reason given by the GDC for the rise is that it is because of the substantial rise in patient complaints and the immense cost of fitness to practise investigations and procedures. To my horror, I discovered that many investigations take 18 months, leaving the patient and dentist hung out to dry for the whole period.
In case the public were unaware, the GDC took out a full-page advertisement in one of the national papers encouraging complaints—or, perhaps I should say, “advising patients how to complain”—to the GDC. From my years of experience in indemnity protection, I know that the first and most successful avenue of complaint from a patient is the dentist or dental professional. Most, if not all, dental and medical indemnity providers assist practitioners in resolving complaints. They are exceptionally competent at that, and resolution covers many of the complaints, which therefore do not need to progress to the GDC, unless it is encouraged. As any MP will understand from their experience of constituency complainants, dental professional complaints vary from the deeply serious to the vexatious and the frivolous.
Many years ago, when I used a purple-coloured impression material, one of my lady patients claimed the next morning that the whole of her mouth and lips had turned purple overnight. I immediately asked her to return to the surgery. Approximately an hour later, she telephoned to tell me that it had all gone away as she drove from the heights of Hampstead towards central London. She put it down to the change of air pressure as she came down from her elevated Hampstead home. Needless to say, on completion of her work and after submitting an account, she replied with a writ. With the assistance of my then indemnifying organisation, we arranged for a senior consultant to review her situation. The problem was resolved when the consultant referred her to Guy’s hospital for dental and psychiatric treatment. The bill remains unpaid.
The resolution approach is implicitly encouraged by the CQC, which requires practices to keep a complaints file setting out complaints and how they are dealt with by the practice. Complaints to the GDC about private dentistry go through a triage and resolution system. As a result, many do not progress further. In particular, they do not progress to fitness to practise hearings. However, it appears that national health service complaints to the GDC almost certainly plough straight into the full procedure, leading to fitness to practise hearings. For the patient and the practitioner, these are generally long, drawn out and draining. For the dentist and his or her indemnifier, the costs can be ghastly, adding to the professional’s fear and emotional trauma.
Particularly in these days of complicated dental procedures, I have severe doubts on occasions that the committee members, whether lay or professional, have sufficient knowledge to make a decision without help. That help is drawn by the GDC from experts—or, should I say, so-called experts. In a few cases, the so-called experts are making a career professional career out of producing condemnatory reports for the GDC.
One practitioner I know well, who has considerable postgraduate expertise combined with the appropriate degrees from that postgraduate work, was taken apart by a so-called expert who did not appear to have the appropriate degrees or experience. I looked at that expert’s website, which contained considerable references to the large numbers of reports that he undertook for the GDC. He appeared to be making a side career out of aggressive reports on behalf of the GDC against the professionals. After a protest to the GDC, it accepted a second expert report, which was dramatically different and was to the benefit of my colleague.
I accept that, at last, the GDC is taking, or seeking to take, steps to reduce costs. It claims that it needs legal changes to be able to use the same service for private dentists as it does for to the NHS. I find that a little wrong; nevertheless, the Government have accepted that to some degree and are introducing a section 60 order that will legalise that change. That does not seem to be reflected in the GDC estimate and predictions. It claims that the increase in complaints will require an additional £18 million.
My experience of cost-cutting in the public service tells me that some lateral thinking on expenditure, by looking at small as well as large costs for efficiency improvements, can be productive. On small costs, this example may not apply now, but a few years ago I helped to organise a reception for an international oral surgery cancer symposium. I was offered the opportunity to attend for free, but on looking at the agenda, I realised that, in spite of my not inconsiderable understanding of oral cancer, the proceedings were beyond my education. Imagine my surprise to hear that two or three lay members of the GDC were attending the two or three-day conference. The likelihood of their education on the microscopic structure of various oral cancers being of any use to their role on the GDC was, to say the least, remote. However, I assume that the GDC paid for their not inexpensive hotel rooms, plus travel and two or three meals a day, as well as the cost of attending the conference.
In a more substantial area, I understand—again I am a little cautious, because I may be wrong—that the GDC is undertaking a total review and refurbishment of its property. The funding for that, I understand, has come from balances rather than through a loan or mortgaging system, which would have spread the costs and allowed its balances to be used to buffer expenditure as new procedures and cost savings, which it claims to be looking for, were installed.
I am interested the GDC’s involvement in allowing—I use that word carefully—the Department of Health and the Minister to look at its finances, savings and its justification for the proposed increase in the annual retention fee. That interest extends to whether the legislation on health regulators, which has been drawn up for possible implementation after the election, will for the first time allow direct Government and ministerial influence on the GDC and, in particular, its fees. I fail to be convinced that it has really looked sufficiently at its costs and procedures in seeking savings. It appears to me that, under attack, the GDC has started to become reclusive and adopted a bunker mentality. I understand that hearings and council meetings are increasingly held in private, which is all the more alarming when its chairman, in delivering the annual Malcolm Pendlebury lecture, appeared to be seeking to expand its areas of operational interest.
Good professional dentistry and medicine is built on good relationships with patients and on trust and confidence between the professional and their patients. This has improved dramatically over the last few years. The GDC should have a role in that, but its image in the eyes of the profession—and, I believe, as consequence of its procedures, patients—has reached an all-time low. The dental profession’s trust in this regulator has gone. I suspect that the patients’ trust will follow in due course.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and a great pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I congratulate him on securing the debate and on bringing to bear his front-line experience of working as a dentist, both in this debate and more generally. He has shown his experience today in getting to the heart of some of the issues he raised, as he has done in many debates in the House on issues relating to health care.
The General Dental Council is an important part of the health care regulatory framework that ensures the fitness to practise of health care professionals and the safety of patients. It is right that we should debate the GDC’s performance, particularly in the light of a less than complementary performance review by the Professional Standards Authority, and given the major rise in the fee that dentists will be expected to pay to their regulator.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the General Dental Council is an independent statutory body that is directly accountable to Parliament. However, as he rightly highlighted, I have no legal basis to intervene in matters such as the level of the fee, which are deemed to be part of the body’s operational running. However, in my role as Minister, I have a keen interest in the performance of the professional regulators and have regular contact with them, including the GDC, on a whole range of issues.
The background to today’s debate is that the General Dental Council recently took the decision to increase the annual registration fee for dentists by 55%, from £576 to £890, which is a significant and unprecedented increase. All professional regulators, including the GDC, are aware of the Government’s position, as set out in our 2011 Command Paper, “Enabling Excellence: Autonomy and Accountability for Health and Social Care Staff”: we do not expect registration fees to increase unless there is a clear and strong case that the increase is essential to ensure the exercise of statutory duties.
While the General Dental Council has consulted its registrants on the proposed fee rise, I am aware of, and sympathetic to, a strong body of opinion among its registrants that they are yet to be presented with compelling evidence to justify such an unprecedented fee increase. The proposed fee is more than double the £390 that the General Medical Council requires licensed doctors to pay. That is why, when I met the GDC, I raised concerns about the fee increase and reconfirmed the Government’s position on the need for a strong and transparent case for any such increase.
I have also strongly suggested to the GDC that it considers a differential rate for newly qualified dentists. Newly qualified doctors are required to pay £185 for their registration with the GMC, while newly qualified dentists pay the same as established dentists. The GDC stated to me as justification for its fee rise that there has been a 110% increase in the number of complaints from patients, employers, other registrants and the police about the dental profession, and that the cost of handling such complaints has been the key driver of the increase. However, I have not been presented with what I consider to be compelling evidence that a fee rise of that magnitude is justified by a 110% increase in the number of complaints.
It is worth noting that other health care regulators, as my hon. Friend suggested, have experienced increases in complaints but have not felt compelled to raise their fees to the same extent. I therefore understand why the British Dental Association has chosen to test this decision and issued judicial review proceedings challenging the setting of the fee. The hearing is set to take place next week, so I am sure that hon. Members will understand that it is inappropriate for me to comment further on those proceedings.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing this debate. I have been written to by Derbyshire county local dental committee, which is concerned that the General Dental Council, under the leadership of its current chair, is investigating much more minor concerns than it did previously. That expansion in its role is one of the reasons why it is now asking dentists for more fees. Will the Minister let us know whether he thinks that the direction that the General Dental Council is taking is the wrong one, as my constituents clearly do?
Dr Poulter
As I said, under legislation, I am unfortunately powerless to intervene directly on fee setting. We recognise the independence of health care regulators and would not want them to be micro-managed by Government; that would be wrong. However, my view is very clearly, as I have outlined, that a strong evidence base is needed to justify a fee rise. Given that other health care regulators faced with similar challenges have not raised their fees to the same unprecedented degree, I have not myself been convinced that the evidence base is strong enough to justify this fee rise. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
In that context, it is worth drawing attention to the section 60 order currently in progress in the House, and to the consultation process that has been taking place. The fee rise is perhaps all the more surprising as we are making good progress with the GDC on bringing in the legislative changes that will reform the way that it operates. Those changes, in the form of a section 60 order, will assist with reducing its operational costs by an estimated £2 million a year through potential efficiency savings. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley made the point that all regulators need to look at better ways of working and efficiency savings in their own practice. Of course, that, as well as patient protection, is a benefit of introducing a section 60 order: it will help to reduce the running costs, potentially, of the GDC and streamline processes.
The public consultation on the GDC-related section 60 order recently closed, and the vast majority of respondents were supportive of the proposals. We therefore intend to proceed with the measures and will publish our response to the consultation in due course. My hon. Friend may be surprised to learn, as I was, that the GDC did not wait for the outcome of the section 60 order consultation before announcing the fee rise.
The changes proposed in the section 60 order will: enable the GDC to delegate the decision-making functions currently exercised by its investigating committee to officers of the GDC, known as case examiners; enable both case examiners and the investigating committee to address concerns about a registrant’s practice by agreeing undertakings with that registrant, which have the same effect as conditions on practice, without the need for a practice committee hearing; introduce a power to review cases closed following an investigation—rules to be made under that power will provide that a review can be undertaken by the registrar if she considers that the decision is materially flawed, or new information has come to light that might have altered the decision and a review is in the public interest—introduce a power to allow the registrar to decide that a complaint or information received did not amount to an allegation of impairment of fitness to practise; introduce a power to enable the investigating committee and the case examiners to review their determination to issue a warning; and ensure that registrants can be referred to the interim orders committee at any time during the fitness to practise process.
Very similar section 60 orders have been laid before Parliament in conjunction and consultation with other regulators, and a great benefit of those orders is that they are about not just protecting the public but supporting the regulators to have more streamlined processes and reducing costs. Of course, when costs are reduced, we would always expect the savings to be passed on to the people who pay the annual fee.
Sir Paul Beresford
Is there evidence that the other registering organisations have reduced their fees, or keep them down, in the light of the anticipated savings, which would be sensible?
Dr Poulter
If we look at similar organisations, we see that the GMC, for example, has similar practices and processes. The Nursing and Midwifery Council has a very small fee rise, but has seen a similar section 60 process take place. All those regulators, in my view, have taken every step possible to look at their annual fee in the context of the section 60 orders, and with the mindset that any fee rise needs to be fully evidence based and appropriately proportionate. From my conversations, and from the practice of other health care regulators, I think that there is very good evidence that that is a consistent pattern of behaviour. As I said, the GDC’s fee rise is unprecedentedly large, and its behaviour is not consistent or in keeping with that of any of the other health care regulators, from what I can see.
In addition to the GDC-related section 60 order, the Government are taking forward a number of key pieces of secondary legislation in this Parliament to address priority areas that we have identified after discussion with the regulatory bodies and other stakeholders; I mentioned other section 60 orders. We are also working on a response to the Law Commission’s valuable work on proposals for more wide-ranging reforms.
I am aware that the decision not to progress a professional regulation Bill in the current Session has come as a disappointment to interested parties. However, that decision provides an opportunity to invest time in ensuring that that important legislative change is got right, for the benefit of those who will ultimately be affected by it. My hon. Friend outlined very articulately some of the challenges that need to be considered in putting together the Bill. We are committed—I would like to put this on the record again—to bringing forward primary legislation to address wider reforms to the system of professional regulation when parliamentary time allows, but in the meantime, working with the regulators, we have put in place, or have in train, a number of section 60 orders. They are about streamlining processes, providing efficiencies to the regulators and, most important of all, protecting patients and the public.
Let me say a quick word about the GDC’s general performance. It is very important that the GDC manages its rising volumes of complaints as well as the other issues raised by the Professional Standards Authority as part of its annual performance review. In due course, the GDC will need to demonstrate what it has done to address the recommendations made.
Hon. Members may be aware that the Professional Standards Authority is also conducting an investigation of the GDC after claims were made by a whistleblower about the management and support processes of the GDC’s investigating committee. I understand that the Professional Standards Authority has concluded the evidence-gathering phase of the investigation, is in the process of compiling the investigation report, and will provide that report to the Select Committee on Health and publish it on its website in due course.
I have outlined a number of issues and concerns about the unprecedentedly high rise in the GDC fee. As we have discussed, it is out of keeping and inconsistent with the behaviour of many other health care regulators. I am not convinced, from the evidence that I have been presented with, that there is a strongly evidenced case to support that fee rise, and it goes against Government policy, which is to encourage regulators to set appropriate and proportionate fee rises, to show restraint where appropriate and to be mindful of the effects of fees on registrants.
I want to make it clear, in drawing to a conclusion, that I am not raising any doubt about the fact that the GDC continues to fulfil its statutory duties. However, it will need to make significant improvements to meet the challenges set out in the annual performance review undertaken by the Professional Standards Authority. Registrants, patients and the public need to be able to have confidence in the performance of the GDC and to see improvements in its operation, effectiveness and efficiency. I hope that I have answered all the points raised in the debate, and I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley for raising a very important issue that I am sure is filling many MPs’ postbags.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate.
Anti-Semitism
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
It gives me no pleasure whatever to introduce this short debate on anti-Semitism. The whole aim of the all-party group against anti-Semitism is eventually to be able to remove ourselves from the political agenda because there is no need for us, but I fear that none of us in this room will have the pleasure of seeing such a day.
Things have not improved over the past year. During the summer of 2014, the significant escalation of violence in the middle east provoked a major increase in anti-Semitic attacks in the UK and across the world. Anti-Semitic incidents reached record levels in July, when the Community Security Trust recorded the highest ever monthly total of such incidents in the UK. The trust has been keeping records since 1984, and over the past two years it has exchanged data with various police forces to improve respective accuracy. In July, 302 incidents were recorded, which represents an increase of more than 400% from the 59 incidents that were recorded in July 2013. By comparison, 304 incidents were recorded in the first six months of 2014. Before July, the highest ever monthly total had been for January 2009, which also coincided with a period of conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Of the 302 recorded incidents, 51% involved direct reference to the ongoing conflict. All incidents require the recording of evidence of anti-Semitic language, targeting or motivation alongside any anti-Israel sentiments. Of the anti-Semitic incidents recorded in July, 101 involved the use of language or imagery relating to the holocaust, and 25 of those showed evidence of far-right political motivation or beliefs. Most commonly, references to Hitler or the holocaust were used to taunt or offend Jews, often in relation to events in Israel and Gaza. Of the 302 incidents, 25% took place on social media.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this much needed debate. Does he agree that the real number of incidents is far greater even than the terrible figures that he is reading out, because many people do not report them out of fear? I report such things, and only the other week I received a phone call in which I was called a dirty Jew and told that I should be stoned to death.
John Mann
Without question, the recorded number of incidents is a significant underestimate. It is valuable in itself and as a benchmark for comparing trends, because the basis of recording by the CST is without question the world best. It is renowned across the world for being so. Trends can be easily identified from those figures, and the trend this year has been a huge increase. That is why I applied for this debate.
I will give hon. Members some examples of what I am talking about. On a march through central London, demonstrators verbally abused a Jewish woman who was with her two children, telling them to “burn in hell.” The reality for British Jews is that most are Zionist, with various levels of emotional and familial attachment to Israel, so the communal concern about Israel and conflict-associated anti-Semitism is significant. Of course, supporting the Palestinian cause is not anti-Semitic, but when someone shouts “Child murderer” at a British Jew, or daubs that on a synagogue, that is anti-Semitism.
Open anti-Semitism is rare in mainstream politics and media, but hateful expressions and ideas that would not be publicly directed against Jews are now publicly directed against Zionists. Zionists are depicted in the same way as Jews are by the anti-Semites: malevolent, all-powerful, all-controlling, covert and inauthentic. Hate speech against Zionists leads to the demonisation and hatred of all suspected Zionists—in other words, Jews. That may not be intentionally anti-Semitic from a perpetrator’s perspective, but it has a negative impact on most British Jews. The same is true when Members of this House speak in such a way. They are not simply being irresponsible; they are being potentially dangerous.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I agree with the chair of the all-party group on anti-Semitism, of which I am a member, on the need for proper care in relation to the words that we use. It is possible to foment anti-Semitic thoughts and actions, particularly when people talk about Zionism and a financial lobby. Does that not raise concerns about going down the path of anti-Semitism?
John Mann
The hon. Gentleman is active in the work of the all-party group and in Parliament, and he is absolutely right. It is easy to see where the dividing line is and what is inappropriate. One of our big successes in recent years is that each political party in the House has been prepared to deal with issues involving its own Members. That approach, if it can be maintained, is precisely the way in which such things are most effectively challenged. In other words, it is important not to make offensive remarks—whether they are made out of deliberate prejudice or ignorance—into issues of party political point scoring, but to get each party to sort its own house out.
That is easy to say, but I think we underestimate the power of that model and the power of the cross-party consensus that we have built in this House. Let me and my party deal with those who are anti-Semitic or who ignorantly cross the threshold in what they say, do or write, and let the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party and other parties in the House do the same. That is an effective way of taking a lead in tackling anti-Semitism. I would call it the British model, in the sense that others across the world are increasingly convinced that that is how anti-Semitism should be dealt with at high levels in Parliament and Government.
The Minister will know well of the all-party group’s inquiry into anti-Semitism in the UK in 2005-06, which made 35 recommendations for Government, Parliament and civil society. I am pleased to report that, in my judgment, we have worked successfully with the Government, Ministers and other partners to implement the inquiry recommendations and to go beyond them.
Our successes have included the establishment of a unique Whitehall Government working group on anti-Semitism; an agreement for all police forces to record anti-Semitic hate crimes; the publication by the police of the first official anti-Semitic hate crime statistics; a funding agreement for the security needs of Jewish faith schools in the state system; a Crown Prosecution Service review and action plan; the creation of a Government-backed school-linking programme; research into modern discursive anti-Semitism funded by the Government; the appointment of a UK envoy for post-holocaust issues; two ministerial conferences and international action plans on internet hate, and I believe that there will be another one in the near future; the highly effective international replication of the all-party group inquiry model in countries such as Germany and Canada; a full inquiry into electoral conduct and resultant action from key agencies; and work with Government that has led, among other successes, to the publication of a guide by the Society of Editors to editing online newspaper comment boards. Those successes are significant, but they leave no room for complacency, not least because of the increase this year in the scourge of anti-Semitism.
In September, I instigated a parliamentary report on anti-Semitism emanating from the conflict in the middle east, with a number of events across the country to meet Jewish communities and better understand their anguish. There is a further such event this Thursday in Manchester. Evidence has been submitted by individuals, organisations, the police, Government bodies and others, and MPs have visited France, Germany, Holland and Ireland to undertake comparative analyses. We intend to launch the report in the new year with an event at Lambeth palace, courtesy of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which in itself is significant in crossing faiths to stand up to anti-Semitism. I congratulate the Church of England on its openness to such work, including with our group.
The recommendations are the most important issues emanating from the report, and I want to be sure that they will be carefully considered by Ministers and referred to the cross-Government working group on anti-Semitism for action. I would like a commitment from all parties that, whoever wins the next election, in whatever combination, the next Government will work on anti-Semitism throughout the next Parliament, because the problem is not going away.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to his great work in this field. I was recently privileged to join him on the visit over the Irish sea. I sincerely hope that the next Government is a Conservative Government, but he says that, if there is a Labour Government, he would work towards that goal. Does he not agree that it is very disappointing that, apart from the shadow Minister and himself, no other Labour Member is in attendance today?
John Mann
Members from all parties have been involved in our work, which is fundamental. In this House we must not fall into the trap, as some European countries have, where anti-Semitism becomes an issue of political ding-dong across Chambers. The fundamental strength of the British parliamentary model is that we have invested huge amounts of effort to ensure that hon. Members from both sides are involved. The evidence for that strength is that, when there was a change of Government, and when there have been ministerial changes, the work has continued, irrespective of the Minister. Thankfully, every Minister we have had has been very positively engaged, I am confident that, whoever is appointed Minister by whoever is Prime Minister in 2015, this work will continue in the same way. There is virtually no other issue in Parliament that can have that guarantee, which is the strength of what I call the British model.
Other countries are now attempting to emulate the British model, which is entirely counterintuitive to normal political cultures. In a sense, because we have done it so effectively for so long in this country, we have become not blasé, but used to it. We have heard about the difficulties in reaching such consensus in, for example, Germany because it runs counter to the culture in which politics takes place. Despite the shared ownership and responsibility for addressing anti-Semitism in Germany, they cite the British example of how to get that momentum. That is powerful because, as well as sending a message to the Jewish community and to institutions in civil society, it sends a message to civil servants. They have been doing their job in this area very well, and the message it sends is that that momentum will be there. Woe betide the Minister who tries to row back and slow down, whatever party they are from, because there will be enough people from their own party going straight in to see them.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I join my colleagues in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is right about the consensus that we have proudly built in Britain on addressing this issue. A few years back I was fortunate to take a group of sixth-formers from my constituency to Auschwitz. My son went only last year, and he was very moved by the whole experience, but he highlighted one thing that I want to address today—perhaps the Minister will address this in his closing remarks, too. My son expressed particular concern about his fellow sixth-formers’ lack of knowledge about the holocaust and lack of historical perspective. The message from history is always that we should learn the lessons of history, which are always pertinent and salient to our modern-day political discourse.
John Mann
One of the report’s conclusions may well be that educational methods and lessons from abroad on how to teach such issues could inform the Government. I am sure the Minister and his ministerial colleagues will consider the report in detail, but there is some important evidence on how we can do more, and do things more effectively, in the curriculum. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) is absolutely right.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
On this issue at least, I hope I can call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend. Good work is being done across the parties. When he and I visited Germany it was clear that, despite there being a strong commitment across political parties to protect the Jewish community, that in itself has become a source of competition. We are always tempted either to point the finger at other people’s bad behaviour or to be boastful of our own good behaviour, whereas, in the political context here, it must be right for us to have some humility about our failures and some pride in our successes.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I ask that interventions be brief. They are becoming quite long, and those intervening are not on the list of speakers. I do not wish to take time from those who do wish to make a speech.
John Mann
Thank you, Mrs Main. I agree with the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) that the question of behaviour is fundamental. In a minute, I will say a word on electoral conduct, on which he has made a huge effort on behalf of Parliament.
We anticipated that the fourth Government report on anti-Semitism would be tabled this morning, and I hope there are no political reasons for any delay, which really would be a shift in approach. Will the Minister confirm that, as before, it will be a governmental report, rather than a departmental report, and that the Government will not downgrade it from previous publications, which have been formal Command Papers? That is rather important.
Many civil servants have been involved, but I pay particular tribute to Sally Sealey and Paul Giannasi, who have been the two most integrally involved. They are a huge inspiration to parliamentarians and those in civil society who are combating anti-Semitism. I also thank the staff of the all-party group, whom all Members in attendance know well: Danny Stone is the director; Jardena Lande does the international work; and Amy Wagner does the research. They have put in huge amounts of work and all too often do not get the credit and accolades for their work that we politicians get—the record should be put right on that.
Before I finish, I will say a word on social media and electoral conduct. We have ongoing problems with social media, and I will not go through the debate I had on that in the main Chamber a month or two back. Suffice it to say that the problems of anti-Semitism and other hate speech on social media are not going away. Some perpetrators remain active. The one who was arrested for abusing me is currently abusing various Christian groups and organisations. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service, who have powers, need to issue what I call a Twitter or Facebook antisocial behaviour order to ban such people from the particular medium by which they are criminally abusing, bullying and intimidating people.
Frankly, it is water off a duck’s back when I receive abuse, even though it is inappropriate and offensive, but it must be incredibly intimidating for people involved in, say, running a Christian charity to receive anonymous or pseudonymous abuse. For a member of the Jewish community to receive such vile abuse is, again, a different proposition. I am not suggesting that abusing Members of Parliament is acceptable—it absolutely is not, and what was said about my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) was horrendous—but many people out there are less able to defend themselves.
We need some powers. I do not think that the law needs changing: I think that it needs using inventively. I call on the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to use the internet equivalent of an ASBO to target some of these people and close them down. It is not free speech; it is criminal abuse. The sanction would be a criminal sanction agreed by a magistrate or judge and jury, so by definition, stopping such abusers would not be closing down free speech but protecting it.
There is much more that I could say, but a word needs to be said on electoral conduct. We held a cross-party inquiry into electoral conduct, led by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), which I was pleased to see praised publicly by Mr Speaker and many senior party representatives and stakeholders. We found in the inquiry that although there was sufficient legal provision to address incidents of racism and discrimination in UK elections, the law is underused and misunderstood. We recommended that some of the language of electoral law needed to be updated. The Law Commission, which has undertaken a consultation on such change, wrote to tell us that our recommendations would help in its design.
We also found that the role played by the former Commission for Racial Equality in providing guidance and demystifying the law had been helpful. Its successor, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, dropped the mantle but has since picked it up again to a certain extent. In a response to a debate called by Lord Alderdice, a Minister said:
“The EHRC is now looking at how best to update its guidance on elections for local authorities and other organisations for use in 2015.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 December 2014; Vol. 757, c. 1195.]
Although that is not a cast-iron guarantee, I take it and a subsequent ministerial letter to mean that the EHRC will be doing that work. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that, but if so, it is to be welcomed, and those who participated in the inquiry need the House’s congratulations. If the Minister cannot comment now, it would be useful if he could confer with colleagues and confirm later that the EHRC will do as I believe it is doing.
The electoral conduct inquiry also addressed concerns about discrimination in the media, having heard evidence on homophobia, racism and anti-Semitism. It is relevant to anti-Semitism and all other forms of discrimination. We have written to the secretary of the editors’ code committee of the new Independent Press Standards Organisation. I wish to make it clear to that organisation that we believe that attempts to secure a sensible balance between the defence of freedom of expression and protection from discrimination should be possible, and that we expect it to engage constructively with us before the election on that matter, which was raised as a point of concern by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the CRE before it was raised by us.
I end by making the same point to the internet companies that I made a few weeks ago: we expect them to step up to the mark and not to allow anti-Semitic abuse via their platforms. It is demeaning of their good name that they allow it to happen. Twitter in particular has been extraordinarily hopeless at dealing with abuse, and its brand name is being dragged into the mire by its continuing failure to do so. It is possible. Twitter could assist law enforcement in this country if it got its act together, which it has not done, and we in this House should continue to highlight its failures until it not only comes to the table but acts up to the mark and shows that it is properly part of civil society.
Finally, on behalf of all those who have been active over the last year, I thank colleagues across the House for how they have engaged. I thank the Jewish community organisations with which we worked so closely and the Jewish community leaders Sir Trevor Chinn, Stephen Rubin, Trevor Pears, Gerald Ronson, the Chief Rabbi and others with whom we have worked so effectively in partnership. I am sure that the message from this debate will be that we will continue to do so regardless of our personal choice of who should be in government. Whether any of us are in government or opposition, the all-party group will continue to work on a cross-party basis to deal with anti-Semitism and take the lead that we are elected to take in dealing with such curses.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), whom I congratulate on securing this unfortunately necessary debate. The work done by him and the all-party group is a statement of what this House can achieve when we work on a cross-party basis. I was privileged to be part of a small delegation on this issue that visited the Netherlands recently.
I will touch on a few issues that I think should be mentioned in a debate of this nature. We should certainly highlight the concerns relating to the upsurge in anti-Semitic incidents reported by the Community Security Trust. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw was right to identify the attacks on figures in public life, and we should discuss that as well. It is also important for us in public life to be careful about equating the Jewish people with the Israeli state. We must highlight the potential for that equation—often made in a lazy manner by people protesting things in the middle east that they disagree with—to give rise to anti-Semitic comments. That is not necessarily what is intended by those individuals, who are not thinking carefully about what they are doing, but I argue that equating Jewish people with the Israeli state in that manner does not contribute to a healthy public debate.
We must also mention some of the people who campaign for boycotting and divestment from Israel. Again, some of that rhetoric can result in the expression of anti-Jewish sentiments in our political discourse in this country. Finally, I would like to mention the situation in Europe, which I argue is shameful to all of us who believed that the continent and the United Kingdom had learned the lessons from the terrible recent history of anti-Semitism on the continent.
It is shocking that before the situation in Gaza arose this summer, figures from the Community Security Trust showed a 36% increase in anti-Semitic attacks in this country. Obviously those figures were dwarfed by what happened in July as a result of the terrible events in Gaza. What comes out clearly from those figures is that the Jewish population in the United Kingdom are being equated, in the minds of many people who feel strongly about that issue, with the state of Israel. It is important to challenge the language used in that context. If such language gives rise to attacks on Jewish cemeteries and individuals in various parts of this country, there is something wrong with the rhetoric being used.
We have a responsibility in that discourse. It is an area of huge emotion, and we have a responsibility for ensuring that we are careful in our use of words. I am afraid that the experience of the past few weeks in this place indicates that even hon. Members of this House are not taking the issue seriously. I will not relate these to the individual Members concerned, as I have not had time to forewarn their offices, but I have a few examples of comments made in the House that highlight my concerns. In the recent debate on the Israel-Palestine situation, one hon. Member said:
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. You cannot appeal to the Israelis’ better nature, because they do not have one. You can, however, threaten them financially.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 15WH.]
That is a disgraceful slur. It is the age-old slur of the Jews being keen on money, used in the context of an attack on the Israeli state. That type of language equates the old hatreds that exist, unfortunately, in many parts of Europe with an attack on the Israeli state, and any hon. Member making such a comment should ask themselves whether they are contributing to the increasing number of attacks that we are seeing in our society. When we speak, we have a responsibility to be very careful about what we say.
In the same way, last week one former Minister said on the BBC that there was a “powerful financial lobby” supporting the state of Israel. What is quite shocking about that comment is, first, that it came from a former Minister and, secondly, and even worse, it was not even challenged by the BBC. A “powerful financial lobby”—the implication was that everybody would understand who that lobby was; in other words, it was accepted as part of our discourse about the issue of Israel.
When we see the figures from the CST highlighting the increase in the number of attacks as a result of what happened this summer in Gaza, we have an obligation to make sure that the language we use does not pander to prejudice. Unfortunately, our track record across all parts of the House—the two examples I have given are from different parts of the House, unfortunately—clearly shows that we need to be much more careful in the way we use language.
Similarly, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has highlighted the attacks on people in public life, not least—obviously—the disgraceful attacks on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). He has done the right thing in highlighting those issues, and we have a responsibility to challenge the social media companies for their lack of action. I have grown a very thick skin since becoming an MP, but even I was quite shocked this summer to be accused on social media of being a “Jew lover”. My wife, as far as I know, is a Welsh Protestant, and I have not been unfaithful; therefore, I would hope that that attack is not literally correct.
Dr Offord
Equally, is my hon. Friend aware of the vitriolic abuse that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) received when he came to the defence of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and the criminal behaviour of individuals that Twitter failed to take any real action against?
Guto Bebb
Indeed, I am aware of those attacks, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw can look after himself. However, it is clearly an unacceptable situation. My office reported some of the attacks that were made on me, and the interesting thing is that it took three months for the social media companies even to respond. We complained in August; we received a response from them last week. Indeed, by that point I had forgotten why I had made a complaint in the first instance.
The situation is simply unacceptable. One could argue that being attacked on social media is, unfortunately, part and parcel of being in public life—although no Member of Parliament should accept anything approaching what has been thrown at some hon. Members of this House. However, for an ordinary member of the public to be attacked in such a manner, on racist grounds, is simply unacceptable, and those companies, which have the capacity to deal with the issue, should be challenged by this House to ensure that they do so. This is not about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is about having the right to argue a case; what we are seeing is not the argument of a case, but simply old prejudices masquerading as political comment, and it is simply unacceptable.
I have already touched on the issue of equating the Jewish community with the Israeli state. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia has said that such an equation is a form of anti-Semitism, and I am afraid it is becoming increasingly evident in the debate that we have about the situation in the middle east. It is crucial, therefore, to ensure that when we are dealing with this issue, we highlight the fact that there is a difference. I have been to Israel on numerous occasions, and if I could say that even once on any of my visits to Israel I came away with the view that everybody in Israel thought the same way about each and every issue, I would be lying, because I have never seen such a vibrant democracy, where people disagree about anything and everything. Indeed, it could be argued that one of the weaknesses of the Israeli state is that there is a willingness to argue and disagree about everything, and they should certainly do something about their proportional representation system, which allows every single view to be heard.
The idea that there is a single view being expressed by the people in Israel, and that that view is being supported by every single person of Jewish descent in any other part of the world, is simply ludicrous, yet it is a concept that is constantly repeated by those who are irresponsible—to put it kindly—in the way that they are trying to deal with the situation in the middle east. We need to ensure that we always challenge that type of behaviour.
In the same way, I am absolutely fed up of hearing about the so-called Jewish lobby. It is highlighted as something extremely powerful that has the ability to change people’s minds in this place. Well, I saw no evidence of the “Jewish lobby” being particularly successful when there was a recent parliamentary debate about the recognition of Palestine. If the ever-powerful Jewish lobby was really that successful, I suspect that this House would not have voted for that motion, even with only a minority of MPs taking part in the vote. When we hear about this powerful Jewish lobby, I wonder how much of it is in the imagination of those making the claims and what their motivation is for making those claims. I think there is a motivation, and unfortunately it has a background in some attitudes that exist on the European continent, which are simply unacceptable.
In the same way, the constant effort to try to equate the state of Israel with apartheid South Africa is also leading to a climate in which the state of Israel and the Jewish people are being demonised. There is obviously no link between the Jewish people in the UK and the actions of the Israeli state. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we understand the effect that the language used by intellectuals has on public discourse. On recent trips to the Netherlands, one thing that emerged clearly from discussions with members of the Jewish community there was how the intellectual elite in universities was leading the debate to places that they had perhaps not envisaged when they started the calls for divestment and boycotts against Israel. Again, we need to be very careful that the comparisons we make—or that people are making—do not end up leading to anti-Semitic behaviour.
Finally, I want to touch upon my last visit to the Netherlands. According to the statistics, the situation there is slightly better than in the UK. The fact that there are schools in London, where we are now speaking, that are protected by security personnel is simply unacceptable. We live in a country of 64 million people, where we are concerned about the ability to integrate people entering this country from all parts of the world, yet we are almost accepting of the fact that somebody going to a Jewish school in London or Manchester needs to have a security guard on the premises.
I have never visited such a school; indeed, I suspect that I have less than a handful of individuals of Jewish descent—British Jews—living in my constituency, so I have never witnessed such a thing. However, I have to tell the House that, as the father of five children, to turn up to a Jewish secondary school in Amsterdam and see a security guard outside was shocking. The fact that many hon. Members in this House will understand that situation does not make it acceptable. It is unacceptable that the Jewish community, or any other community for that matter, in this country or any other part of Europe should need to resort to having their schools, their synagogues or their churches protected. That is simply unacceptable.
To go to a country such as the Netherlands, which has a tradition of tolerance, and to hear half the members of a group of 16 and 17-year-olds we met—my eldest son is 17—indicate that they saw no future for themselves there was simply shocking. I have always viewed the Netherlands as a tolerant country, and as I have said, the figures for attacks on members of the Jewish community in the Netherlands are actually better than they are in the UK. However, if half the sixth-formers in a Jewish school in Amsterdam say that they see no future for themselves in Europe, then Europe has a lot to be ashamed about. We really need to remember those youngsters and their lack of faith in their future in Europe.
Finally, when we talk about anti-Semitism, it is also important that we recognise that it is an issue that is affecting people. We only have to look at the figures for those individuals leaving France, Belgium and the Netherlands and deciding to make a life for themselves in either Israel or the US to know that we have a problem. We had thought that after the atrocities of the second world war, we might have learned our lesson; I am afraid that we need to learn it all over again.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Another four hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. The wind-ups will begin at 3.40 pm, so I am sure that hon. Members can do the maths on that one.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mrs Main. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing the debate and on the strong role he has taken as the chairman of the all-party group. I also thank the other Members who make a valuable contribution to that group.
The reason we are debating this issue today is because the number of anti-Semitic incidents has risen, not only in the UK but right across Europe. In fact, last week a new report commissioned by the Mayor of London revealed that 95% of hate crimes against faith groups in the capital, which have surged by 23% this year compared with last year, were anti-Semitic. Quite clearly, therefore, we have an issue that we need to address. That is a worrying statistic indeed, and the apparent rise of anti-Semitism is not only confined to the streets of London. In July, a rabbi was attacked by four Muslim teenagers outside a Jewish boarding school in Gateshead. The police have investigated the incident and arrested them, and I hope prosecution is pending. In Belfast this August, the windows of the city’s only synagogue were smashed on two consecutive nights. I have had the pleasure of going to that synagogue for a service, although I have to say the seats were pretty hard—you would not fall asleep in that congregation when the sermon was being preached, I can tell you that.
I mention those incidents because it is good to show our support whenever the opportunity is there, and I do that. However, although the number of Jewish people in Belfast has decreased greatly over the years, some people target them specifically. In the case I mentioned, they came one night and then came back the next night and did the same thing again. That is an example of the issues we have in Northern Ireland.
In Manchester, a Jewish cemetery was defaced with swastikas. We have also seen the outrageous and despicable conduct of some of the unions in Northern Ireland, although I suspect the same has happened across the United Kingdom. In Belfast, they targeted specific supermarkets and supermarket chains, looking out for Jewish goods. They trashed the shelves and damaged the goods, causing bedlam during Saturday shopping. Such hate crimes—that is what they are—are not confined to the United Kingdom. In fact, when the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) took his new position as Chief Whip in September, he referred to anti-Semitism as a “virus” spreading all over Europe.
The background notes to the debate, which I found helpful, mention someone who was brought up in a boarding school as a young boy. Being the only Jew in the school, he was a bit worried about what would happen to him, but nothing happened, because of the acceptance in Britain. However, he then refers to the difference between then and now. When he was a child, things were okay. He says he was comfortable with things, but he continues:
“And do you know what? Suddenly I’m not. Something is afoot. It is creeping and it is tentative, but it is definitely there. And it scares me.”
Those are the issues for many Jews across Europe and the United Kingdom, who feel threatened by the rise of anti-Semitism across the world.
Whether in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy or Spain, Jewish communities have reported an escalation in threats, protests and violence against Jews. A 2012 survey of 6,000 Jews in eight European countries by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights found that 66% of respondents believed that anti-Semitism in Europe was on the rise, and 76% said it had increased in their country in the previous five years.
Given those statistics, it is unsurprising to hear that the French Interior Minister has vowed to make the fight against anti-Semitism a national cause. We welcome his commitment, and we wait to see what the reaction will be and how successful he will be. His move was in response to an incident involving a Jewish woman being raped and having her money stolen by her attacker, who allegedly claimed, “You Jews, you have all the money.” That disgraceful and brutal incident motivated a response from the highest level of the French Government.
When it comes to such dreadful stereotypes, a variety of sports people have got into trouble recently for their racist, sectarian or anti-Semitic remarks. Liverpool striker Mario Balotelli, for example, gets into trouble fairly often, but this time he got into trouble for tweeting what he claims were supposed to be anti-racist remarks with a touch of humour. Clearly, that is not the way to promote anti-racism, at a time when the sport of football is continually working hard to eradicate racism. There are many other examples.
It seems—figures would appear to back this theory—that anti-Semitism has increased since the conflict between Israel and Palestine intensified and received increased media coverage. The Community Security Trust said it was aware of 302 anti-Semitic events in July, compared with 59 in July 2013. It described the cases as
“reactions to this summer’s conflict between Israel and Hamas”
in Gaza. The charity also recorded about 150 anti-Semitic incidents in August—the third-highest monthly total on record—and some of those incidents happened in Belfast. The July incidents ranged from abusive letters to British synagogues to threats, graffiti and damage to property. There were also 21 violent assaults—it is not always property that is targeted—although no one was, thank the Lord, seriously injured, which is good news.
There is, however, overwhelming opposition among British people to anti-Semitism. The debate has highlighted the incidents that have taken place, but we should also highlight the excellent response from the British people. The silent majority—99.9% of people—are disgusted by what has happened and support the Jewish people’s right to have their own beliefs. We have also seen a far greater number of people who are disgusted and angered by such incidents and are determined to stamp them out. For example, the all-party group against anti-Semitism, with the support of the Parliamentary Committee against Antisemitism, is now fully focused on working with the Government and other partners to implement measures to send out the clearest of messages: intolerance will no longer be acceptable.
In August, thousands of people gathered outside the royal courts of justice at a meeting organised by the Campaign against Antisemitism, a grass-roots group formed in response to the rise in attacks against Jews in Britain and throughout Europe following the start of the Gaza conflict. Signs in the crowd read “Zero tolerance for anti-Semites” and “Prosecute hate before it’s too late”, and that is exactly what we in the House and the Government need to do: prosecute hate before it is too late. We must not tolerate any form of racism or anti-Semitism, and we must come down hard on those who commit these hate crimes.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), the chair of the all-party group, on introducing this timely debate and on his non-stop work on this issue. I also congratulate Danny Stone and others who nagged me intensely about it.
For part of my career, I was a local councillor in the London borough of Hackney. I represented the Springfield ward in Stamford Hill, which is nearly 50% ultra-Orthodox, Haredi or strictly Orthodox—whatever we choose to call it. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) talked about the divisions and arguments in Israel, but people should come to Stamford Hill if they want to see divisions and arguments.
That was my introduction to a certain section of the Jewish community—it is now becoming a huge section of that community. It is perhaps pertinent to the debate that it is the only part of British Jewry that is visibly Jewish; its members are totally recognisable wherever they are—whether they are in their community in Manchester, or in Hackney and Stamford Hill. Members of the community would regale me with stories about the 1950s, which is not so long ago, when Blackshirts would come down the streets on Saturdays, knowing full well that members of the community could not pick up a telephone to ring for help or get on a bus to go for help, and would smash the cars in the road. That was only 60 years ago.
The community had had some of the worst experiences. Many were refugees in the 1930s. Interestingly, in terms of the present debate on immigration, I once called on a couple in Tower Court—I remember it specifically because I had done some work for them, as a good local councillor would. I called round, as a good Conservative local councillor would, to make sure they were voting the right way, and, for the first time, they asked me in. When the husband stretched out his arm to invite me in, I saw a tattoo on it, and I suddenly realised what it was. I went in and met his wife. They were children—survivors—of the holocaust and the camps. They built a family here and had grandchildren. They were very proud of this country. I had come round because of the vote without knowing the history of this couple. The husband told me he thought he might still be an illegal immigrant, because when he came across to Britain in 1945, the country had wanted bricklayers, but he had actually been an apprentice jeweller under his father. He wondered, in a joking sense, whether he was still safe. However, the majority of that community have always wondered whether they are safe in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) mentioned under-reporting, and I suspect there is massive under-reporting in that part of Stamford Hill by children going to the different schools and colleges, and by others. Most of the men in the community have to go to synagogue at least three times a day to pray, and they are completely recognisable, so they have suffered all kinds of things.
Essentially, however, members of the community have made a massive contribution. One—Councillor Joe Lobenstein—is now getting on. He was the first ultra-Orthodox member of any of the communities I mentioned to put himself forward for election. At the time, some of the rabbis said “Don’t do that, because you’ll expose us.” However, he did, although I do not think he has ever got the recognition he was due for the work he did on behalf of the community. He struck up a relationship in those early days with the incoming Muslim community, and he taught me as a new councillor a lesson, when we voted to support a planning application for the first big mosque in the area. Joe’s view was that one religious community should support another.
I have always wanted to get Ministers—here is an invite—to come to Cazenove road in Hackney on a Friday to see thousands of religious Gujarati Muslims pouring down one end to get into the mosque, and thousands of religious ultra-Orthodox men going the other way, to go to synagogue. Never has there been a problem there, because there is a Jewish-Muslim council for the elders. It does not operate much, but particularly when there are issues in the middle east it comes together to try to calm things down, and works for mutual benefit, usually on the latest synagogue or mosque planning application, or whatever it is; I am sure that ex-councillors will recognise that.
That community taught me a massive amount, but of course those people grew up with the assumption that has been referred to, which is a terrible stain on European civilisation: the acceptance, almost, that anti-Semitism will be there for ever. At the same time, its members were extremely proud of the home that this country had given them, and intensely patriotic.
There has been mention of the interesting statistics from the Community Security Trust, to whose work I pay tribute. In 2013 it recorded 529 anti-Semitic incidents, which was an 18% decrease on 2012. One might therefore talk about all the work that has been done by Governments and Ministers of both parties, by the all-party group—both before my time and now—and by many people in the community, to deal with that terrible stain. This year people have said to me, “Obviously, the number of incidents has gone up and up”, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy asked, why do we assume that the issue in Israel should automatically reverberate as anti-Semitic attacks in this country? Perhaps unfortunately for the chairman of the all-party group, he has many years of work to do yet if people just assume “That would happen, wouldn’t it?” That is how ingrained a situation we are dealing with.
Hon. Members have talked about the new online phenomena. At a meeting of the all-party group on Islamophobia there was discussion of Facebook and all the different ways of dealing with hate crime in that context. I wondered what the impact of that was for anti-Semitism, although it is Twitter that has been mentioned specifically in this debate. I take some comfort from what the Home Secretary said to Jewish News:
“We’re very clear that if something is a crime offline it can be a crime online.”
She added:
“It’s necessary to make sure the right guidance is available for police and other authorities”.
As the chairman of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, asked, what prosecutions have there been? What is happening? That is why the debate is extremely pertinent. The thing that has emerged that most shocked me came out of some of the demonstrations about problems in the middle east; it was the phrase “Hitler was right”, which apparently then trended on Twitter. I am not a Twitter user, Mrs Main, and you obviously know why I am not and do not want to be.
I sometimes say that when I had a proper job I was a teacher. I taught history, and I remember huge debates about the introduction of the national curriculum for year 9 history, and about whether it was right to examine the history of the holocaust. As a history teacher I said we should do it, and that we should not underestimate children of that age. However, I remember my shock when half of my class of year 9s were in tears over the whole issue at the end of a class. That is either because I was a good teacher or because I was a bad teacher. I distinctly remember two girls saying, “We never knew this happened, sir.” Other hon. Members have talked about the level of knowledge about the subject. Education is critical in giving the right historical context. I support the Government in maintaining the holocaust as part of the history curriculum. Children can deal with it.
Hon. Members have also mentioned the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust in taking children to Auschwitz. When I was a history teacher I avoided going; I did not want it to be just a museum, but I did go with the trust three or four years ago, and, as others who have been there have found, the awful impact stays. I also want to mention the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, in particular in Lancaster and Fleetwood, now that I am its Member of Parliament. The Jewish population there is minimal, but I pay tribute to the work done there by an ex-Labour MP, Stanley Henig, from Lancaster university—and also to Liz Neat, from the National Coalition Building Institute—to preserve the practice of marking Holocaust memorial day every January.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned that it is more important to support and continue such ceremonies in constituencies without a significant Jewish population, particularly in the light of the spike in anti-Semitism; that reminds us that the stain is there, and may unfortunately remain for many a long year. It would be pertinent this January to make sure that Holocaust memorial day was observed throughout the country, Jewish community or no Jewish community. That would be a clear statement of what we can, if we like, call British values. It would show that we recognise that the terrible scourge still exists, the stain that it has put on our history, and that we are determined to continue the commemoration. I therefore commend the work of the all-party group and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who brought the matter before the House.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is pleasure to take part in the debate, but as other hon. Members have said, it is always a shame that we have to have such a debate. I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have done, to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his great leadership on the issue, to which we need always to return. It is something for which we hang our heads in shame, particularly when there is such a spike in the number of anti-Semitic incidents.
It is a given that we are against anti-Semitism, and many people would want to belong to a group that was against it, but it is also important to address the issue of what things we are for. Obviously, we are for proper respect for and treatment of Jewish people, but it is more than that. This gets us to the heart of why it is right for the country, Parliament and the Government to take a lead in tackling anti-Semitism: the thing that we are for is human dignity. We know from history that the litmus test for our valuing of our fellow human beings has, sadly, been our attitude to anti-Semitism, which recurs over periods of years, and has recurred this year as well. We can show ourselves to be tackling the issue of human dignity, and to be in favour of human dignity, in the way we deal with anti-Semitism. That is why it is important that as we take the lead on issues such as modern slavery, we do so also for human dignity, by the way we deal with anti-Semitism.
I am concerned about the fact that in recent times there has been almost a double discrimination, or double anti-Semitism. It is not just the anti-Semitic words and actions, but the cause. The situation is almost worse when the cause of the spike in the number of incidents is the Gaza conflict. The particular reason why I am taking part in this debate is the things that have happened in my constituency. Sadly, a brick was thrown at a schul during the Gaza conflict, and the Norwood charity shop on Southgate High street was daubed in relation to Gaza protests; a Jewish charity shop was targeted.
For the first time in my nine years in Parliament, constituents have come to my surgery saying that the concern is so acute that they are concerned about their children wearing any insignia on their uniforms if they go to school on a public bus, and about giving any identification of their being Jewish people. It is appalling for that to be on their minds. They are also concerned when their children go to the Southgate Asda or to Tesco in Potters Bar—concerned both about the looks given and the words said to them. Those incidents are not reported. I am concerned that that is taking place and concerned and ashamed that there is such a climate of fear, but I want to take appropriate action, to ensure that we are doing all we can to counter that. That action involves all of us—cross-party, cross-cultural, cross-faith—standing up against such incidents in a responsive, timely and meaningful way, because they affect us all, in terms of how we value human beings.
We should recognise history; indeed, we have made reference to it. When I heard about the incidents in my constituency, I was on holiday with my family in Normandy. We went to the cemeteries and saw the star of David marking the grave of a Jewish person who died on behalf of Britain and freedom, alongside a gravestone with a cross for a Christian soldier who died for the same freedoms. Those are the freedoms that we are concerned about. We need to work on and be vigilant in tackling those issues. I welcome the Home Secretary’s vigilance and leadership, and that of the Mayor of London and others, who are very much aware of the issues; their attention has been drawn to them by colleagues here.
I want to ensure that, from a definitional point of view, we are getting it right. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s definition of anti-Semitism includes equating the actions of the state of Israel with Jewish people as a race. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister recognises such a definition, because when debate includes references to “a Jewish lobby”, “a powerful financial lobby” and indeed to Zionists, there is often, sadly, anti-Semitism behind it. That must cause us concern.
The responses worry me as much as the actions. For example, the Sainsbury’s store in Holborn responded to the protest by clearing the shelves of kosher food. That was originally thought justifiable in order to deal with antisocial concerns, but the store did not realise what it was doing by responding with an anti-Semitic act.
There are concerns about social media, too. Just this weekend there was an anti-Semitic tweet from a north London branch of a political party. I will not attribute it, because it has since been suggested that it was not an official party branch tweet. It said:
“UKIP has evil money grabbing Jews…in their party”.
The response to that tweet reveals a lot: the justification for it was that the person was upset about the Palestinian conflict. That was thought to be a justifiable excuse, but that is unacceptable. That is another example of double anti-Semitic discrimination, and it is why, as we go into election mode, the report of the inquiry on electoral conduct, for example, needs to be heeded; why we need to hear the Minister say that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is actively providing local authorities with the guidance that was promised in debate in the other place; why the Electoral Commission needs to be active in ensuring that there is proper engagement with political parties; why local authorities need to ensure that they are correcting false information; and why all political parties need to get to the minimum standard for disciplinary processes.
We need to get cross-party agreement, and we all need to ensure that we support education and the Holocaust Educational Trust. Good work is being done by Near Neighbours, which is stepping up to the plate; all of us are involved because we are all near-neighbours; I am, with my neighbours in my constituency. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder to make sure that we tackle anti-Semitism because we believe in human dignity.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I, too, join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), not just on securing the debate, but on his outstanding work chairing the APPG. Given that we are running out of time, I will try to keep my comments brief.
In the streets of Finchley and Golders Green, which has the largest Jewish community of any parliamentary constituency, I have never seen or heard of fear like the fear during the summer months. There is always a rumbling of incidents that concern my constituents, but this summer I have never seen such a palpable change in sentiment on the streets of my constituency, and that was matched by a change in the level of correspondence, as people genuinely feared that society in London had turned against them.
There were swastikas on buildings—not just on Jewish buildings, such as synagogues, but on telephone boxes—and general intimidation; youths were driving down Golders Green road, winding down the windows shouting anti-Semitic abuse; and barbers elsewhere in London were refusing to serve a Jewish customer. We had not seen such incidents in Europe since the rise of Hitler. I do not use that term lightly. These were comments made to me by my constituents. They felt that the clock had been turned back and that we had suddenly been transported back to Nazi Germany.
Dr Offord
My constituency borders that of my hon. Friend, and I have experienced the same kind of problems as he has. Is he aware of a local Jewish newspaper poll that concluded that 63% of our constituents no longer felt safe and were considering moving abroad as a result of that fear?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend is right. Many of my constituents said that they were now actively considering emigrating. I hope that that view has passed now that things have calmed down. However, that highlighted the genuine fear on the streets in my constituency.
Of course, it was anti-Israel sentiment that masked anti-Semitism—this constant dialogue in mainstream media that refused to differentiate between a Jew and an Israeli. That laziness seeped into an ugly discourse that fed anti-Semitism. One example of that in London is the disgraceful actions of the Tricycle Theatre, an art organisation, which banned the Jewish film festival—not the Israeli film festival—because it disapproved of the actions of the Israeli Government. That same theatre was happy to have a film festival funded by other countries involved in Government actions—internal conflicts or war with neighbours—that people disagreed with, but it singled out the Jewish film festival. That is blatant anti-Semitism, the likes of which we have not seen on the streets of London, and I hope not to see it again.
I want to mention one final thing before drawing my remarks to a close, because I do not want to repeat myself. In the demonstrations on the streets of London, people were wandering around, legitimately protesting about the Gaza conflict, but waving placards saying, “Hitler was right” and “Death to the Jews”. My constituents were shocked because the police stood by and allowed those people to walk past. I have raised this with both the Met and the Home Secretary and I understand that, operationally, the police are wary of wading in to lift those people out, for fear of causing a further disturbance. I understand and accept that. However, we need high-profile prosecutions—this is where I hope the Minister will be able to talk to his colleagues in the Home Office—such as those after the riots in Tottenham. The community and the public need to see firm action from the police in dealing with anti-Semitism, then people will start to feel safe.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw: the work of the APPG, the cross-departmental work and the bipartisan work of parties form a model. Clearly, work still has to be done, but although the UK had problems, it did not have the same problems as France and Germany, and that is testament to the fact that what we are doing is having an effect. I hope that the Minister gives a commitment and says that we will continue to have the full support of this Government and whatever Government come after them.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), not only on securing the debate, but on his tireless work on this issue.
Where I come from and represent has a long, proud tradition of fighting racism and fascism and condemning anti-Semitic behaviour in all its forms. It is a tragedy that despite our understanding of the consequences of anti-Semitism, we are still having to debate how to tackle it in communities today. It shocks me that the latest manifestations of virulent and hateful anti-Semitism use the imagery of the holocaust to denigrate, abuse and persecute.
This summer we saw terrible scenes across Europe. An anti-Jewish riot took place in the suburb of Sarcelles, just outside Paris. What began as a protest turned into a rampage. Cars and waste bins were set ablaze, several Jewish-owned businesses were torched and a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a synagogue. As the rioters rampaged through Sarcelles, witnesses described hearing the chant, “Hitler for President.” In the same month in Germany, Molotov cocktails were thrown into the Bergische synagogue in Wuppertal, a place of worship that had previously been destroyed on Kristallnacht. That was not an isolated incident. An elderly Jewish man was beaten up at a pro-Israel rally in Hamburg. Bottles were thrown through the window of an anti-Semitism campaigner’s house in Frankfurt. In several German cities, anti-Israel protests sparked by the latest Gaza conflict included anti-Semitic chanting. Dieter Graumann, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said:
“These are the worst times since the Nazi era.”
Meanwhile, far right parties such as Greece’s Golden Dawn and Hungary’s Jobbik seem to have gained a foothold in European politics. We cannot allow a revived anti-Semitism or a base fascist narrative to gain credence and acceptance once more on our continent.
Let me be absolutely clear: there is never any justification for anti-Semitism or racism in any form or against any group or individual. Many will take exception to the actions of the state of Israel—I, too, have been vocal about the behaviour of the Israeli state—but that is not, cannot and must not be seen as a justification for anti-Semitism, just as the conflicts that inflame the middle east, of which we have seen manifestations at home, cannot and must not be used as an excuse for Islamophobia.
Although I have mentioned violence on mainland Europe, Britain was unfortunately not immune from the summer’s upswing in anti-Semitism. The Community Security Trust, which does excellent work on behalf of Britain’s diverse and vibrant Jewish community, as well as on community cohesion per se, recorded 314 anti-Semitic incidents in July in the UK. That is the highest monthly total on record. A further 229 incidents were recorded in August. To put that in context, the July total surpasses the 307 incidents recorded in the previous six months. The combined July and August 2014 figure of 543 incidents is higher than the entire total for 2013. I am told that of those incidents, just under half involved a direct reference to the second world war and a third used holocaust-related language or imagery. It is nothing less than sickening that, 70 years on from the most shameful episode in European history, the holocaust is being used as a tool to abuse and taunt the Jewish community. The events of the second world war are being evoked in an attempt to create real fear and distress.
Many of the anti-Semitic incidents recorded in July and August took place on social media channels, and that continues today. The use of social media and the internet more widely has huge potential for good. It allows for communication and education on a scale unimaginable just a generation ago, but it also allows for the spread of falsehoods, lies, myths and rumours that are designed to deceive. As we have seen, social media sites can provide a platform for abhorrent views and levels of abuse that would simply not be acceptable in normal public life.
The recent vitriol, harassment and abuse directed at my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Bassetlaw by far right extremists and white supremacists is completely repugnant. I know that all Members unequivocally condemn it. Sadly, there is a perception in some quarters that anti-Semitism on social media is less serious than anti-Semitism on the street. I dispute that, as do others. On social media, it is more permanent and more widely viewed and distributed. In many ways, it can be much more personal and more real, because it is beamed in, directly infiltrating victims’ phones, homes and computers, and can be shared with millions of people.
The previous Labour Government passed laws to stop the incitement of racial hatred. Those laws need to be enforced to the fullest possible extent by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The major social networks, Facebook and Twitter, have a responsibility to do much more given the platform they provide for users. I was encouraged to hear that Facebook now sees the importance of tackling cyber-bullying and empowering others to report cyber-abuse, but it was disappointing to hear that when Members from this House met with Twitter last month, its representatives likened anti-Semitic tweets to hearing an offensive conversation in the street, where it is gone as soon as it is passed. That is simply not true. On so many levels, it is a fallacious argument.
Clearly, social networks need to do more—first to enforce their own existing rules and secondly to ensure they are equipped to deal with hate and prejudice in the constantly evolving sphere of technology and communications. The Community Security Trust has issued helpful guidance on combating anti-Semitism on social media and how to report hatred. It sets out the four important steps of reporting all hate crime to the police; reporting all anti-Semitic hate crime to the CST; collecting evidence; and, finally, reporting incidents directly to the social media site. I encourage all those who experience or witness anti-Semitic incidents or other racist incidents to follow the trust’s advice.
We know that hate crime develops from dislocation and dissonance in our communities, so as well as confronting hate crime when it appears, we must work together to fight its causes. We must tackle divisions and silos within our communities and prevent the spread of ignorance and fear, but we must recognise just how complex and multifaceted the issues are and that they straddle a number of Departments.
I offer my thanks to every Member who has contributed to this excellent debate. Clearly more needs to be done to tackle the most persistent, baseless and irrational prejudice. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw knows that better than most, and his efforts to ensure accountability and decency within our society are to be applauded and supported. The issues raised in today’s debate need to be looked at carefully, and I am sure that the Minister will address those important points when he responds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
Good afternoon, Mrs Main. I think every Member who has spoken has, as is the normal courtesy, congratulated the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this debate. I thank him for securing the debate and giving us all the opportunity to make some important and powerful remarks and to put them on the record, so that they can be read by constituents and people who are not constituents and be reported in the media. It is important that Parliament speaks with one voice. As the shadow Minister rightly said, anti-Semitism is wrong, wrong, wrong in every case. There is never an excuse for it.
I thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw for his chairmanship of the all-party group against anti-Semitism. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who spoke powerfully on behalf of his constituents, and I echo it. I value my relationship with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in the role I discharge on behalf of the Government. I can confirm that all the recommendations made originally to the previous Government in 2006 by the all-party group against anti-Semitism have been met, and he said much the same. The report made 35 recommendations, and a document is being prepared to draw together and set out all that the Government have done on them, as the final response to that important piece of work. The intention is for something to be published shortly. The all-party group is looking into the recent upsurge of anti-Semitism as a result of events in Gaza. There will no doubt be further recommendations that we will have to take on board and respond to in time.
We also continue to hold quarterly meetings of the cross-Government working group on addressing anti-Semitism, which is mainly made up of officials. I thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw for the generous tribute he made to various officials both in my Department and elsewhere, in particular Sally, who is with us today and who provides me with good advice. I attended the most recent meeting of the group, as did the Chief Rabbi, and we both spoke to its members. This important group, which brings together various Departments, will monitor further progress and implementation of the commitments made by Ministers right across Government.
While much progress has been made since the 2006 report, the work is sadly never complete, as many have said. It is shocking and offensive that British Jews continue to be singled out for anti-Semitic abuse. Whether from the far left or the far right—an abhorrent anti-Semitic streak goes through both extremes of British politics— or from misguided individuals who happen to be Muslim, who pervert the true meaning of Islam when they attack British Jews, all such attacks should be condemned.
During the summer, when the Gaza crisis was at its height, the Community Security Trust, another group with which I have an important relationship, collated some shocking statistics, showing that 543 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in July and August, although I suspect that that is the tip of the iceberg and not the full picture. I met the CST in August, returning to London especially for that meeting, and immediately put out a strong statement of support to the Jewish community together with other Ministers. I wrote to relevant Government colleagues in the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—because of the various issues raised about campuses and safety for students about to arrive at university—and to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green and others have mentioned, our fellow citizens are feeling a deep anxiety that has not been experienced for some time. It is right that we continue to be vigilant and work with all relevant groups to try to allay those fears.
We have asked the national policing lead on hate crime to work with public order leads to consider how arrests and charges can be clearly communicated and publicised by police forces to provide reassurance to local communities that criminal acts will be prosecuted. Following a rise in anti-Semitic daubings on private and public property, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and David Delew of the CST wrote to all local authorities in England, reminding them of the importance of removing offensive graffiti and reporting it to the police.
Despite the events over the summer, data commissioned by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in 2012 show that levels of anti-Semitism in the UK are significantly lower than in other western European countries. The shadow Minister referred to events in other European countries, and it is only a matter of relative comfort that anti-Semitism in Britain is not as prevalent as it is in some other countries. We still have important work to do.
Jim Shannon
As has been illustrated by the contributions of others, anti-Semitic attacks have taken place across the entire United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly to co-ordinate a plan? Many of those involved in such attacks have connections across the whole United Kingdom. Groups in London are connected to groups in Belfast, and groups in Glasgow have connections with those in Cardiff.
Stephen Williams
As I just said, after the meeting with the CST, because some of its concerns were about Cardiff and Glasgow, we communicated with the devolved Administrations via the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. No particular concerns were raised about Northern Ireland at the meeting, but if the hon. Gentleman or the CST wants to draw particular problems to our attention, we will of course co-ordinate a response with the devolved Assemblies and Governments.
It is also important that all initiatives are accompanied by a robust communications strategy that reassures the public that those who commit hate crimes will be punished with the full force of the law.
Having said all that, many Jewish individuals and organisations have been singled out for anti-Semitic abuse via social media, as the shadow Minister said. Various hon. Members have also mentioned our colleague the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). From my conversations with her, I know that she has been comforted by supportive telephone calls from and encounters with hon. Members.
In response to ongoing concerns about the impact of controversial external speakers creating an atmosphere that leaves many students feeling uncomfortable, Universities UK has published guidelines entitled “External speakers in higher education institutions”. This is an area of concern to many Jewish societies on campuses, and we want to work with leaders in this area. It is down to all of us who have universities in our constituencies to ensure that we have a good relationship with the Jewish societies at those universities, which I certainly do at Bristol.
Twitter has been mentioned several times today and has rightly come in for some strong condemnation from colleagues. It is not necessarily for the Government to tell Twitter or Facebook what they should be taking down from their sites, but those remarks were made on the record and will appear in Hansard, and I am happy to join the shadow Minister and everyone else who has said that such organisations have a responsibility to their users to look at the content that is being published via their means of communication. They are not responsible for what people say, but they are responsible for disseminating it, which is the distinction that I will draw.
In the time remaining, I want to refer to some other Government initiatives. The Department for Education has confirmed funding of just over £2 million for 2014-15 and going forward for providing security at Jewish free schools in England as part of the school security grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) said that he was shocked to discover that it was needed—as, indeed, was I. He also said that we all have a responsibility as parliamentarians to consider the language that we use, and I endorse that remark.
Since May 2010, the Government have excluded 153 people from the United Kingdom, including 61 exclusions on national security grounds, 15 of which were made in 2014. The Department for Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice have continued to the support the hate crime web facility, True Vision, which collates hate crime statistics. We have also funded the Society of Editors to produce good practice for online moderation of comments made on websites. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) mentioned holocaust education, and the Government give important support both to the Holocaust Education Trust and to the Holocaust Memorial Trust.
I will end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) for mentioning his experiences in Hackney. I appreciate his invite, but I went to the Cazenove ward last week and visited both the Orthodox Jewish school and the Muslim-led community centre. I was incredibly impressed by the long-term commitment to leadership shown by Councillor Ian Sharer and Councillor Akhoon, who happen to be Liberal Democrats. Community cohesion does not happen by accident. All of us, whatever our party, are in positions of leadership and should lead by example and bring people together. That has happened in a microcosm in that ward, where tensions have dissolved because people have worked together.
Secondary Education (Skelmersdale)
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, for this debate on the future of education provision in Skelmersdale.
High-quality education unlocks choice and opportunity for our children and young people. We strive for the best education that we can possibly get for them. Skelmersdale is a town with a population of 36,000. Secondary education provision consists of one Catholic high school and two non-faith high schools. Lancashire county council is consulting on the possible closure of Glenburn sports college, which is one of the two non-faith schools and the only school located in the town centre. The proposal is for a phased closure of the school by 31 August 2016 and for pupils to be offered a guaranteed place at the other non-faith school, Lathom high school.
Glenburn faces possible closure for several reasons. It has only 850 pupils on its roll, and numbers have been falling for several years. The school budget this year fell into deficit, in part because of the falling numbers on roll. Attainment is below the national floor target. Added to that, the school is in special measures, and we await the outcome of the most recent Ofsted inspection on 25 and 26 November.
No one is ignoring that situation, but let us place Glenburn sports college in the appropriate context. Education professionals tell me that the school’s profile is disproportionately skewed towards the lower ability levels, which means that reaching the required national floor target attainment levels will always be a challenge. Lancashire county council’s own report states that
“Glenburn Sports College has more than twice as many pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds than any of its neighbouring schools.”
Furthermore, in the Ofsted inspection report of March 2014, we find:
“The proportion of students who are supported at school action is much higher than average…The proportion of students known to be eligible for support through the pupil premium is much higher than average.”
Glenburn sports college’s catchment area draws children from some of the most deprived wards in the country. I hear from parents and pupils, however, that Glenburn provides caring, emotional and pastoral support to create a positive environment for many children, including those who have been turned away by other schools and those from vulnerable homes with disruptive family lives, for whom school is their safest and calmest place. Children at the higher ability levels are also supported by Glenburn to achieve and to reach their exam results targets, and they have done well.
The school faces attainment and finance challenges, but it is important to understand the context in which it operates. Lancashire county council appears to have been somewhat opportunistic in the timing of its decision to deal with secondary education provision in Skelmersdale.
Parents are angry that the county council does not appear to have provided the support needed since Glenburn was placed in special measures, nor has it been given the time to improve its performance or for the intervention in years 7, 8 and 9 to show in the attainment levels. Other schools in the county have also faced deficit budgets, but they have been given time and support while addressing the financial position. This is the first year in which Glenburn has had a deficit, but no real help has been available.
That action is required is accepted, but the nature of the action being considered by Lancashire county council is opposed. The council’s approach to reorganising secondary school provision in Skelmersdale is fundamentally flawed. Proposed provision has the potential to fail present and future school pupils of Skelmersdale unless a different course of action is taken. The closure of Glenburn sports college simply appears to be the cheapest and easiest option; it is not necessarily the right option. I believe that it is not the right option.
Falling pupil numbers in Skelmersdale and throughout West Lancashire have resulted in the need to reduce the number of school places. What is shocking is that under successive and different administrations at county hall, the education authority has failed to deal with the impending situation, to deliver a proper structural solution to secondary education provision in Skelmersdale or to address the quality of that education provision. Of the 2,600 children of secondary school age, some 650 are educated outside Skelmersdale. That level of outward migration every day prompts the question of why parents choose to send their children to other high schools in West Lancashire on such a scale. It cannot be a surprise to those who are supposed to have been looking after those pupils and the level of education in Skelmersdale over the years.
It is recognised that Skelmersdale can support only one non-faith high school, but that is where the county council’s approach is fundamentally flawed. Lathom high school, the receiving school, also has a falling roll. In fact, as the education authority acknowledges, in two years’ time Lathom is likely to be in a similar situation to Glenburn, with about 450 pupils on roll.
The proposed closure of Glenburn only works, therefore, if a significant number of its pupils transfer to Lathom high school. If they do not, the viability of Lathom will become questionable in two years or so. The county has already acknowledged that it got its sums wrong when it excluded Up Holland high school from the calculations. If Glenburn parents choose to send their children to schools other than Lathom, it is not inconceivable that Skelmersdale could be without a non-faith school within three or four years.
Allied to that, the Minister knows that if a school is closed, it is a requirement that pupils go to a better- performing school. Lathom high school, however, is a school requiring improvement. Is that good enough for him? Lathom faces its own challenges to improve performance. In fact, had the authority acted in previous years on numbers or finance, Lathom might have been the school under threat.
Imagine trying to integrate pupils from Glenburn into Lathom high school while at the same time addressing existing performance challenges. Then add to the mix moving pupils from a town-centre school to a school right on the edge of town. The Minister should bear in mind that Skelmersdale is a new town, built on Radburn principles, with a labyrinth of subways instead of pavements. Children will face a 45-minute walk each way, with no identifiable safe routes, and many will have to walk to school because bus fares will be prohibitive in price for some Skelmersdale families, while other children will have to walk if they miss the school bus, because the school is not on a bus route. Closing Glenburn will also place uncertainty on the relatively new and popular community sports facilities, which have hosted many groups and users since the borough council demolished the one and only sports centre and failed to provide a replacement.
Some Glenburn parents are already seeking secondary school places other than at Lathom. That is happening now. I have had reports of parents of Lathom high school pupils seeking to remove their children from the school following the announcement of the consultation and the proposed solution. Even before a decision is made, the logic of moving Glenburn pupils into Lathom high school to prop up its falling roll is starting to crumble.
The proposed solution is fundamentally flawed, just as the process for making the decision is fundamentally flawed. From the outset, the management of the announcement and of the consultation process has not built trust and confidence. In fact, it has nurtured distrust and cynicism among parents. I will give a few examples of why parents are not filled with confidence about the process, beginning with the announcement of the consultation. It just so happened that the consultation on the possible closure was announced when parents were choosing their preferred school options, which made them think twice about making Glenburn their No. 1 choice. There was an Ofsted inspection right in the middle of the consultation period. Competitor schools actually took out advertisements in the local newspaper after the options closing date, hoping to sweep up the children from Glenburn. I have heard reports that county council officers told parents at the consultation hearings, to which people could go only if they made an appointment, that they would not be undertaking the consultation if the decision to close the school had not already been made—I paraphrase, but that is what the parents understood that they said. Not enough consultation books were made available to primary schools, families and the wider community.
There were only four questions in the consultation document. It asked the consultees, first, for their category; secondly, for their postcode; thirdly, whether they agreed or disagreed; and, fourthly, the reasons for their view. It was difficult to get the council cabinet member for education to meet the parents. When he eventually met 20 of them, he told them that they would have to come forward with alternative proposals for future school provision if they wanted to stop the county council proposal. That was not stated explicitly anywhere in the consultation document, so the parents did not know that they could offer a different solution.
I understand—this is a recent development; in fact, I heard about it only today—that the concerns about the transport, which I have mentioned and which were raised during the consultation, might delay the decision from March to late spring or early summer. I want the Minister to understand that the decision, which came out of the blue, has caused great instability, has affected children’s health and well-being in some cases, and has increased the pressure on staff.
I say to the governing body, the local education authority and the Minister that we need a pause. The governing body, the local education authority and the Department for Education must to work together. We need time to properly consider how best to serve the interests of Skelmersdale schoolchildren now and in the future. Perhaps the answer is to build a new school—preferably on a town centre site so the children can actually get to school—but, whatever the decision, we need to invest in the future of those children, and not run away or choose the quickest and easiest option. We cannot allow education bosses, whether in county hall or Whitehall, to gamble with the future of the children in Skelmersdale simply because it is the easy option.
I am pleased to have secured this debate. When the Minister wrote to me on 3 December, he declined to meet me because education provision, apparently, is nothing to do with the Department for Education. My constituents—those parents—do not understand that for one minute. The lack of accountability in the education system adds to the confusion and lack of trust when tough decisions have to be made.
I come to the nub of the issue. The Department for Education says that the decision must be made locally, but the local authority tells me that it must act as directed by the Department for Education. The parents and I were told that the governors decided to pursue the closure option, but I was also told that they were presented with a fait accompli and had no real choice because of the pressure from the LEA and the Department for Education. I have made freedom of information requests for much of that information, but I am still waiting. If I carry on waiting, my requests will end up with the Information Commissioner. Somebody is not telling the truth.
I have raced through my argument to try to get in as much as I can, but I will end on a simple message to all the participants in this farce: I believe they are all responsible and accountable. My constituents and I are angry, and the pupils are upset. I cannot believe that this is in the best interests of pupils. Education is about helping pupils to be the very best they can be. It is often referred to as value-added, but what value is added by playing pass the parcel with children’s lives? This is about their future, which is the only one they have got. We need some investment from the county, the Department for Education, the governors and the school. Everybody must get together to invest in those children. Do it now, otherwise a whole generation will be lost, and that is not right or fair.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on securing this important debate.
I fully accept that the proposed closure of a school can cause great concern among the pupils who attend the school, their parents and the surrounding community, so I fully understand why the hon. Lady has raised this issue today. She set out her concerns extremely clearly. I will make some broad opening comments about the issues that she raised, then I will explain the process that we have to go through and the opportunities that there are to challenge the closure. I will finish by commenting on the situation at Glenburn and responding to some of the hon. Lady’s points.
Through statutory guidance and law, the Department has set out the long-established process that a local authority must follow when it proposes a school closure. That guidance and legislation clearly state that all decisions must be taken locally to allow those directly affected by the proposals to feed in their comments, and to ensure that they are properly considered during the decision-making process. The Government’s role is to agree and set national policy. We then allow local communities to decide how best to implement that policy. That approach allows local communities the freedom to develop the school system to best meet local needs. I can confirm that the Department for Education has so far received no representations from the local authority in Lancashire about this closure.
During this Parliament, we have invested more than £5 billion to help to create much-needed school places. As a result, last year there were more than 250,000 more places than there were at the 2010 general election. Ensuring that every child is able to attend a good or outstanding school in their local area is at the heart of the Government’s comprehensive programme of reform of the school system. In Lancashire, that has meant that the allocation for basic need funding, which was £23.4 million between 2007 and 2011, increased to £65.4 million in the current Parliament, and a further £17.4 million has been allocated for 2015 to 2017.
The School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Schools) (England) Regulations 2013 set out the process local authorities must follow when proposing to close a school. To be clear, the Department for Education has no direct role in the proposals to close a maintained school. It is a local process to allow local areas to make the right decisions in the light of all the relevant facts.
In January, the Department for Education published new guidance for maintained schools and academies that seek to make changes to their size and characteristics. Following national consultation, the Department set out in the guidance a new fast-track process for schools seeking to make certain changes—for example, expanding their premises or altering their age range by up to two years—without following the full statutory process. The one area that the revised guidance did not speed up was the proposed closure of a school. Ministers were clear that that is always such an important decision that no fast-track approach should be available. It is vitally important that all the elements of that type of proposal are carefully considered and analysed. Effective engagement with all the bodies that would be affected by the proposals should not be rushed through.
There are five stages to the statutory process for a proposed school closure, which I will set out so that the hon. Lady is clear about what the local authority will have to do. The first stage is consultation. The local authority or governing body must carry out preliminary, informal consultations with interested parties to consider a range of options, including closure.
The second stage is the publication of the statutory proposals. The school or local authority must publish the full copy of the proposal on its website, and a notification must be posted in a local newspaper and at all the entrances to the school. A statutory proposal must contain sufficient information for interested parties to make a decision on whether to support or challenge the closure—departmental guidance sets out the minimum that should be included. The proposal should be accessible to the whole community, so it should be set out in plain English.
The third stage is representation. Once the proposals have been published, a four-week statutory consultation or representation period follows, during which comments on the proposals can be made. Anyone can submit comments, which can be objections as well as expressions of support. The consultation period is a formal opportunity for individuals and organisations to express their views about the proposals and ensure that they will be taken into account by the decision makers. The consultation period must not be altered—for example, it cannot be shortened or extended to fit in with scheduled meetings, or to take school holidays into account. Every effort should be made during the consultation period to advise stakeholders of when the notice is likely to be published.
The fourth stage is the decision. All decisions relating to school closures are taken locally by the local authority or, in very limited circumstances, by the schools adjudicator, in order to allow those directly affected by the proposals to feed into the process at a local level. That way, decisions are taken by people who really understand the local area. If the local authority fails to decide proposals within two months of the end of the representation period, they must forward proposals to the schools adjudicator for decision. They must forward the proposals, including any received representations, within one week from the end of the two-month period. The Department does not prescribe the process by which a local authority carries out its decision-making function; however, decision makers must have regard to the statutory guidance when making a decision. All decisions must include reasons for the decision—irrespective of whether the proposals were rejected or approved—which should indicate the main factors and criteria for the decision.
The fifth and final stage is implementation. There is no maximum limit on the time between the publication of a proposal and its proposed date of implementation, but the circumstances may change significantly if too long a period elapses. In general, the implementation date for the proposals, which is stated in the statutory notice, should be within three years of their publication. Proposers may be expected to show good reason if they propose a longer time scale. I thought that the hon. Lady would find it useful for those regulations to be put clearly on the record. If she has any questions about the details, our officials would be happy to give her more guidance.
Let me turn to the particular case of Glenburn sports college. Lancashire county council launched a consultation on its proposed closure on 3 November, and that consultation is due to close on 14 December. Again, I stress that it is a live issue and that no final decision has been taken. The authority is under a duty to listen and respond to all the issues and concerns that are raised. It must ensure that any decision that it reaches addresses all the points that the consultation will inevitably raise, including some of the matters that the hon. Lady mentioned.
As I have already stated, once the stages of consultation, publication and representation have been completed, the local authority has a two-month window in which to make a final decision. Should the process take longer than that, the role of decision-maker will be passed to the schools adjudicator. I understand that Glenburn is a foundation school; as such, should the local authority decide to close it, the college’s governing body will have the right of appeal. Such an appeal would be heard by the independent schools adjudicator. It would be up to the adjudicator to review the statutory process that the authority had followed, as well as to examine the accuracy of the related information that the local authority had published in support of its case, including its impact on the final decision. While demonstrating transparency, the system underlines that the proposal, decision-making and appeals processes are all independent of the Department. It also demonstrates the levels of checks and balances that we have deliberately built into the system to allow schools and their communities to have their voices heard and to be an essential element of the final decision.
Local authorities are under a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient primary and secondary school places for all the children living in their area. In doing so, they should ensure that they achieve best value for money to guarantee the best use of resources. To enable them to achieve that, local authorities are not only under a duty to secure new school provision via the academy presumption when facing a shortage, but sometimes face the hard reality of a potential closure when a school may be surplus to requirements. That may be because of a lack of local demand for places, or because a school simply may not be delivering the required quality of education over a sustained period.
It is important that Lancashire county council diligently follows all the stages of the statutory process. It has sought to assure the Department that that is the case. As reflected by the hon. Lady’s comments, some of the difficulties experienced by Glenburn sports college over recent years are a matter of public record, including historical underperformance in GCSE attainment and a significant reduction in demand for school places from the local community, as well as being placed in special measures following an Ofsted inspection in March this year. Glenburn’s recent performance at GCSE is as follows: in 2010, 38% of young people achieved five A* to C GCSEs, including English and maths; in 2011, that figure fell to 29%; in 2012, it rose to 39%; and, in 2013, the figure was 41%. The data for 2014 will be released by the Department shortly, following appropriate checks. However, in spite of the hon. Lady’s comments about the proportion of disadvantaged pupils in the local community, which is a relevant consideration, I can say that, until now, the progress of disadvantaged pupils has been disappointing, which is no doubt why Ofsted has had concerns about the school.
Like other schools in the area, Glenburn has experienced a decline in pupil numbers between the 2005-06 and 2013-14 academic years. While some schools, such as Up Holland high school, have experienced a fall in pupil numbers of about 25%, Glenburn has experienced a particularly steep decline in pupil numbers, as the hon. Lady will know, of 54% over that time, which is no doubt one reason why the local authority is concerned. Nevertheless, none of those issues and factors, taken either individually or together, should mean that the school’s closure should be considered a foregone conclusion. Statutory guidance delivers a clear duty on local authorities to ensure that such proposals are carried out in a clear and transparent way. Local authorities must be measured in their conduct in order to ensure that all those affected are properly heard and able to voice their concerns.
I would urge all the students and families affected by the proposals to respond fully to the local authority’s consultation—as I mentioned earlier, there are still a number of days before it closes. It is only through engaging with that locally driven process that pupils, parents and the local community can ensure that their views are properly taken into consideration and have an effect on the decision-making process. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising her concerns about the proposed closure of the school and securing today’s debate on these important issues. I hope that I have explained to her the limits of what the Department can and cannot do, as well as the rules within which the local authority must operate. I am sure that her concerns have been heard by both her constituents and the local authority.
Power Cuts (North Finchley)
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again this afternoon, Mrs Main. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who is acting in locus ministries, if I have got my Latin correct.
I will give a little background on the situation that has affected businesses and homes in and around High road, North Finchley. During the past year there have been a series of power cuts: on 4 September, 16 and 18 October and 16, 18, 23 and 24 December 2013; and on 6 and 7 January and 13 and 14 November 2014, just a few weeks ago. I make the point of listing those power cuts to stress the ongoing impact and disruption not just to householders but to businesses in North Finchley. In particular, last December, in the run-up to Christmas—the busiest part of the year—businesses struggled to recover the customers and profits that they lost because their shops were closed in that period.
A series of issues has caused the power cuts; one problem has cascaded into another. First, in September last year, the outages were caused by water ingress into a UK Power Networks box, which meant that, quite reasonably, the current had to be isolated on safety grounds. The power then had to be redirected to the remaining circuits, but because those circuits were old, that led to the October outages and the first two outages in December, which were the result of power redirected to the neighbouring circuits overloading the cables: they could not cope and they failed.
Just before Christmas last year, the low-voltage board of the main substation that supplied the circuits failed, which caused yet more outages. That problem reoccurred in January this year. Then, in mid-November—just a few weeks ago—the insulation on the cables supplying this part of North Finchley failed yet again.
I want to put on record that UK Power Networks has been as helpful as it can be. I have met with its officials on a regular basis and they did bring forward a £70,000 investment to remedy the issue. The ducting for the cables to this part of North Finchley has been replaced, the substation has been upgraded, and next week the cables will be replaced through the new ducting. Barnet council has also been helpful in waiving the usual restrictions that prevent major works in the Christmas period so that that can be undertaken in an effort to ensure no repeat of last Christmas’ loss of business.
Although the repair and upgrade programme has taken more than 12 months, we seem to be on the brink of having a—hopefully—permanent solution in place. However, the power cuts that occurred in the past year or so have highlighted a couple of weaknesses in how the electricity is supplied and how customers are dealt with in such events.
One of the factors that contributed to the failure of the cables and the failure of the low-voltage board was increased demand. We have all seen the retail proposition changing: traditional shops, such as clothes shops and newsagents that are relatively low power users, have been replaced with cafés and restaurants. If such shops become restaurants, their power usage profile will be very different. Although the change of use goes through, the builders go in and the electricians assess the supply and say, “Yes, Mr Retailer, the power supply to your unit can cope,” what is missed is the cumulative effect of changes to the connections of that shop and neighbouring shops. Initially, the supply network simply absorbs the increased demand, but that strains the existing, and probably old, infrastructure.
The weakness in the system is that change-of-use permissions at the planning authority, which I appreciate fall under the remit of the Department for Communities and Local Government and not the Department of Energy and Climate Change, are not automatically fed to the network providers so that they can monitor and plan their infrastructure investment and ensure that they can cope with such changes in electricity usage. Perhaps the Minister could arrange that co-ordination with colleagues across Government, so that a system to monitor cumulative impact is put in place.
Finally, there is the issue of compensation, which I have raised with both UK Power Networks and Ofgem. UK Power Networks is helpful, but it is firm that it is bound by the regulations. Ofgem, while sympathetic, says that it holds the power suppliers’ feet to the fire through its internal mechanisms, and that it cannot be held responsible for all the consequential losses that the traders and householders incur through a series of power cuts.
The current arrangements do not provide adequate compensation to householders or businesses, nor do I believe that they hold the infrastructure providers’ and energy suppliers’ feet to the fire. A householder receives only £54 and a business £108 in compensation. That might be bearable if that were per power cut, but it is not. That compensation is payable only when there have been power cuts of at least three hours on four or more occasions in any 12-month period. A business therefore has to be interrupted for a minimum of 12 hours before it gets its £108, which is £9 an hour. That is hardly compensation.
Even though compensation is to increase in April to £150, that is still only £12.50 an hour. That is not compensation; it is barely a gesture. A restaurant that has 12 power cuts of only two hours could lose 12 lunch times but get nothing. I ask the Department to consider instructing Ofgem—or to ask it, if it cannot instruct—to replace the compensation thresholds with a scheme that pays out for each power cut, rather than having that unreasonably high bar. A greater financial penalty may result in faster repairs and investment in the network’s resilience. I have a background in business, where we always work to the motto: “If you grab people by the budgets, their minds will follow.”
In conclusion, we need to join up the change-of-use approvals so that increased energy demand is monitored. We also need a new compensation scheme that treats customers fairly and incentivises the power companies to invest in a resilient supply network.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
May I say what a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing the debate. I know from my constituency postbag how important it is for businesses to be able to do business at this time of year. In this economic environment, it is vital that they can keep their doors open to get custom.
Overall, electricity networks across Great Britain are among the most reliable in the world, but that does not mean we should ever be complacent. It is vital that those affected by interruptions to their supply have their power restored as quickly as possible, and that networks ensure that their infrastructure is sufficient.
By way of background, I will tell my hon. Friend about what has been going on. Demand has incrementally increased over the past two years in North Finchley owing to changes in use in and around Ballards lane. There has been a corresponding increase in faults on UK Power Networks’ low-voltage network. On each occasion, UKPN responded to restore supplies as quickly and safely as possible. Network infrastructure has been repaired and new equipment installed. UKPN has some 134,000 km of underground network as well as, obviously, an overhead network. Work to reinforce the network has been under way, as my hon. Friend pointed out, for a number of months, and it is hoped or planned to be complete by Christmas 2014. So far, more than £2,000 has been paid in compensation.
The increase in demand above the capacity for which the low-voltage network was originally designed can result in potential weak points failing. That is why UKPN is carrying out works to reinforce that network. As my hon. Friend said, it has so far invested £60,000 to £70,000 in doing so. Following a high-voltage fault in January 2013, customers near Briarfield Avenue substation were affected. Following restoration and repair of that fault, UKPN yet again invested in new high-voltage equipment to improve the reliability and operational flexibility of the local network. In December last year, a fault developed at Friern Park substation that interrupted some local supplies. Repairs were carried out, the network was stabilised and customer supplies were restored. Shortly afterwards, UKPN invested in a new substation, as well as reconfiguring the local network.
In 2014, there have been 11 separate incidents on Ballards lane, affecting different circuits on the low-voltage network supplied from Gaumont substation in Finchley. The demand profile in that specific area has increased over the last 18 months. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, changes of business use have led to higher usage of electricity, which has increased loading on low-voltage cable circuits. We are talking about restaurants, coffee shops and so on.
This is what has happened so far as a result. Compensation to date has included the following. Five businesses have received four good-will gestures totalling £424 and one electricity guaranteed standards payment totalling £54. Also, 28 domestic customers have received 19 gestures of good will totalling £1,072 and nine electricity guaranteed standards payments totalling £520. Actions have been taken to rectify issues and faults. For example, in February 2014, UKPN installed a low-voltage link box in Ballards lane to split up the network and to balance loading across local substations.
We should not forget that at this time of year vulnerable customers are affected by power outages. Network operators are required by Ofgem to offer a range of free services, known as the priority services register, to their most vulnerable customers. The scheme is available to all household gas and electricity customers who fulfil any of the following criteria: being of pensionable age, having a disability, having a hearing and/or visual impairment and/or having long-term ill health. Those customers listed by UKPN on its register have a dedicated freephone priority number. If my hon. Friend is unaware of it, I would be happy to write to him with the details.
The Electricity (Standards of Performance) Regulations 2010 define the guaranteed standards that we can expect from our power suppliers. They cover a range of network reliability circumstances in which customers are entitled to payments when distribution network operators fail to meet those standards. They are established measures of performance that apply in the current electricity price control period, covering the 2010 to March 2015 period, and that will be continued—and, importantly, tightened—in the next price control period, RIIO-ED1, commencing in April 2015. That is a catchy title if ever there was one.
Currently, in normal weather conditions, business customers are entitled to a payment of £108 if power is not restored within 18 hours and a further £27 for each further 12 hours off supply. For multiple interruptions, defined as four interruptions of at least three hours or more in a 12-month period, customers are entitled to £54. To help to reduce the duration of power cuts and to incentivise improved performance, Ofgem has proposed—the Government fully support this—that the minimum standard for restoration of supplies in normal weather conditions be reduced from 18 hours to 12 hours from next year. As has already been pointed out, in normal weather conditions, payment levels will increase to £150 for business customers and a further £35 for each further 12 hours. For multiple interruptions, the level will be raised to £75. I recognise that that is not exactly in line with the calls made by my hon. Friend, but it is going in the right direction. It is about tightening up obligations on suppliers to ensure that they bear the responsibilities to customers that we would expect today.
As we head into winter, with forecasts for severe weather in parts of the country over the next few days, I should add that Ofgem proposes to double the payments that DNOs make to customers following a prolonged period without supply caused by severe weather. Those will be £70 after the initial period of interruption, followed by an additional payment of £70 for each successive period of 12 hours without supply. The cap per customer, for both business and residential customers, will be increased to £700.
It is important to recognise that the guaranteed standards of performance are in recognition of “inconvenience” to customers, rather than being a reflection of the full cost of a power cut to a customer. The level of payments reflects a balance between the impact faced by customers from periods without power and the amount of expenditure that each customer pays to their local electricity distribution company through their bill. Currently, distribution costs make up about 16% of an average electricity bill. If payments for loss of supply were far in excess of the amount paid for the service, that would result in increased network charges and higher customer bills, which we all wish to avoid. Indeed, Ofgem research indicated that customers did not place a high value on higher compensation levels if those ultimately led to higher customer bills.
It is important to recognise at this stage why, unlike some other products, electricity has certain conditions around it that often make it hard—this has been the case for decades—for consumers to seek recourse through the civil courts. An electricity supplier has a duty to connect; it has to serve the customer. In addition, the nature of a network means that continuous supply in one area may cause damage elsewhere, and that may require a switch-off or an adjustment. Effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul, with damage in one place rather than the other, is not good for the overall impact of the network. The other issue is the very nature of electricity. It is hazardous, and it is always difficult to guarantee it 100% of the time for 100% of customers. Those extra duties and difficulties mean that it is often harder to make a pure economic case for loss of business as opposed to actual damage to one’s property through a direct fault. That has an established place in law and has done over many years. It is not of great comfort to businesses, but the Government recognise, as does Ofgem, that things are moving in the right direction. The consultation on an increase in penalties is a move in the right direction, although we certainly wish to do more.
On the important issue of notifying network operators following change-of-use permissions, my hon. Friend brought out an incredibly good point. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to write to the other relevant Departments and colleagues regarding the possibility of ensuring that we notify network operators following change-of-use permissions, to try to reduce the number of incidents of this sort occurring in the future. Forewarned is forearmed. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that if we ensure that people are prepared for what is coming down the line, then hopefully, by the time we get to next Christmas or the next peak period, the network will be in a better position to make accommodation for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 9 December 2014. Ministers will discuss the following items:
Financial transactions tax
The presidency will present a short state of play update on this file, both in light of work carried out during its semester and work which will be taken forward under the next presidency.
Current legislative proposals
The presidency will provide an update on the status of current legislative files.
Single resolution mechanism—single resolution fund contributions
The presidency will seek political agreement on a proposed regulation regarding ex ante contribution by participants to the single resolution fund.
Measures in support of investment
Ministers will discuss measures to support investment ahead of discussion at December European Council.
Review of the Europe 2020 strategy
The Council will hold a follow-up discussion on the Europe 2020 review ahead of General Affairs Council in December.
Economic governance
Ahead of discussion at December European Council the Commission will present a suite of documents, including the annual growth survey 2015, the alert mechanism report 2015 and a communication on the six-pack and two-pack review. Ministers will then hold an exchange of views on these items.
Annual report of the Court of Auditors on budget implementation
The President of the European Court of Auditors will present the court’s annual report on the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2013.
Code of conduct (business taxation)
The Council will be invited to endorse the report on the progress of the code of conduct group during the Italian presidency, and to adopt accompanying Council conclusions.
Letter by Finance Ministers Sapin, Schaeuble and Padoan to Commissioner Moscovici
The presidency will provide information on a letter from France, Germany and Italy to Commissioner Moscovici outlining views on ways forward to tackle tax avoidance.
Birmingham City Council
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
To address the wider weaknesses that were highlighted in Birmingham’s governance culture by the report into the allegations concerning Birmingham’s schools, the leader of Birmingham city council Sir Albert Bore and I asked Sir Bob Kerslake to lead a review of the governance of the city council to report by December 2014 (as outlined in the written statement of 22 July 2014, Official Report, Column 109WS).
Sir Bob’s review has been supported by an expert advisory panel comprising senior local government leaders and chief executives. Sir Bob and the panel have spent a significant amount of time in the city meeting over 350 people including citizens, business leaders, community and faith leaders, the voluntary and community sector, local politicians, council officers, frontline staff and representatives of the other public services. They have also spoken to each of the hon. Members representing the city and received around 80 submissions of written evidence.
The review has found a series of deep rooted and serious problems that are stopping both the city and the council from fulfilling their potential. These include:
the council has to change its corporate culture. Its size acts as both a badge and a barrier: it has led to a not invented here, silo based and council-knows-best attitude. Trojan Horse was symptomatic of a culture, under successive administrations, that has too often swept deep rooted problems under the carpet rather than addressed them;
for years Birmingham city council’s members and senior officers have failed to collectively take the big decisions needed to tackle the problems the city faces and to be sufficiently clear with residents about the choices that need to be made;
the clear boundaries that should exist between the roles of members and officers have become blurred; and
the city council has 15 of the 20 wards with the largest population in the country and the council is the largest metropolitan borough. There are also very few town and parish councils within the city’s boundaries. The sheer number of councillors (120) means the council is difficult to run and the large size of the multi-member wards has meant councillors have found it hard to represent their communities effectively.
The primary responsibility to address these challenges lies with the city council. However, as was the case in Stoke-on-Trent, the current electoral arrangements of elections with large three member wards in Birmingham are not helping. A combination of single member wards, a smaller number of members and all-out elections will make the council stronger, save taxpayers’ money and become much more directly accountable to the people it serves.
I therefore intend to change the electoral cycle of the council to all-out elections and ask the Local Government Boundary Committee for England to conduct an electoral review with a view to completing its work to enable elections by May 2017.
The review makes clear that there are fewer town and parish councils in Birmingham than in other cities. The Government want to make it easier and simpler for people to set up town and parish councils where they do not exist. Where local people express popular support for the creation of a town or parish council, the city council should work with local residents to help that happen not frustrate them.
Parts of Birmingham are among the most deprived in the country and as a result there are more poor children in the city than anywhere else in England. This will not change while so many adults remain low skilled and are locked out of the new jobs the city’s businesses are creating and these are the conditions in which distrust and division can thrive. The Government will therefore also consider supporting the review’s recommendation to create a new high powered partnership vehicle focused on increasing employment and improving skills, starting in the most deprived parts of Birmingham.
The Government believe that, where locally-supported, combined authorities can help co-ordinate and drive through policy to stimulate economic growth and plan strategically across the city and their natural economic area. I note the steps that the city council is taking with its neighbouring authorities to form a new locally-led combined authority. However, as the review makes clear they are falling behind other places. Local leaders should put aside their differences and reach agreement on a combined authority quickly so the locality can once again become a powerhouse for innovation, jobs and growth.
The scale of the problems Sir Bob has found means the city council is unlikely to be able to address them alone. I will therefore be appointing an independent improvement panel that will provide the support and robust challenge the city council needs. I intend that this will help the people of Birmingham to hold the council to account for how they are improving. It will report formally on progress in December 2015.
Sir Bob has published his review today and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/ writtenstatements.
UK-Bahrain Defence Arrangement
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
The UK and Bahrain have agreed to enhance the naval and logistics facilities that are used by British forces in Bahrain and that support our basing and operations in the Gulf region. The new arrangement was signed at the Manama dialogue on 5 December, 2014.
This agreement will improve facilities at the Bahrain defence force Mina Salman port in Bahrain, where the UK has mine hunters permanently based and from where British destroyers and frigates in the Gulf are supported. Under the arrangement, the UK and Bahrain will work together to enhance the facilities at the port, and provide a bigger base for ships on operations, store equipment, and accommodate service personnel. Bahrain will make a significant contribution to the cost of the new facilities.
The UK will maintain a defence presence in Bahrain for years to come. The agreement reaffirms the UK’s and Bahrain’s joint determination to maintain regional security and stability in the face of enduring and emerging regional challenges. The expansion of Britain’s footprint builds upon our 40-year track record of Gulf patrols and is just one example of our growing partnerships with the Gulf states to tackle shared strategic and regional threats.
A World-class Teaching Profession (Government Consultation)
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
The Minister of State for Schools and I are today launching a consultation on proposals to support the teaching profession in England in becoming truly world-class.
Evidence from around the world consistently shows that the quality of teaching is the single most important school-based factor determining how well children achieve. There is much to celebrate in the quality of teachers in our schools, but there is also more that can be done if our teachers and teaching are to be truly world-class.
Increasingly, the teaching profession is becoming a powerful force for its own improvement. The best schools are driving up standards in others, with outstanding teachers leading the way in modelling practice within their own schools and beyond. But there is more that we, as Government, can do to promote and support a self-improving schools system to build on the successes that it has already made.
So we are now proposing a number of measures designed to help teachers to go even further in raising standards. Our proposals centre on the development of teaching as a mature and confident profession whose members are committed to their own development and improvement, and who consequently are accorded the status as professionals that they rightly deserve.
We are consulting on two key areas. First, we are setting out our commitment to supporting the establishment of a new professional body for teaching—a college of teaching. We agree with the many teachers and school leaders who have called for such a body to be established as part of the process of putting greater power and authority in the hands of the teaching profession itself. The consultation proposes a number of ways in which Government might support the initial set-up of a college while guaranteeing its long-term independence, which will be crucial to its success. We are inviting expressions of interest from groups who are interested in establishing the college, through which we can channel appropriate support.
Secondly, we are proposing measures to improve the quality of professional development undertaken by teachers. High-quality, evidence-based professional development is the hallmark of leading professions; too often, however, teachers tell us that they are being let down by the opportunities available to them. We want to support teaching to become a truly “learning profession”, whose members are committed to career-long development. We are therefore proposing to establish a new fund to support the development and delivery of high-quality professional development programmes, led by the teaching schools network but reaching out to those schools which require the greatest additional support to improve. All programmes will be robustly evaluated and the evidence generated will be made widely available to teachers, helping to build and spread a sound knowledge base about the effectiveness of different approaches to professional development.
The full proposals are available online at www.gov.uk and the consultation will be open until 3 February 2015. A copy of the consultation document is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements
Renewable Heat Incentive
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
In May this year, I published a formal consultation setting out our proposals to review the biomethane injection to grid tariff under the renewable heat incentive (RHI). Since then DECC has engaged extensively with stakeholders on our proposals and received over 60 responses to the consultation.
Today, I am pleased to announce the publication of the formal Government response to our consultation which sets out how we will revise the biomethane injection to grid tariff. Biomethane is set to be an important contributor to renewable heat under the RHI and I want to ensure the scheme allows the burgeoning biomethane injection to grid market to grow sustainably and offer good value for money to the taxpayer. Copies of the response will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
New tariffs
DECC intends to implement a tiered tariff structure to the biomethane injection to grid tariff based around three tiers. We intend to pay 7.5p for the first 40,000 megawatt hours (MWh) injected into the grid (the “tier 1” tariff), 4.4p for the next 40,000 MWh (the “tier 2” tariff) and 3.4p for any subsequent biomethane injected over a period of 12 months from the date of registration. The tariff will be paid up to the maximum volume of biomethane the producer is entitled to inject under the Network Entry Agreement (NEA). Tiering was overwhelmingly popular among consultation respondents, particularly a three tier approach. Tiering is less prone to unintended consequences such as gaming, as opposed to the alternative option we consulted on, a banding solution which encourages clustering around band thresholds which could lead to inefficient sizing of plants. Tiering the tariff also means there is no longer a requirement to accurately determine the system capacity of the plant. This is because the meter readings relating to volume of gas injected can be used to determine the “tiered” payments.
The tariffs have been modelled based on a feedstock mix of 70% unpackaged food waste and 30% energy crop. Feedback from the responses indicated that it is necessary to include some energy crop in the feedstock mix to hedge against the risk inherent in short-term waste contracts.
Feedback from the consultation revealed a broad consensus that the gate fees presented in the consultation document were too high, that contracts offering that level of income are no longer available, and there is limited opportunity to secure the long-term contracts for food waste which have been available in the past. The tariffs have been modelled based on gate fees of £15 per tonne for unpackaged food waste based upon evidence received during the consultation. Evidence from the consultation supported a crop feedstock cost of £35 per tonne.
Degression
RHI expenditure is controlled within agreed limits through a budget management mechanism known as degression. When the new tiered tariffs are introduced, the biomethane degression triggers will remain unchanged and committed expenditure—for the purposes of assessing degressions—will be based upon expenditure for plants registered under both the old tariff and new tariffs; and that if a degression for the biomethane tariffs is triggered, it will be applied to all tiers equally, e.g. for a 5% tariff degression, the tariff in each tier would be reduced by 5%. This means that the relative levels of the tiers will be maintained. We consider this approach avoids introducing further complexity into the scheme and creating uncertainty for industry.
In order to avoid the new tariff being degressed soon after its introduction, which would be destabilising for investor certainty, the new biomethane tariff will have temporary protection from degression between the introduction of the tariff and the end of June 2015. However, there is a balances to be struck between providing tariff stability and enforcing budget control. As such, the new tariff, once introduced, will be eligible for degression from 1 July 2015 inclusive. The outcome of the degression assessment for both 1 January and 1 April 2015 will still apply for the purposes of assessing the level of any degression to be applied on 1 July 2015. The new tariffs will also be subject to any retail price index uplift on 1 April 2015.
Additional capacity
Any additional capacity added to existing plant will receive the prevailing tariff at the time the additional capacity is registered, e.g. if additional capacity is registered after the tiered tariffs have been introduced, it will receive the tiered tariff, or a degressed tiered tariff.
Consistent with the announcement we made this summer, that any new tariff will not be introduced before 1 December 2014, we plan that the implementing regulations will come into force in February 2015 subject to parliamentary approval and will apply to all new installations and additional capacity only.
I will lay the necessary statutory instruments to implement these changes before the House as soon as possible.
Gosport Independent Panel
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
On 10 July, Official Report, column 33WS, I announced the establishment of the Gosport independent panel, chaired by Bishop James Jones, set up to review documentary evidence held across a range of organisations concerning the initial care of families’ relatives and the subsequent investigations into their deaths in Gosport War Memorial hospital.
Since then, the Bishop has begun working with affected families to ensure their views are taken into account in shaping the terms of reference.
I can now announce the Gosport independent panel’s agreed terms of reference and the appointment of four further members of the panel.
In summary, the remit of the Gosport independent panel will be to:
Consult with the families of the deceased and of those treated to ensure that the views of those affected are taken into consideration;
Obtain, examine and analyse documentation from all relevant organisations and individuals—governmental and non-governmental.
Produce a report which will provide an overview of the information reviewed by the panel and will illustrate how the information disclosed adds to public understanding of these events and their aftermath.
The four additional panel members I have appointed are:
Dr Bill Kirkup, CBE, former member of the Hillsborough independent panel and currently the chair of an independent investigation into neonatal and maternal deaths at Morecambe Bay hospital. Dr Kirkup will finish this work before taking up his place on the Gosport panel substantively.
Dr Colin Currie, as a geriatrician, has wide experience in the care of older people in acute, rehabilitation and respite settings; and also has expertise in clinical governance, hip fracture care, and policy on the integration of health and social care.
David Hencke is an investigative journalist and writer.
Duncan Jarrett, OBE, is a former Scotland Yard commander and an experienced mediator.
Christine Gifford is a recognised expert in the field of access to information. She joined the panel in July, and has started work to ensure maximum possible disclosure of the documentary evidence to the panel.
I am making these appointments in view of the skill set required for the panel’s work. The new panel members are experts in their respective fields and I am grateful to each of them for agreeing to take on this task. Other panel members may be appointed at a later date. I will announce any future appointments through a press release.
This announcement marks the beginning of very important work for the independent panel members, relevant organisations and individuals in addressing the concerns and questions raised by family members over the years.
The review by the independent panel is expected to complete by the end of 2017. The Secretary of State for Health will make arrangements for publication of the final report to Parliament.
A copy of the detailed terms of reference has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/ writtenstatements
Health Council
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (EPSCO) Council met in Brussels to discuss health issues on 1 December. The UK was represented at the meeting by the UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU.
The Italian presidency provided a progress report on the medical devices regulations. Member states recognised the importance of making swift progress under the upcoming Latvian presidency. The UK underlined that it did not see the value in introducing an additional pre-market scrutiny mechanism.
Council conclusions were adopted on: vaccination as an effective tool in public health; patient safety and quality of care, including the prevention and control of health care associated infections and antimicrobial resistance; and innovation for the benefit of patients.
There was an exchange of views on the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy, and the value of including health in the strategy. The UK argued against expanding the strategy to include health policy on the grounds that the management and delivery of health care is a national competence and stated that a strategy focused on jobs and growth would be the most effective.
Under any other business, the Health Commissioner gave an update on the work being done by the Commission to combat the Ebola outbreak. Spain called on member states and the EU to sign the Council of Europe Convention against trafficking in human organs. There was discussion on an agenda item tabled by Luxembourg which focused on the admission criteria for men who have sex with men (MSM) to donate blood. The Italian presidency provided information on the outcomes of conferences held during their tenure.
The incoming Latvian presidency discussed its priorities. There will be three overarching priorities: competiveness and growth, the digital economy, and the EU’s role in the global arena. On health, they will prioritise:
Healthy lifestyles;
the medical devices regulations;
the new EU alcohol strategy;
the upcoming Eastern Partnership conference on multi-resistant tuberculosis.
During the ministerial lunch, there was a discussion on Ebola. The UK outlined the action it had taken so far and encouraged other member states to make further contributions.
The Italian presidency also drew attention to the fact that the meeting coincided with World AIDS day.
Civil Legal Advice
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
During the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 the Ministry of Justice committed to report to Parliament on the operation of the Civil Legal Advice (CLA) mandatory gateway within two years of its implementation.
This review is being published today and consists of four research reports and, separately, the Government’s response. The research is in four parts:
Civil Legal Advice mandatory gateway: Overarching research summary,
Findings from interviews with users,
Findings from interviews with service providers,
Analysis of management information.
These reports, and the separate Government response, when taken together constitute the review of the Civil Legal Advice mandatory gateway. I have placed copies of these reports in the Library of the House. They are also available online at, http://www.parliament.uk/ writtenstatements
EU Transport Council
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I attended the second Transport Council under the Italian presidency (the presidency) in Brussels on Wednesday 3 December.
The first item under consideration was on TEN-T, where the presidency opened proceedings by outlining the link between the conclusions and both the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 package and the launch of the Juncker investment package. Former commissioner Christopherson gave an overview of his interim report which he thought could provide transport projects for support from the Juncker package which is seeking to leverage investment from the private sector. Member states expressed their support for the conclusions which were adopted. Commissioner Bulc welcomed the conclusions and asked for transport to be the subject of the spring European Council next year and to be at the heart of the Europe Council 2020 strategy.
However the Council’s proceedings were dominated by discussions on the proposed general approaches on the two legislative proposals under Single European Sky II+. The general approach on the SES Council related amendments to the EASA regulation was agreed without comment and the related Commission declaration on the applicability of the EASA regulation to Gibraltar airport was accepted.
On the SES recast, I supported the presidency’s ambition of reaching a general approach on the condition that it respected in full the EU treaties and included Gibraltar airport within scope. Spain sought the exclusion of Gibraltar airport. In an astonishing move, the presidency proposed (i) to put in square brackets the current text in article 1, paragraph 5, which notes that the application of the regulation is without prejudice to the respective legal positions of the UK and Spain with regard to the dispute over sovereignty over the territory in which the airport is situated and (ii) to add a footnote stating that,
“the question on how to reflect the Gibraltar issue in the text is awaiting the outcome of discussions between Spain and UK.”
I objected in the strongest possible terms, emphasising that Gibraltar was included in the current SES framework, that any exclusion of Gibraltar was unjustifiable under the treaties and that I could not accept any proposal that did not make clear that Gibraltar was within scope.
At my request, the Council legal service opined that the Council’s agreement on the aviation content amounted to a general approach, but the consequence of the part not agreed by all member states, that is the part concerning Gibraltar, resulted in the general approach being partial.
Overriding my protest and the opinion of the legal service, the Commission welcomed the presidency’s proposal, and the presidency concluded that a general approach had been reached. I left the Council in protest at what was a completely unacceptable situation.
The Government are clear that EU aviation legislation applies to Gibraltar as is clearly set out in the EU treaties. We will continue to defend the inclusion of Gibraltar in EU aviation legislation. We reserve our position on the lawfulness of any other outcome and on our response, including the possibility of pursuing legal proceedings.
Following the Council, the Foreign Secretary spoke to his Italian counterpart last week to express our view that the dossier could not proceed to the next stage— discussions with the European Parliament—until the question of application to Gibraltar had been resolved. I am pleased to report that the Italian Foreign Minister gave his assurance that the Italian presidency would not seek to do this.
Although I was not present for the remainder of the Council, the UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU continued to occupy the UK seat. I can report that the following discussions also took place.
On Standards of training, certification and watch-keeping for fishing vessel personnel (STCW-F), the Commission restated its position with regards to the reservation considering that this was the only legally sound approach. One member state intervened to support the Council decision but indicated that they would make a declaration in respect of the legal base.
The presidency’s progress report on the fourth railway package was broadly welcomed by member states but led to an echoing of comments made by member states in October. Several member states made it clear that for them the technical pillar remained the priority. The presidency and Commission were clear that the technical pillar on its own was not enough and that the package should stay together. Many member states remained sceptical about mandatory competitive tendering and called for more flexibility on direct award provisions. Latvia stated the fourth railway package would be a priority for their forthcoming presidency. The Commission took on board member state comments and looked forward to progressing work under the Latvian presidency. In addition, a general approach was reached on the repeal of regulation 1192/69 on common rules for the normalisation of the accounts of railway undertakings, a welcome simplification measure.
Under any other business, the presidency informed the Council about the EASA event on remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) that recently took place in Rome which the presidency hoped would serve as a useful basis to continue discussions under the Latvian presidency.
Commissioner Bienkowska updated the Council on Galileo and EGNOS. She made very clear she was committed to ensuring the success of the space sector, that transport was a key user underpinning the success of EGNOS and Galileo and looked to member states to continue their support.
Lithuania drew Council’s attention to their recent experience of detailed inspections of Lithuanian registered vehicles at the Russian border and the negative impact this was having on the Lithuanian haulage sector. They called on the Commission and other member states to agree a common solution to help resolve the situation. The Commission took note although recognised the limited ability for action in the wider political context.
Finally, Latvia set out the priorities for their presidency. The fourth railway package would be one of their main priorities. On road, Latvia recognised the importance of weights and dimensions and cross-border enforcement files and indicated that the review of the Commission’s road safety strategy would be the subject of a policy debate. Latvia was explicitly clear that they would only continue work on SES II+ and airport slots if there was a consensus among member states. They also did not rule out the possibility of continuing work on air passenger rights. Finally, the incoming presidency would focus on technical requirements for inland waterways and would progress negotiations on the ports services regulation subject to progress made in the European Parliament. Latvia would hold three high-level events in Riga on EU-Asia transport links, RPAS and TEN-T corridors.
Grand Committee
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Single Source Contract Regulations 2014
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Jolly
That the Grand Committee do consider the Single Source Contract Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (Special attention drawn to the instrument)
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, in moving that the draft regulations laid before the House on 29 October 2014 be considered, before I begin I should make the Committee aware of the report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I will return to this later in my speech.
Before addressing the draft regulations, I would like to set out the context for this fundamental reform to Ministry of Defence procurement. Open competition remains the best way of ensuring value for money for the taxpayer but there are inevitably occasions where there is only a single provider of a capability we require. Equally, there are situations where we need to maintain critical national industrial capabilities or, indeed, control over intellectual property. This may be achievable only by placing contracts with UK companies without a competitive process. Clearly, in the absence of the disciplines of the marketplace, we need rules governing single source procurement to protect the taxpayers and to ensure our Armed Forces get the most out of every pound spent on defence.
The current framework—the so-called Yellow Book—has remained unchanged for 45 years. It fails to address inherent failures in single source procurement and the lack of competition undermines market pressure to reduce costs and improve efficiency. The lack of an alternative supplier means that we cannot walk away without also walking away from the capability we need. Our suppliers know this, which undermines our ability to drive a hard bargain. Put bluntly, this does not serve the best interests of the taxpayer, nor does it encourage industry to maintain a competitive edge in export markets.
In the Defence Reform Act 2014, the MoD set out the new statutory replacement for the Yellow Book, which we are calling the Orange Book. At the core of this lies the principle that industry should get a fair price in exchange for providing the MoD with much greater transparency on its costs and with the protections we need to ensure value for money. This new framework requires single source suppliers to operate on a truly open book basis. Before we sign a contract, suppliers will be required to provide us with extensive information outlining their pricing assumptions. Suppliers will be required to maintain extensive records on cost and performance and to share these records and explain them to us. Even before the DRA received Royal Assent, the MoD had been consulting with industry and Parliament on the draft regulations. While the Act establishes the principles behind the new framework, the regulations give the detail. This gives us the flexibility to adapt the new framework if required.
I should stress that in developing the regulations we have been consulting closely with the defence industry. We have listened carefully to the views of industry and—where appropriate—we have made changes to the regulations. It is simply not in our interests to have a system that is unworkable for industry.
By developing the draft regulations early, we were also able to take Parliament’s view on board. Here I thank noble Lords for the excellence of their scrutiny, and in particular I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his interest and expert engagement on these issues. I have had many detailed conversations with him on these very complex questions and have always found his insights extremely useful. Following a meeting with him last week, I wrote to inform him how the regulations had changed since they were issued in January 2014. It might be useful if I read out this letter.
The letter states:
“At the meeting which I had with you on 3rd December, you raised a number of technical issues on the Single Source Contract Regulations which MOD officials responded to during the meeting. In addition, you asked for a note outlining the key changes made to the draft regulations since they were provided to Parliament prior to the House of Lords scrutiny of the Defence Reform Act in January of this year. I agreed that I would send you a note outlining these changes prior to the debate in Grand Committee.
As you are aware, the regulations were laid in draft before Parliament on 29 October 2014 following extensive consultations with stakeholders and legal scrutiny and assurance. The vast majority of the changes from the version provided in January were made for legal drafting reasons rather than policy changes. These changes reflect the high level of internal legal assurance, input from legal advisors representing the defence industry following consultation, and scrutiny by the Counsel for Joint Committee of Statutory Instruments (JCSI). It would be onerous to list all of these changes: most were made to make the regulations clearer and more effective, to avoid repetition and to fill in the detail, in particular, with regard to reporting requirements. Individual regulations and parts have also been re-ordered.
The main changes of note primarily for legal drafting are as follows.
a. To provide a better definition of the contract end date (Reg 4).
b. To make better provision for calculating the value of a contract (Reg 5).
c. To provide for qualifying defence contracts and qualifying subcontracts made under framework contracts (Reg 9 and Reg 60).
d. To remove duplication in regard to information required from contract reports (Reg 22-Reg 30).
e. To re-work the provisions, e.g. with reference to the obligation to provide supplier-level reports under Reg 34-Reg 39 (Reg 31 and Reg 32).
f. removal of duplication in regard to information required from supplier reports (Reg 33-Reg 45).
In addition, a number of changes have been made for policy reasons. The main changes made are as follows.
(a) The Coming into Force (CIF) date (Reg 1) has changed from ‘1 October 2014’ to ‘on the day after the day on which they are made’. In practical terms this means, subject to Parliamentary approval, a few days after debates in both Houses have concluded. This change was made because, given the detailed and technical nature of the regulations and restraints on Parliamentary time, the Oct 2014 date could not be met.
(b) The definition of ‘defence purposes’ (Reg 3) has been changed from the previous draft which referred to contracts where ‘Secretary of State for Defence is party to the contract’ to the current wording for contracts that are for ‘the purposes of defence (whether or not of the United Kingdom), or related purposes’. This has been done because a strict legal interpretation of the Act requires us to define defence purposes, and the original definition was a description of circumstances rather than a definition. Legal advice is that the new definition achieves the same policy effect.
(c) The introduction of a two-tier approach to value thresholds for qualifying defence contracts (Reg 6). Between CIF and the end of March 2015, the value threshold for a qualifying defence contract is £500m. After this date, this drops to £5m. This ensures the most material contracts are caught as soon as possible, while limiting the number of early adopters to a practical level, which will assist the Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO) to prepare for increasing volumes of qualifying contracts from April 2015.
(d) The introduction of two new regulated pricing methods (Reg 10). The ‘estimate-based fee pricing method’ allows for a form of cost-plus contract where the profit is agreed in advance rather than being proportional to costs. This removes a financial incentive on suppliers to increase their costs so as to receive a greater profit. The ‘volume-driven pricing method’ allows for availability contracts where the price is agreed as a price per unit output (e.g. £x per flying hour).
(e) The initial profit rates (Reg 11). The SSRO will recommend its first set of profit rates by 31 Jan 2015, and the Secretary of State will publish the final rates in the London Gazette by 15 Mar 2015. Between the CIF and the end of March 2015, there is no profit rate published in the London Gazette. During this period, transitional rates will be used which are those recommended by the Review Board for Government Contracts (the arms-length body who currently recommend profit rates for single source contracts, and who are being replaced in due course by the SSRO).
(f) The introduction of a minimum threshold for subcontracts to be considered when making an adjustment under step 3 of the calculation of the Contract Profit Rate (see section 15 of the Act) (Reg 12). The step 3 adjustment ensures that suppliers do not get multiple layers of profit by virtue of subcontracting to other suppliers within the same corporate group. Although simple in theory, in practice calculating this adjustment is complex and resource intensive, so we have introduced a value threshold of £100,000. Subcontracts below this value are not to be considered when making a step 3 adjustment.
(g) Greater contract-level reporting requirements for the ‘Interim contract report’ (ICR) (Reg 27). To avoid duplication, the information asked for in the ‘Quarterly Contract Report’ (QCR, see Reg 26) was removed from the ICR. The QCR is, however, only required for contracts above £50m, meaning contracts between £5m and £50m did not provide all information we wanted. Additional information requirements have been thus been added to the ICR for contracts between £5m and £50m.
(h) The introduction of a two-tier approach to the value thresholds for supplier-level reporting (Reg 31). As soon as a supplier signs a QDC in excess of this threshold, the supplier reporting requirement outlined in Part 6 applies to all the business units involved in single source procurement within that supplier’s corporate group. The value has been set to an initially lower level of £20 million until 1 April 2017, when it rises to £50 million. This is to expedite the introduction of the new supplier-level reporting and overhead recovery requirements.
(i) Increased supplier-level reporting information requirements (Regs 40-44). The ‘long-term overhead report’ (Reg 48 in the previous draft version provided to the House of Lords) has been replaced by the ‘Strategic industry capacity report’. Additional information requirements have been identified which support the MoD in getting value for money from single source procurement.
(j) Maximum penalties (Reg 50). The Act requires the regulations to set out maximum civil penalty amounts for reporting failures (see section 33(1)). These have now been included.
(k) Qualifying Subcontracts (Reg 58). To be a qualifying subcontract, the majority of the work done under a single source subcontract has to relate to qualifying defence contracts or subcontracts (current or prospective). This is to exclude subcontracts that are predominantly to support competitive contracts, for which there should be sufficient market pressure to encourage the supplier to get value for money from their subcontracts”.
Although the form and wording of the regulations have evolved since January, there have been limited substantial changes to the underlying policy. The regulations describe how the new framework will operate. It would be onerous to go into this in detail but I will draw the Committee’s attention to a few key elements.
First, I note that one of the main functions of the regulations is to set out the scope, frequency and nature of the information required from our suppliers. The Committee will understand why this needs to be spelt out in detail to remove any ambiguity.
Secondly, I will highlight our intention to bring the new framework into force with effect as soon as it has been cleared by Parliament. However, this will be implemented in two phases. Between the coming into force date and the end of March 2015, the value threshold for a qualifying defence contract will be £500 million and above. After this date, this threshold will drop to £5 million and above. This phased approach maximises the benefits from the new system while limiting the number of early adopters to a practical level. This will assist the SSRO to prepare for increasing volumes of qualifying contracts from April 2015 and will allow it the opportunity to issue guidance on the new framework.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for that introduction. I would just like to say a word about the role of the Official Opposition in this process. The Act and the regulations are enormously complex and, in taking the Bill through, we took a decision to have most of our conversations with the Government not on the Floor of the House, and to make sure that the clarifications and so on that emerged were read into Hansard during the subsequent debates. That worked very well.
The problem with taking that forward, of course, is that the regulations, I think, are actually longer than the section of the Act that they refer to. Therefore there were as many concerns of detail in the regulations as there were in the Act, and I thank the Minister and her officials for finding time to talk to us about the regulations and for her letter. It was important to read it into the record because Hansard, in a sense, lives for ever—one has only to walk down our corridors to realise that—whereas, splendid as the letter is, I will probably lose it and probably nobody else will actually see it. Having it in the record is therefore worth while. Therefore I thank the Minister for that repetition, long as it necessarily was.
On the general thrust of the Act and the regulations, I commend the Government for bringing them forward. I believe that it has taken them something like five years to work on this issue. I see nothing political about it, and the Ministry of Defence is now equipped with a piece of legislation that gives it some sort of equality of arms when working with large manufacturers —to which, for reasons of sovereignty, we have effectively ceded monopoly power. So far, I am happy with where we are. I accept that the divisions the noble Baroness set out in the letter were technical policy matters. We have checked through the letter and are happy with it.
Unfortunately, in a sense, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments came through with its report a little late. I am not criticising that committee. The accident of timing, together with the demands of my wife, meant that my attention rested on the report only on Monday morning. I thank the Minister for taking it on board and responding to it.
I hope that I will be forgiven for my rather halting presentation. There are four relevant issues, the first of which relates to Regulation 5(3)(a)(i) and the Joint Committee’s concern about the reference to Regulation 12(1). As I understand it, the Government entirely take this point and will correct it in a subsequent regulation. The Committee will today not be well served by me going on about it any further.
The next point that the Joint Committee raised was essentially a drafting point. I think in a sense the committee was complaining that there was repetition. The problem with repetition if you are a lawyer is that you create synonyms, and synonyms are bad news because it is a feast for lawyers to work out which interpretation to take and gain the edge. The problem arises because of the shape of Regulation 10. In some ways, if the different methods of contract had been set out plainly with reference to pricing, it would be clearer. Despite the explanation given by the Minister, I still think that this particular regulation is—how shall I put it?—a little messy and inelegant. However, I accept that it probably has no substantial impact.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the noble Lord for his interesting and valuable comments and I shall address the points he raised as far as I can. We shall be in touch with him on any unaddressed points.
On his comment about the regulations being difficult for a lay audience to understand, and that the way they are laid out bears no relationship to the Act and that the cross-referencing of the two proved quite a challenge, we have done everything we can to make them as clear and comprehensible as possible. However, inevitably, they are highly technical and dry. They relate to a complex and specialist subject and it is necessary that they are accurate and precise. Everything in the regulations addresses specific issues in providing for the new framework for single source procurement.
When we had our meeting last week we discussed the intention that industry would probably not use the regulations but that the SSRO would produce specialist toolkits to guide industry through the morass of legislation and regulation. So, although those of us who enjoy reading these sorts of things might have had a problem, the department is doing all it can to smooth them out.
On the issue of training for industry, extensive briefing material has been provided. We have discussed this extensively in consultation with industry. We are providing workshops, briefing early adopters—including industry—and much of our guidance is on the internet, visible to industry and transparent.
“Mays” and “musts” is a good House of Lords regulation issue. I can confirm that the “may” in Section 18(2)(a) and (b) has not been used in the regulations. “May” does not mean “must”. I hope that the noble Lord is happy about that.
I thank the noble Lord for his comments and I hope that I have answered the main points raised during the debate. I further hope that Members of the Committee appreciate the Government’s commitment to improving this key component of our approach to procurement. This is a fundamental reform to a system which is well overdue for change. We continue to work with the SSRO and industry to ensure that implementation of the new approach is pursued as effectively and smoothly as possible.
Before I finish, I will not only repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, but thank the officials who not only had to teach me the intricacies of single source procurement—
Lord Tunnicliffe
Before the noble Baroness sits down, does she have any comments about the future of transparency? I think she does.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, it is important that we should understand how any taxpayers’ money is being spent. How will Parliament know? The SSRO will publish an annual adherence report that will be laid before Parliament—helpfully, the officials, who I am praising to the hilt, have told me this—in the usual way. It may be that the noble Lord and I will have to google for press releases.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I know that it is extremely difficult to pick up on this point at the moment. I wonder whether, if the Minister can add a little more, she will write me a letter and place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Jolly
I will willingly do that and pop a copy into the Library. Finally, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Verma
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument—the supplier payment regulations—forms part of the implementing secondary legislation for the Government’s capacity market scheme, which is part of the electricity market reform programme. The powers to make this implementing secondary legislation are found in the Energy Act 2013, which, following scrutiny in this House and the other place, received Royal Assent in December last year, with cross-party support.
The capacity market will address our medium-term electricity needs and ensure that there is sufficient electricity supply towards the end of the decade and beyond. It is one of the two key schemes brought in by electricity market reform to incentivise much needed investment into our energy infrastructure. The other, the contract for difference scheme, is not the subject of today’s debate.
The capacity market will help keep the lights on by driving new investment in gas and demand-side capacity, as well as getting the best out of our existing generation fleet as we transition to a low-carbon electricity future. In brief, the capacity market will achieve this by making a regular capacity payment to providers who are successful in capacity auctions. In return for this payment, providers must meet their obligations to provide capacity or reduce demand when the system is tight, ensuring that enough capacity is in place to maintain security of electricity supply.
The supplier payment regulations will sit alongside the Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014, called the principal regulations, and the Capacity Market Rules 2014. The principal regulations and rules, which received parliamentary approval in July this year, brought the capacity market into force on 1 August and, as a result, the first capacity auction will be held later this month for delivery in 2018-19. Those successful in this and subsequent auctions will be awarded capacity agreements entitling them to capacity payments. This will be paid for by a charge on all electricity suppliers. It should also be noted that while the first capacity delivery year will be in 2018-19, the Government are committed to supporting the growth of the demand-side response sector. As part of this, two transitional auctions, just for this sector, will be held in 2015 and 2016 for delivery in 2016-17 and 2017-18. This tailored support will help grow the demand-side and storage industries and ensure effective competition between traditional power plants and new forms of capacity, thereby driving down future costs for consumers. As with payments made during the capacity delivery year, payments made under the transitional auctions will be funded by a charge on all electricity suppliers.
When we debated the principal regulations, I highlighted that the Government would be bringing forward a second set of regulations on the supplier payment arrangements for the capacity market to align the legislative framework for the capacity market and contracts for difference. The supplier payment regulations were not brought in at the same time as the principal regulations, as they are technical provisions which we wanted to get absolutely right. It was not necessary for them to be in force prior to the first capacity auction.
The supplier payment regulations, which suppliers, industry and consumer groups have been consulted on throughout their development, include an obligation on all electricity suppliers to pay a “capacity market supplier charge” from 1 April 2015. As I have mentioned, this charge will fund the capacity payments to those successful in capacity auctions. The first capacity payments will be made in 2016 and 2017 to those successful in the transitional auctions, and to those with a capacity agreement for the first capacity delivery year in 2018-19. In addition, the regulations include a small additional levy—known as the settlement costs levy—to cover the operating costs of the government-owned Electricity Settlements Company, whose role it is to calculate, determine and administer the payments from suppliers to those who are successful in the capacity auctions.
The regulations determine how much each licensed supplier will be required to pay for the capacity market. The amount payable by a supplier will be calculated on a supplier’s share of the market, based on how much electricity they were supplying between 4 pm and 7 pm on working days between November and February in the relevant delivery year. This approach seeks to achieve a balance between the objective of incentivising reductions in electricity use, at times when demand is high, and that of remaining predictable and manageable for electricity suppliers who have to pass these costs on to their customers transparently. The regulations will facilitate the flow of payment from all electricity suppliers to those successful in capacity auctions. On receipt of capacity payments, capacity providers are then obliged to provide capacity or reduce demand when required. This therefore ensures security of electricity supplies.
While further amendments will be made in early 2015 to the principal regulations, mainly to enable the Government to meet their commitment to allow interconnected capacity to participate in the capacity market from 2015 onwards, these regulations complete the secondary legislation framework for the capacity market. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her explanation to the Committee of the electricity capacity regulations. She referred to the Energy Act 2013, of which these and other provisions are the consequence. Many days were spent in this very Room debating the issues pertinent to the regulations before us today and we remain supportive of the role of the capacity market mechanisms, as part of electricity market reform. However, one or two curiosities remain from these regulations and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify them today.
The Minister has made it clear that each supplier will pay the capacity market on a forecast of their share of net demand between 4 pm and 7 pm on working days in winter, and that this will be reconciled using actual demand data once they become known. What degree of accuracy in that forecast is specified in the regulations or is there an element of incentivisation included, such that suppliers do not overbudget the market for cash-flow purposes, resulting in higher consumer costs? How will this element be monitored and any sanction calculated or even applied for, should there be excessive demand forecasting, and what happens if there is then a dispute concerning the calculation of actual demand? What dispute-resolution mechanisms have been proposed?
The regulations also make it clear that should a supplier default on payment, this contribution to the capacity market must be made up through further contributions from the remaining non-defaulting suppliers. What degree of allowance for this can a supplier rely on in undertaking his or her forecasting? Have the Government calculated a fair cost element to each supplier of carrying this additional risk and how significant this may become?
In her remarks, the Minister referred to the inclusion of interconnectors. I remember our debates and the encouragement for the inclusion of this innovation, to contribute to the UK’s security of supply. In anticipation of such future inclusion of interconnected capacity, Regulation 3 of the principal regulations is amended in the definition of “providing electricity”. It is obviously disappointing that interconnectors could not take part in the capacity mechanism from the very beginning. With the first round of auctions taking place on 16 December, as she said, the potential for some of these interconnector projects, which could well be in place by 2020, is significant. The impact assessment also notes that a greater degree of interconnection could help to reduce the role of the capacity market in future, yet the capacity market is needed to enable access from interconnectors. How does the Minister see this conundrum playing out as we move to the more contractual counterparty model used for contracts for difference?
The position of existing nuclear power is also somewhat curious. It is included in the list of qualifying plant for the capacity market yet these nuclear plants have already been built, are already generating and are receiving revenues for electricity that will not be hit by carbon pricing. Has the Minister reflected that nuclear plants can now enter the capacity market, even though industry is intended to finance the cost of upgrade and life extension work? As the Minister knows, subsidy will find its way back in the end to bills that the consumer pays.
The Explanatory Memorandum also mentions that as the capacity market is intended to be a transitional measure, regular reviews of the capacity market will take place. Has the Minister any view on how often these regular reviews and audits should be taking place? As each year’s auction will clarify progress on a number of eventualities and be subject to demand-side and storage transitional arrangements, as mentioned in the Minister’s remarks, does she envisage that they would best be undertaken yearly?
The Minister will also be aware that carbon impact policies do not apply to plants producing less than 20 megawatts. This will give a cost advantage to plants conveniently bidding on providing 19 megawatts. Will the Minister outline the rationale for that defining level as oil plants, being perhaps among the most polluting forms of generation, will tend to be at a sub-20 megawatt level? In the expectation of her fulsome replies and clarifications, I am in support of these regulations today. In the spirit of Christmas, I look forward to congratulating the Minister on a successful auction next week. We will have the joy of experiencing it in the announcement of the results by National Grid early in the new year.
Baroness Verma
I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for what was, I think, his general support for the draft regulations. Of course, he reminded me of the hard work that the Committee undertook during debate on what became the Energy Act 2013. I was extremely grateful for the noble Lord’s participation in ensuring that the level of scrutiny that took place really did enhance the Bill as it moved through to become an Act.
As always, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked a large range of questions and before I continue, if I fail to answer any of the questions that he posed, I will of course read Hansard carefully, and I undertake to write to him and place a copy in the Library.
The noble Lord asked about the period of reviews. Reviews will be undertaken yearly by Ofgem and every five years by the Government. It is important that we ultimately deliver the right formula to ensure a value-for-money cost to the consumer. I know that ultimately the noble Lord and I share the primary object of ensuring that not only do we have enough supply but that it provides value to the consumer.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I will continue with my responses to the noble Lord, Lord Granchester. He asked about interconnectors. As he mentioned, we announced the interconnected capacity, which will participate in the market from 2015. We will bring forward amending legislation and an impact assessment in the new year that will address the points the noble Lord raised about interconnectivity.
The noble Lord also asked about existing plant such as nuclear and asked why it was being allowed to partake in the auction. The purpose of the capacity market is to ensure that we have secure energy—that the lights do not go off. That means that we need to ensure that all forms of capacity are able to take part in the system. However, it is open to best value: of course the capacity market is there to generate competition, but also to ensure that we have enough supply to keep the lights on. I think the noble Lord will of course agree that those established technologies have a lot of upfront costs when they build, so a lot of other costs are associated with the traditional sector and we should not exit them out just because they have already built and are partaking. However, nuclear offers a low-carbon energy supply, and I think the noble Lord will agree that that is also a necessary need to fulfil, as well as ensuring that the lights stay on.
The noble Lord asked about carbon impact policies and the advantage for plants that are bidding at the 19-megawatt ratio. I would like to reassure the noble Lord that we will be reviewing the outcome of the first auction to ensure that it is a fair process and that we do not unintentionally benefit one form of supply over another.
This debate has been important and I do thank the noble Lord for his questions, which have allowed me to illustrate the fairness of the system—but again, as with all things, we will make sure that we are reviewing the process as we go along. I would also like to put on record that I hope that the noble Lord gets an opportunity over the Christmas period to take some time off and rest, because I know that he works extremely hard, as do his colleagues, in challenging the Government—which is only right and enables us to produce better legislation. I commend the draft regulations.
Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, in introducing these regulations I disclose an interest as owner of a stretch of a tributary of the River Thames and an interest in a lake used—among other things—for fishing.
Diseases and parasites of fish in the wild can, of course, adversely impact fish stocks. Non-native invasive fish species also pose a significant threat to native species through predation and competition as well as being potential carriers of diseases and pests, with additional potential impacts on the biodiversity of habitats. These present risks to the environment and to commercial and recreational fishery waters, so the stocking of fish into inland waters for recreational angling and other purposes has to be balanced with appropriate safeguards for aquatic environments.
Under these regulations a new permitting scheme will enable the regulatory body and the Environment Agency to adopt a risk-based approach to managing the introduction and keeping of fish in our rivers, lakes and waterways. This will reduce burdens on the angling and freshwater fisheries sector and help promote growth in the rural economy. The legislation, subject to the approval of Parliament, will be made under Section 232 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. These regulations would repeal Section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 in relation to England. We will shortly also modify the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) (England) Order 2014 so that its scope excludes inland waters, to prevent the duplication of legislation.
The proposed regulations introduce a new permitting scheme which would replace the existing legal requirements to obtain the consent of the Environment Agency for each separate introduction of any fish into inland waters, and to obtain a licence for the keeping and release of non-native fish in inland waters. These regulations would make it an offence to keep fish or introduce fish other than in accordance with a single permit granted by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency will also have the power to impose conditions on the permits relating to matters such as the number of fish introduced and minimising the risk of fish escaping from inland waters.
The new permitting scheme will enable the Environment Agency to adopt a risk-based approach to managing the introduction and keeping of fish. Under this proposal, species that are high-risk are given greater scrutiny while the movement of low-risk species will be allowed to take place more freely. This is a significant improvement on the current system. The Environment Agency will also be able to revoke and vary permits if information comes to light that changes the level of risk the fish pose to the environment. The regulations also provide more effective enforcement powers to enable the Environment Agency to remove illegal non-native fish where they are found in rivers, lakes and waterways.
The Government consulted on these proposals both in 2009 and as part of the water and marine-themed Red Tape Challenge in 2012. As explained in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, most respondents supported the proposals. These regulations would produce a small annual saving for industry and additional savings for the Environment Agency.
The Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015 will also apply to the Border Esk region of Scotland. Freshwater fisheries are best managed on a river basin catchment basis, and England’s Environment Agency has managed fisheries in the Border Esk region for many years. Under similar arrangements, Scotland manages freshwater fisheries in the River Tweed catchment, which is shared with England. The Scottish Government are fully aware of these regulations, which maintain this policy approach, and are in total support of them.
In summary, the Government consider that the approach set out in these regulations will provide a more efficient and risk-based way of protecting local fisheries and biodiversity. They will reduce the regulatory burdens on the angling and fish trade industry. To this end, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations before the Committee today. I declare my interests as a farmer in Cheshire—the River Weaver defines the farm’s boundary on one side—and as a co-owner of a holiday home in south-west Scotland with fishing rights, although I do not personally partake in the catching of little fishes. I know that there have been many expressions of anxiety concerning the Scottish Government’s upheaval of the governance and jurisdiction structure of inland fishing in Scotland, but that is not a subject for debate today.
Nevertheless, as far as these regulations are concerned, it is good to see that co-operation between the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliament is healthy and continuing. As the Minister stated, these regulations replace the current controls on placing fish into inland waters with a new permitting system, requiring all introductions and subsequent keeping of fish to be permitted by the Environment Agency. Transporting fish for introduction must also be permitted. The main objective should be achieved, which is to support the economic value and growth of the angling sector while ensuring adequate risk-based protection for the aquatic environment from risks associated with the use of invasive non-native fish species. Such high-risk species will be given greater scrutiny, while low-risk fish movements will be allowed to take place, as the noble Lord said, much more freely, albeit against the background of full disease control and other measures the Environment Agency will rightly be concerned with. That a permit is not necessarily set in stone for all time but will run until varied is surely the right approach.
Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee inquired why the department had taken so much time since the public consultation concluded in March 2010 to come forward with these quite modest and uncontroversial regulations. It is interesting that the answer was that the election in 2010 gave rise to the regulations having to be fully evaluated against the new Government’s priorities, and that further delay then flowed from the requirement to reconsult under the water and marine Red Tape Challenge initiative. It is very fortunate that the noble Lord brings these regulations before the Committee today, a mere few months before maybe further inevitable delay as a result of the much anticipated change of Government at the general election next May.
I ask the Minister to provide comfort to the Committee. Is he confident that, following this change in licensing, there are adequate plans in place to deal with any outbreak, emerging disease or damage that could result from any eventuality in the future? Are there enough resources to remove any introduction from the environment affected and to tackle any problems resultant from illegitimate action or trade? I note that one of the contentions expressed in the consultation was that this new scheme might lead to an increase in illegal activity.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his helpful and positive points on the regulations. As he points out, we are committed to protecting our environment, including the native fish and fauna in our rivers, lakes and waterways, while at the same time reducing burdens on industry, where these have been identified, in line with our invasive non-native species framework strategy for Great Britain.
The noble Lord asked three questions. First, in relation to the introduction and keeping of fish in garden ponds, I confirm that the statutory instrument will apply to inland waters such as lakes and rivers, which includes small lakes and large ponds over 0.4 hectares, as he said. The keeping of non-native fish in ponds below that size will be regulated through the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) (England) Order 2014. However, he will be comforted to know that the keeping of common non-native ornamental species such as goldfish does not require a licence.
The noble Lord also asked about cost recovery. In the first year of the scheme, the costs to the Environment Agency will modestly increase. Savings will take effect fully in later years, while future funding decisions will be for the next comprehensive spending review. That is about as far as I can go today. As time goes forward, we will look at cost recovery in different areas. No decisions have yet been made and there will be more consideration of that issue.
Lastly, the noble Lord asked whether I was confident that adequate plans and resources were in place to cover outbreaks of diseases. He puts his finger on one of the most important matters that we address in Defra. We constantly keep an eye on this and, indeed, Ministers meet regularly to discuss it with representatives of all the various bodies that help us with animal and plant diseases, invasive non-native species and so on. We try to look at these matters holistically and in the round. We now take a more strategic approach than we did in the past and I am confident that we have a comprehensive plan and resources in place to do that. Of course, that is not to say that we will never face another disease or pest again, and the business of Defra is in responding to crises. However, in this regard, I can say that this new risk-based permitting scheme, managed in an effective and efficient way by the Environment Agency, will ensure we continue to protect our local fisheries and the environment while allowing the angling and fish trade industries to flourish.
Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 14th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, these draft amendment regulations before the Committee today will amend the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013. The SIP regulations, as they are known, concern the provision of large or complex infrastructure for the use of water or sewerage undertakers.
The main purpose behind these amendments is to give Ofwat the power to include conditions in an infrastructure provider’s project licence that allow for matters or questions to be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority for determination. This will give infrastructure providers the same right as water and sewerage undertakers to require Ofwat to refer its price control decisions to the CMA.
Extending Ofwat’s power to include such conditions will ensure that any potential future disputes between the Water Services Regulation Authority—Ofwat—and an infrastructure provider are resolved promptly. That should minimise the time-related costs of such disputes, which are ultimately met by customers, and will help to keep water and sewerage bills as low as possible.
The SIP regulations came into force in June last year and implement Part 2A of the Water Industry Act 1991. They give the Secretary of State and Ofwat the power to specify, by notice, large or complex water or sewerage infrastructure projects in certain circumstances: in particular, where the specification of the project is considered likely to deliver better value for money for taxpayers and customers.
Once specified, the relevant undertaker has to procure competitively a separate infrastructure provider to finance and deliver the project. After the successful bidder is designated as “the infrastructure provider”, Ofwat may then grant it a project licence, regulating it under a bespoke regime set out in the SIP regulations. A separate Ofwat-regulated infrastructure provider provides an objective means of testing whether the financing costs of a project are appropriate and reasonable, and allows the Government to target any financial support more effectively.
Following public consultation, the Secretary of State specified the Thames tideway tunnel project as an infrastructure project on 4 June this year. Thames Water Utilities Limited, as the incumbent undertaker, subsequently put the delivery and financing of the bulk of the tunnel works out to tender on 10 June. The tendering process is under way and expected to conclude in the summer of next year. This is the first and currently the only infrastructure project to be specified under the SIP regulations.
The proposed amendments would bring Ofwat’s powers relating to licensed infrastructure providers into line with those which already apply under the Water Industry Act 1991 as regard English water and sewerage undertakers. They would allow Ofwat to include certain conditions in an infrastructure provider’s project licence, giving the infrastructure provider the right to ask Ofwat to refer certain questions relating to its project licence to the CMA for determination. The proposed amendments would give an infrastructure provider the same right that water and sewerage companies already have to require Ofwat to refer its price control decisions, such as on interim determination of price limits or an increase in allowed revenue, to the CMA.
Without the proposed amendments, the only way for an infrastructure provider to challenge Ofwat price control decisions would be to seek judicial review on a point of law before the High Court. This is a time-consuming and expensive process, the costs of which are ultimately met by customers.
The statutory consultation on the draft regulations ran for six weeks, between 28 July and 8 September 2014. Its purpose was to inform those who represent interests likely to be affected by the regulations. The consultation was based on the GOV.UK website, and it was open to members of the public to submit their comments. Invitations for comments were also issued by e-mail to 324 interested organisations and individuals, including the CMA, Ofwat, the English water and sewerage undertakers, the Consumer Council for Water, Members of Parliament in London and the Thames Water region, members of the Greater London Assembly, and the Mayor of London. Five responses were received and a summary was published on the GOV.UK website last month.
We have noted the range of views and comments received on the proposed amending regulations and those relating more generally to the Thames tideway tunnel project. As a result, we have adopted some drafting points raised during that consultation in the amending regulations and are proceeding with the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, these are the regulations we have all been waiting for. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the instrument before the Committee concerning the amendments to the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013.
From this side of the Committee, we support these changes to the SIP regulations. As the Minister has explained, their purpose is to bring Ofwat’s powers to include conditions in an infrastructure provider’s project licence into line with those which exist for a water or sewerage undertaker. With this inclusion, Ofwat is able to refer any disputes over price determinations to the Competition and Markets Authority on request by the licensed IP, in the same way that a water or sewerage undertaker already can. In the absence of such conditions, as the Minister said, the only route of challenge against an Ofwat determination would be by an application for judicial review on a point of law—a costly and time-consuming activity.
The SIP amendment regulations concern infrastructure providers in their activity of financing and delivering large and complex projects, most notably the Thames tideway tunnel. The SIP regulations are entirely sensible. The public consultation recently undertaken produced the five responses to which the noble Lord referred. The purpose of the consultation was not to review the merits of the tunnel but to consider amendments to the SIP regulations. Although most of the points raised were on aspects of the tunnel project itself, and not relevant to the consultation, nevertheless the respondents were supportive of the draft SIP amendment regulations on the grounds that the availability of an appeal route in common with other water industry companies will help lower perceptions of project risk and keep the cost of procuring a proposed IP as low as possible. It would so remove a distinct disincentive to invest and enable any potential future disputes to be resolved promptly.
I am sure that the use of the CMA to adjudicate will be helpful in convincing consumers that the decisions reached have their best interests at heart. The removal of an unnecessarily burdensome process for the appeals should also help to deliver lower costs for consumers. I see no reason to delay further the Committee’s agreement to these regulations.
Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Popat
That the Grand Committee do consider the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, the recruitment sector plays an important role in the labour market by matching demand for jobs to demand for workers. The sector is regulated by the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the conduct regulations. The legislation covers all employment agencies and employment businesses in Great Britain, providing a framework for contracts between agencies, hirers and work-seekers. It also restricts fee charging and ensures that temporary workers are paid for the work they have done.
However, the legislation does not currently regulate where employment agencies place advertisements for vacancies. The Government are concerned that some agencies may be advertising British-based jobs in other European Economic Area countries without advertising those jobs in Britain. This means that workers in Britain do not always have the opportunity to apply for jobs that are based here. We believe this is wrong.
In The Plan for Growth, the Government set out their ambition to create a competitive and supportive business environment that allows businesses to establish themselves, to grow and to employ people. An important part of this ambition is the need to achieve a strong and efficient labour market—a labour market that gives people opportunities to find jobs that are right for them and allows employers to access the type of labour that matches the skills they need.
To fulfil this, we need to achieve a labour market that is flexible, effective and fair, and which encourages job creation and makes it easy for people to find work and stay in work. The Government believe that overseas-only advertising undermines the fairness of the labour market. It reduces the job choices available to people in Britain and for businesses that are hiring it also limits their choice of candidates. We want to do something about this. We want to ensure that people in Britain have the opportunity to enter the workplace, especially the young and the unemployed. We want to create a level playing field for workers in Britain.
Overseas-only advertising is already potentially a breach of the Equality Act 2010. However, the proposed regulations would go a step further by creating a specific requirement to advertise jobs in Great Britain and in English.
The proposed change to the conduct regulations would require agencies to ensure that if they want to advertise vacancies elsewhere in the EEA, they must also advertise in Great Britain and in English. The new regulations would apply to all employment agencies and employment businesses in Great Britain that find permanent and temporary work for people. It will apply only to vacancies advertised in European Economic Area countries; UK Immigration Rules already favour native workers over non-EEA workers. Each position has to undergo a resident labour market test before it can be advertised outside the EEA. We are not proposing to stop agencies from advertising jobs overseas or in additional languages. They will still be free to do so if they wish, as long as the vacancy is also advertised in Great Britain.
In addition, in the rare circumstances where it would make little sense to advertise a vacancy in English in Great Britain—for example, if there is a genuine requirement for a native foreign language speaker for a particular role—a defence will be available. However, in general, if agencies choose to advertise jobs overseas, they would need to ensure that those jobs are also advertised in Great Britain, either at the same time or in the period of 28 days prior to advertising the vacancy overseas.
We believe that this will expand the range of job opportunities open to people in Great Britain and will also expand the range of people from which businesses can choose. The new regulations would be enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, which enforces the conduct regulations. Agencies would need to demonstrate, through record-keeping, that they have complied with the requirements to advertise the vacancy, or vacancies, in Great Britain and in English.
Subject to the proper parliamentary process and necessary scrutiny, it is our intention that this change will come into force by the end of this year. I hope that the Committee will therefore support this statutory instrument.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be brief. On a quick glance, these seem to be sensible suggestions. I know how unpopular this is when it is blown up in the newspapers that British jobs are being advertised in Polish in Poland. I suspect that it is not as big a problem as newspaper controversies suggest. I am not convinced that the order will make much difference but, nevertheless, its spirit and intentions are good.
I have two questions. First, will the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate be sufficiently well staffed to undertake the job required of it? Secondly, given the internet and the fact that people can pick up jobs wherever they are in the world, how much difference will this make in restricting the ability of employment agencies and businesses from getting their own way by the back door?
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the measures brought forward by the Government today. It is important that jobs in the UK are advertised and made available to the people who live and want to work here. Indeed, we have already called on the Government to ban agencies from recruiting solely from abroad. However, Ministers are failing to go further to tackle the real problems in the employment agency sector and to halt the exploitation of Britain’s 1 million agency workers.
Agency working can provide flexibility that works for employers and employees, but the main recruitment industry body has warned that the number of rogue agencies has increased over the past three years. These agencies are associated with the worst elements of insecurity in our labour market, including the undercutting of wages and non-payment of the minimum wage. There is evidence that they are marketing agency workers to employers as a way to undercut wages of permanent staff, exploiting agency workers with unfair and illegal charges for travel, accommodation and taxes, in some cases leading to non-payment of the minimum wage, and engaging in tax avoidance schemes.
To reiterate, it is not only us who are saying this. The main industry body for the recruitment sector has warned that the problem of rogue agencies associated with non-payment of the minimum wage is getting worse. Regulatory bodies, including the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and HMRC, have also found evidence of non-payment of wages and of tax avoidance schemes. I would obviously welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
If we are in government after next May, we will crack down on employment agencies to tackle the worst elements of insecurity in our labour market. The next Labour Government will close loopholes which allow employment agencies to undercut the wages of permanent staff, ban employment agencies from recruiting only from abroad and force rogue agencies illegally exploiting their workers to clean up their act through measures such as the introduction of a licensing system.
We will not tolerate a world of work that is becoming more brutal because of the way in which cowboy employment agencies have been allowed to operate. They are undermining dignity at work, driving down standards and creating greater insecurity for families. I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Donaghy in relation to the internet and so on. I apologise for not being in my place at the start of the debate. I had not anticipated that we would get through the previous statutory instruments quite so quickly.
Lord Popat
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for their brief contributions to this debate. In response to the point made by the noble Baroness about inspectors, we are doubling EAS resources this financial year, with a view to increased resources for the financial year 2015-16. These additional resources will be used for targeted enforcement in high-risk areas to protect the most vulnerable agency workers. The noble Baroness also mentioned internet advertising for jobs, which is not just in the UK but worldwide. Most internet advertising is obviously in English as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned the minimum wage. He is quite right that there are a few companies which abuse the system and do not pay the minimum wage. We have in fact boosted the resources available for national minimum wage enforcement. In the new year, we will have the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which I will be taking through the House along with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. We are going to increase the penalty for people who abuse or break the minimum wage law from £5,000 to £20,000 by secondary legislation. This penalty will be applied not per company or on a per notice basis, but on a per worker basis. So we are doing something to ensure that companies do not break the national minimum wage law and that their workers are correctly paid. We will wait for that Bill to come through but, having said that, we have made a couple of amendments recently to make sure that people are paid the minimum wage.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
What plans, if any, do the Government have for dealing with these rogue agencies that the main agencies within the recruitment sector are saying exist? Are the Government making any special efforts to shut them down?
Lord Popat
Most agencies comply with the regulations but, although it is not a widespread practice as such, I agree that there are a few which do not. Hence we have these regulations coming in and we are doubling the number of inspectors. We have inspectors available to monitor them and to make sure that they do not break the law. We want to make sure that there is fair play and that British agencies advertise jobs in Britain as well as overseas.
I will just cover another point that the noble Lord, Lord Young, made. The subject of overseas-only advertising was raised and how we know it is a problem. The Government have received some complaints about employment agencies advertising jobs in the European Economic Area countries but not in the UK. These regulations will ensure that all agencies based in the UK give work-seekers a fair opportunity to apply for jobs in the UK.
I hope that I have covered all the points—unless there are any further ones—but if I have left out something I will be very happy to write to noble Lords. This change will level the playing field for workers in Britain. It will ensure that they have equal access to vacancies advertised by agencies and that the small number of agencies who deny job opportunities to workers in Britain will be subject to enforcement action, as I mentioned earlier. I am delighted that the Committee is more or less in agreement with these regulations. I know that issues were raised about the minimum wage and internet advertising. I hope that I have covered those but if I have not, I will make sure that officials drop a line to noble Lords on those subjects. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Evans of Weardale
Digital Technology: UK Labour Market
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of new technology and the digital revolution on the United Kingdom labour market.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, digital is a major contributor to the economy. Since 2008, output for the sector has grown more than three times as fast as the overall economy. Growth is expected to continue, with a predicted 1 million new digital jobs to be created in the next decade. The Government are committed to ensuring a strong, digitally skilled workforce to meet the challenges of our digital age.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
My Lords, the digital revolution is well under way, with the potential to make the agricultural revolution and the Industrial Revolution seem somewhat small beer. Does my noble friend agree that, across the whole of Whitehall and across the whole of local authorities, we need a relentless focus on digital if we are to realise every opportunity and every job for the UK labour market?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. We have made a good start with a ministerial digital task force, which shows the Government’s relentless drive. Activity under way includes even top-level support: yesterday, the Prime Minister launched the National College for Digital Skills, which will start in London next year and spread to centres right across the country. That is in addition to all that we are doing in schools, training and higher education.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, people who are deaf or autistic may require ongoing support to access the spoken word, for example, through online captioning systems such as the one offered by Ai-Media, which improves access for people whose disabilities are not necessarily physical. How will the Government promote the take-up of innovative new technology within the Access to Work scheme for people whose challenges are not related to mobility?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I agree with the sentiment of the noble Baroness’s point. We published a digital inclusion strategy in April and we are working with lots of different partners across the UK, including Age UK, which has done terrific work to help older people access the internet and get savings. This is an enormous subject, and I very much look forward to the work of the Digital Skills Select Committee on all these points.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
Does my noble friend agree that central government has a cross-departmental responsibility to mitigate the risk of the future incidence of higher inequality as a result of our increasingly digital economy?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I agree that we have a huge role to play. The key thing is to use the digital revolution to grow and improve the curriculum so that, for the long term, you tackle inequality and help people to access the improvements in digital that will make such a big difference to their lives, while, of course, helping those who find it difficult. That is important, as this House knows.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, only 30% of small and medium-sized businesses in this country are using the web to buy or sell products online, leaving 70% of the life-blood of our economy unable to take the benefits of being online. Would the Minister like to expand on what the Government are doing specifically for small and medium-sized businesses?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Baroness for the opportunity to talk about the programme that we have set in train—the small business capability programme —which is helping 1.6 million small businesses to transact online by 2018; the work we are doing in employer-led reformed apprenticeships at every level, including the higher level; and, of course, the whole programme of reform that she has helped so much to push forward in Whitehall.
Lord Allen of Kensington (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister said:
“It is our ambition to make the UK the most digital nation in the G8 and it is my mission to show the world that we’re getting there”.
I ask the Minister, in the words of the five year-old in the back of the car: are we there yet? What are we doing next? What is on the Prime Minister’s wish list?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I always think it is important not to boast about progress, but in Europe we are widely regarded as being very much at the leading edge. Interestingly, on some scores, we are even doing well versus the sacred San Francisco and Silicon Valley, with London emerging as a premier location for digital entrepreneurs, people choosing London for IPOs and UK venture capital markets improving. Our programme, led by my honourable friend in the other place, Ed Vaizey, is moving forward the strength we have in digital anyway. The jobs that we are creating in this sector are growing at an even faster rate than the rest of employment.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister update the House on the progress that has been made with the GOV.UK website and digital government intervention, particularly the simplification and standardisation of how people access government websites? For example, passports and driving licence renewals are all getting much simpler.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, my noble friend puts it perfectly. All noble Lords just need to use GOV.UK to see the extraordinary improvements that have been made.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, many homes and businesses still lack access to basic broadband, especially in rural communities. Despite the Government’s strategy and commitment of £1.2 billion, the programme will be completed 22 months late. Can the Minister assure us that the rural communities will not be placed at an ongoing disadvantage in the current distribution of broadband, and in any future similar plan?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, as someone who used to campaign for the rollout of broadband, I am glad to say that good progress is now being made in the rollout of superfast broadband. In November, 1.5 million premises had access to it, and the number of homes and premises gaining access has doubled from 20,000 per week to 40,000 per week in August. Rural broadband has had a special scheme, which has allowed an extraordinary degree of investment in some very important rural areas, including Northumberland, where I holidayed, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Cumbria.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, this is a wonderful story about how skills will be increased, and how various businesses will have access to broadband. What about the 1.7 million people who do not have access to broadband and do not have access to a computer? The fact is, no matter how skilled they become and however many digital lessons they have, they will not be able to use those skills. Can we just have a programme for the extension of broadband so that everybody in this country has this opportunity?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I have talked at length with my noble friend during the passage of the recent Consumer Rights Bill on this very issue. Of course, alternative means of access—including paper—remain extremely important.
Sudan
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of recent developments in the Republic of Sudan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned about the ongoing conflicts in Sudan. Reports of aerial bombardments in South Kordofan and in Blue Nile, and the lack of access for the United Nations to investigate allegations of mass rape in Darfur, are especially worrying. We welcome efforts to secure ceasefires and moves towards a political solution, including the peace talks mediated by President Mbeki, and support a comprehensive, inclusive and transparent national dialogue.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her sympathetic reply. Is she aware that I have actually seen Government of Sudan Antonov bombers deliberately targeting hospitals, schools, markets and civilians trying to harvest their crops, forcing hundreds of thousands to hide in snake-infested caves, river beds and woods or to flee into exile in South Sudan and Ethiopia? According to the well respected Enough Project, such systematic attacks on civilians and the Sudanese Government’s aid blockade lay the foundation for a case of crimes against humanity by extermination. All this is happening with impunity. What actions are Her Majesty’s Government taking to challenge this impunity?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Baroness paints an accurate picture from first-hand experience. I respect that courageous experience. She asked about impunity. We press the Government of Sudan to hold all perpetrators of human rights violations fully to account for their actions. Impunity must not be accepted. In the United Nations Human Rights Council, we support the work of the independent expert on the human rights situation in Sudan. The UK is also a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court. We continue to call on the Government of Sudan to comply with the arrest warrants for the ICC indictees. I will be representing the UK at the next meeting of the ICC in New York later this week.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, something like 100,000 people have fled both parts of Sudan over the border into Ethiopia during the past year. What extra help are the Government giving to that Government to try to cope with the influx?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we are certainly aware of the extra aid that needs to be granted to these areas. We have been aware that more than 430,000 people have been displaced. DfID estimates that it will spend a minimum of £27 million on projects in Darfur alone. That includes funding to the World Food Programme and the Common Humanitarian Fund in Darfur. We are urging the Government of Sudan and the Darfur rebel movements to engage fully in peace talks. We are also engaging with the difficulty of access to the two areas of Blue Nile and South Kordofan, where access for humanitarian aid is, to say the least, perilous.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, as Sudanese opposition groups are now increasingly speaking to each other and taking unified positions and many people are saying that they are now likely to welcome support and advice from the United Kingdom, and in view of the need to tackle the terrible insecurity in the region, is it not short-sighted, badly timed and very unhelpful that there have been cuts in the Sudan units in the FCO?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I was able yesterday during the Question for Short Debate from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in the Moses Room to put on record the fact that the Sudan unit has its resources carefully monitored. Whenever they need to be increased, they are. I gave a commitment that that careful monitoring and increase where necessary will be continued.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, what efforts are we making to work with the Government of the Republic of China, who have a huge influence on both Khartoum and Juba, to bring pressure to bear on both Governments of Sudan in order to pave the way towards a degree of stability and economic development?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, raises an important point. Because of our cultural and historic ties with the area we have been involved in negotiations through the troika, with the United States and Norway, and had leverage through the EU. I can assure the noble Lord that we have also made representations with the Republic of China and diplomatic relationships are under way with regard to how we might all work towards peace in Sudan.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, we all wish the Minister good fortune in her important task later this week in New York. An agreement was signed in Addis Ababa last week by those aiming at unifying opposition to President Bashir. It is reported that a number of those signatories were summarily arrested on their return to Sudan. What representations have Her Majesty’s Government made about this latest example of unacceptable authoritarian conduct?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, rightly refers to the detention of opposition leaders and civil society figures who signed what is known as the “Sudan call”—the opposition trying to solidify. I assure him that we have voiced our concerns about the detention of the opposition and civil society figures and we have consistently asked for the release of political prisoners in Sudan. More than that, it is important that when people are held in the Sudan they are not maltreated.
Mesothelioma
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the decision of the High Court that the consultation on mesothelioma legal fees was unlawful, and the lack of new funding for mesothelioma research, what is their policy with regard to combating mesothelioma and supporting victims.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
The Government take the plight of mesothelioma sufferers seriously and are determined to improve their position. We have introduced significant changes through the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme, established under the 2014 Act. By October 2014 the scheme had made 131 payments, resulting in £16.5 million being paid to sufferers or their families. The Government fully recognise the need to stimulate an increase in the level of research activity and continue actively to pursue measures to achieve this.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he recall that, during the passage of the Mesothelioma Act 2014, Ministers said that the levy on the insurance industry would be set at 3%? They said:
“Three percent. is 3% and we have no intention of moving away from it”.—[Official Report, Commons, Mesothelioma Bill [Lords] Committee, 12/12/13; col. 117.]
Why then has it now been set at 2.2%, representing a shortfall of more than £11 million? That money could have been generated and used to undertake sustainable research into a killer disease which will take the lives of another 60,000 British people. This is according to figures which the Government themselves have issued.
Lord Faulks
As the noble Lord will know, the Government responded to the amendment which he tabled during passage of the Act by saying that they were committed as a priority to helping to encourage research by the National Institute for Health Research. We set up a partnership of patients and carers to identify a top 10 list of questions for researchers to answer. The results were published yesterday, as he may know. We now feel that we have identified the questions and funding will be available if there are appropriate applicants. The problem with research is no longer—indeed, it never was—funding, but finding really conceivably successful applications.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, both the House of Commons Justice Committee and the judgment of the High Court concerning the issue of legal fees in mesothelioma cases are critical of the way that the government review was carried out. It was found to be premature and did not follow the rules of the LASPO Act. We know that the incidence of this disease will peak and then fall away over the years, as the 30 year-old Acts concerning asbestos are put into place and have an effect. Given that there will be a withering on the vine of the numbers suffering this fatal disease, is it not now the time for this legal fees issue to be left alone and kept as it is, rather than coming back to it again and putting people through increased risk and increased delay?
Lord Faulks
My noble friend is right. We expect the peak to start declining and perhaps come more or less to an end in 2024. There is to be a review. There is no immediate timing for it but my noble friend is right in that the status quo is acceptable to the claimants. They are to receive damages. Research will continue, as I indicated, and the pre-LASPO regime for legal support will continue. This will ensure that lawyers are paid adequately, and we are told that they will not take cases unless they are paid adequately. The review will go on.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, I watched a member of my family die of this dreadful disease. There are massive advances in medical technology which make it possible, in principle, to find a cure. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has indicated, that could mean saving the lives of some 50,000 people. To do this we are going to need an integrated research strategy, with the Government in the lead, co-ordinating with industries and with universities. Where is this strategy? The Government’s approach seems far too piecemeal and far too limited to do the job that is needed.
Lord Faulks
As I indicated, the strategy is to ensure that the right questions are posed so as to elicit appropriate applications. The funding is very much there, but there is no point in having it unless it is directed towards research which can feasibly produce the result which, I am sure, everybody in this House wants to achieve.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will the Minister go further on that? There needs to be a certainty that the money is there but the top-level researchers also need to be aware of it so that the money and the level of the research capability are brought together. Is the Minister confident that that certainty now exists? What can be done to make sure that the best researchers in the land are aware of it and can get engaged with this problem?
Lord Faulks
I can do no better than quote what Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer and chief scientific adviser, said yesterday. She thanked all those who provided information and said:
“With their help I believe we have built a genuine consensus—and a real impetus. I hope the research community will now respond by generating new research proposals that will provide robust evidence to help people with mesothelioma”.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I encourage the Minister to answer the first part of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about why the percentage of the precept was reduced from the promised 3% to 2.2%.
Lord Faulks
The position with insurers is that they have provided money. I will have to write to both noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate about what has happened to that particular sum. The question of the use of research funds is difficult. We think that research funds should be spent in the most effective way, and we think that publicly funding research is much more appropriate than hypothecating against insurers’ particular sums.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister accept that throughout our deliberations on the Mesothelioma Bill the focus was on a 3% levy? It was 3% because the insurance industry insisted that beyond that it would have to be passed to consumers. By implication, if the levy is now 2.2%, presumably that falls into the pocket of the insurance companies at a time when compensation is not being paid at a 100% level, and, as has been asserted, there is insufficient funding for research.
Lord Faulks
It is absolutely not the case that there is insufficient funding for research. As I have said more than once, the case is that, at the moment, there is not a suitable number of applications for research. The funding is very much there. As to any question of insurers making some profit out of this, I will look into that. It is contrary to what the Government wish to achieve.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Freud, brought in the mesothelioma legislation he did so undoubtedly in good faith. Yet, sufferers from this terrible industrial disease have now been failed not only by employers and insurers but by the Government themselves. Has the Lord Chancellor authorised the noble Lord to apologise on behalf of the Government for his decision to take up to 25% of compensation awards for costs—conduct which has been ruled by judicial review in the High Court to be unlawful? The noble Lord still has not explained to the House why the Government have failed to honour their commitment, given in terms by the Minister, Mike Penning, to set the levy on employer’s liability insurance at 3% of gross written premiums, which would have enabled better compensation and more funding for sustained research.
Lord Faulks
Compensation is full at the moment, as the noble Lord knows. I reject the allegation that the Government have done nothing. Not only are they promoting research; they have also, with their Big Tent meeting in June, encouraged much greater co-operation between lawyers acting for claimants to ensure that medical employment records are swiftly obtained. What is most important is that these claimants obtain compensation quickly and at as high a level as they can.
Railways: Pacer Trains
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Autumn Statement, what is the timetable for the replacement of Pacer trains in the north of England; whether all the replacement trains will be new; and whether Pacers in other regions will also be replaced.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, I reaffirm the commitment made in the Autumn Statement. The details of how we will give effect to these issues are being considered as part of the development of the invitation to tender for the Northern franchise, which will be published early in 2015. Decisions on the possible replacement of Pacers elsewhere will be considered when the respective franchising competitions—for Great Western and for Wales and Borders—are being specified.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for that confirmation by my noble friend. Will she confirm that, when the Chancellor said that the franchise in the north would involve,
“replacing the ancient and unpopular Pacer carriages with new and modern trains”,—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/14; col. 313.]
that means that at least some of the trains will be new? Is that a promise? While she is about it, will she take this opportunity to scotch the alarming rumours that the 30 year-old Pacer trains will be replaced by 40 year -old cast-offs from the District line on the London Underground?
Baroness Kramer
I have to say to my noble friend that that last accusation is a new one to me. Clearly, the Chancellor gave a commitment to replace these trains. We also know that this is a line that is due for electrification. However, I am afraid I cannot share the details with the House until we get to the invitation to tender, because they are still being worked out. It will not be very long to wait; it will be in early 2015.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, while all this is going on, the Government are doing the opposite and giving even more trains to the south. Indeed, today the Minister for Transport, Claire Perry, announced that there would be 10 new four-car trains to take people between Milton Keynes and London. Last week, I believe, new diesel trains were ordered and committed to go to Uckfield and between Ashford and Hastings. Is it not time that this trend was reversed and that the new diesels went to the Northern area? Perhaps the people of Sussex and Kent could try out some Pacers for a few years and see how they get on.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, we are obviously anxious to phase out these Pacers rather than find them new homes. The noble Lord will be aware that we have orders from up and down the country for new rolling stock at significant levels; that includes the north—for example, on the east coast main line. An invitation to tender is coming very shortly in the new year. I cannot speak ahead of it, but I am reasonably confident that my noble friend will be happy.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that we in the east of England are extremely pleased that we have just had our first new trains since the beginning of time? Never before has anyone produced a new train for the east of England. Some people may rightly say, “Ah, but this is one of the most important scientific powerhouses of Britain”. Let us thank her and say that it would not have happened had it not been for privatisation.
Baroness Kramer
The railway has certainly been exceedingly successful since its privatisation, and that is reflected in the increased number of passengers. I am delighted at the drive that we have under way to bring on the kind of rolling stock that adds the capacity that we need.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister had not heard that Transport for London is looking at the possibility that certain rolling stock, driven by electricity at the present time, can be converted to diesel. That is why the north of England is shuddering at the prospect that that is where these trains might well end up. After the Chancellor made his Statement, the first thing that the Government did was to delay the decision on the franchise for the north. That is a clear case of built-in delay to get rid of these wretched Pacers, when Northern travellers have among the worst conditions in the whole of the United Kingdom. Is it not clear that the only certain way in which Northern passengers will get taken for a ride is by the Treasury and the Chancellor?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that this is a pretty small delay. You will also be aware that there was a great response to the consultation for this line. It was entirely right of the Government to take the time necessary to work through a lot of very thoughtful responses and to make sure that the invitation to tender achieves the best possible outcome for passengers.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, will the Minister take notice of what has been happening in Scotland? When the new franchise was introduced, 30 new train sets were ordered immediately on that day from Hitachi. If she looks at the terms and conditions, she will see that these trains have been leased with the support of the Scottish Government—which is not what usually happens here—and they have done an extremely good deal, far better than has been achieved by Whitehall. Is it not the case that local control, be it in Scotland or London, produces far better results than are now produced in Whitehall?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, this Government are very committed to devolution. The noble Lord will know that, with the Northern and TransPennine franchises, we have been working very closely with Rail North so that it creates a process by which a transfer can be made to Rail North to become, as it were, the specifier and monitor of franchises over time. However, it is a capability that is extremely demanding, as the noble Lord will know, and the evolutionary process of doing this hand in hand with areas that are interested in taking this responsibility to make sure that they develop the capability has to be the right way to go.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:31 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 240 - Motion A1 agreed.
18:35 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 274 / Noes: 205 - Motion B1 agreed.
19:34 - Division on Motion C1 - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 192 - Motion C1 agreed.
19:58 - Division on Motion D1 - Ayes: 160 / Noes: 190 - Motion D1 disagreed.
Lord Faulks
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 74, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 74A.
Lords Amendment
“( ) No female, nor any male under the age of fifteen, may be placed in a secure college.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, the other place was not persuaded last week by the amendment that this House put forward to prevent girls and boys under the age of 15 being accommodated in secure colleges. It voted by a margin of 316 to 194 to disagree with the amendment.
The Government remain of the view that it is not right to prevent girls and boys aged under 15 benefiting from this pioneering approach to educating and rehabilitating young offenders. We are committed to this principle, recognising that girls and younger boys are already safely accommodated together on the same site in both secure training centres and secure children’s homes, which together with YOIs make up the youth custodial estate.
Noble Lords will remember from previous debates that no final decisions have yet been made as to who will be accommodated in the secure college pathfinder that is due to open in 2017. This decision will be taken closer to the time and based on the composition of the youth custodial population. Responsibility for individual placement decisions will remain with the Youth Justice Board, which decides on a case-by-case basis, and is informed by the advice of the local youth offending team, where each young person should be accommodated while in custody. I know that a number of noble Lords remain firmly opposed to secure colleges or, in any event, this secure college. The Government are aware of their concern and respect their views, although they do not agree with them. This amendment is not about secure colleges generally but about under-15s and girls, and I am sure that noble Lords will be focusing on this particular issue.
Noble Lords will be aware from previous meetings that I have held with interested Peers and from discussions in the House that more vulnerable groups—such as girls and under-15s, should they be placed there—will be separately accommodated in smaller living units at the pathfinder secure college, and can also be separately educated. Following earlier discussions with interested Peers, we amended our site plans to provide further protection, and additional and separate outdoor space for the more vulnerable young people accommodated at the pathfinder.
I have also previously made a commitment in this House that neither girls nor under-15s will be placed in the pathfinder secure college from its opening and that, should the decision be taken to place them there, their introduction would be carefully phased. My colleague, the Minister for Prisons, Andrew Selous, reiterated this same commitment to the other place last week. Nevertheless, despite these safeguards and commitments, the Government recognise that some concern remains. In particular, this concern is focused on the potential accommodation of girls and under-15s on the same site as older boys, and how the different groups would be kept safe and their different needs attended to.
To provide Parliament with further reassurance on these points, we are today committing to the Secretary of State laying a report before Parliament, and publishing that report, before either boys aged under 15 or girls are placed in the first secure college where they would be accommodated alongside older boys aged 15 to 17. This report will describe the arrangements in place at the secure college for the detention of girls and under-15s. In particular, it will set out the safeguards in place to protect these groups and the facilities and services available to meet their educational and rehabilitative needs and to promote their health and well-being. This report would therefore include detail on: the accommodation and supervision of girls and under-15s; how they will be educated and the focus of this education; the interventions available to tackle their offending behaviour; the provision for meeting their physical and mental health needs—a particular concern that I know has been expressed in the course of debate—and promoting their emotional well-being; and the safety arrangements at the site to ensure that neither group is at risk of intimidation or violence.
In producing this report, the Secretary of State would consult with the Youth Justice Board, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and Ofsted. The report would be laid before Parliament and published at least two months before the first occasion on which it was intended that boys aged under 15 or girls were to be placed in the first secure college to accommodate these groups on the same site as older boys.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
On an important point at this juncture and before he goes any further, will the Minister give an assurance that, when that report is produced, its recommendations will not be implemented in any form until there is an affirmative vote on those recommendations in both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Faulks
No, I will not give that reassurance. I hope noble Lords will none the less welcome this significant commitment, which will provide considerable transparency on the Government’s plans for the accommodation of girls and under-15s in secure colleges. I also remind noble Lords that, in addition to this commitment, there is of course the ongoing scrutiny of secure colleges provided by the inspectorates, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and Ofsted. In light of this commitment, I take the opportunity to reaffirm that keeping young people safe in custody will be the top priority in secure colleges, just as it is elsewhere. The Government are confident that secure colleges will deliver a step change in the culture and outcomes of youth custody and that, with the right facilities and precautions, both girls and under-15s will be able to benefit from this new approach.
I hope that this further significant reassurance demonstrates the Government’s commitment to protecting properly these vulnerable groups in secure colleges, while meeting their specific needs and enabling them to access enhanced provision. I hope this gives the House confidence not to insist on its earlier Amendment 74. I look forward to hearing the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—and, of course, the views of other noble Lords. I hope that, with the assurances I have given, he will in due course be able to withdraw his Motion to insist on Amendment 74. I beg to move.
Motion A1
Lord Ramsbotham
As an amendment to Motion A, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 74”.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, once again I admire the skilful advocacy of the Minister, this time in his presentation of a case that I totally reject, for reasons I will explain. I am grateful to him for providing me with an advance copy of his report proposal last night, but it does not answer the point made in Amendment 74, namely that boys under the age of 15 and girls should not be sent to a secure college under any circumstances. It is true that they are currently mixed in smaller secure children’s homes and secure training centres, but those are smaller places. Having small units within large units on a large site is not satisfactory, not least because the numbers of boys under 15 and girls are likely to be swamped by the vast majority of those older children who will be on the remainder of the site. What the Minister has outlined is not that Parliament will be given an opportunity to debate the issue, but merely how the Secretary of State will inform it once he has decided to send them there. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I find that totally unsatisfactory.
I have a confession to make about the whole secure college proposal. For the first time in my life, I feel ashamed to be British because I am so appalled that anyone should have dreamt it up, let alone tried to blandish Parliament with spurious claims that an entirely untested and unevaluated proposal involving increased education will reduce children’s offending. All the available evidence, not least that the smaller the establishment the better when children and young people are detained—which I recognise from my experience when inspecting young offender institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes—points to the proposal to establish the biggest children’s prison in the western world being far more likely further to damage some of the most vulnerable and damaged children in our society with their multiplicity of problems and needs, not just lack of education.
I make no apology for yet again quoting some of Winston Churchill’s immortal words describing a decent criminal justice system. He said that the way in which it treats its crime and criminals is the true test of the civilisation of any country and marks and measures the living virtue in it. Would that he were here to pronounce his verdict on the proposal, because he would do it so much more effectively than I can.
In his letter dated 4 December, the Minister described the secure college proposal as a pioneering approach to educating young offenders and tackling stubbornly high reoffending rates. He is absolutely right to describe laying a proposal before Parliament about which no one, not even the proposer, knows any details, as a pioneering approach, but I hope that it is one that will never be repeated. I fear that those in both Houses who have voted for the proposal thus far have done so because they are attracted by the word “pioneering” and seduced by the blandished prospect of past failure being swept aside. But if anyone who voted in favour bothered to probe deeper into what the proposal actually meant other than the provision of more education, they would find nothing other than the assertion that the market will find the solution.
So far, the Secretary of State has awarded a building contract for a paper plan on a site with planning permission for an earlier young offender institution. One would assume that the education provider would have a say in the build of a new college with education at its heart, but no. Bidding for the educational contract has not yet started, nor do there appear to be any criteria against which competitors will be judged. One would presume that bidders would be required to compete for the delivery of a specified regime, but that, too, is far from the case. Rather than lay down a regime, the Secretary of State says that it will be the content of the as-yet-unknown winning bid. I admit that I cannot imagine any business daring to function like that or it would fail. But to personalise the point, would anyone consider sending any child with a multiplicity of problems to any school unless they had a very clear idea of how those problems might be treated?
Two weeks ago, the All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group, which I co-chair, and the packed audience at the annual Longford lecture, heard Nils Öberg, head of the Swedish prison service, describe how after long and careful scientific research into the characteristics, problems and needs of their young offenders, the Swedish authorities had concluded that the invariable multiplicity of young offenders’ needs could best be treated by trained experts in small, local establishments containing no more than 10. They knew that this was bound to be expensive because of the number of appropriately trained staff required—child-skilled staff do not come cheap—but they had a duty to secure the future for all Sweden’s children; a duty that applies in every civilised country, which ours still purports to be.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, unlike the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, whose vast experience of the custodial system in this country we all acknowledge, I will confine my remarks to the issue of under-15s and girls. I do not in any way depart from the criticisms of the general principle, but that has now been settled and we must accept that secure colleges will go ahead, provided the Government manage to enter into suitable contracts to build and operate them.
The Government’s proposal now to consult on and publish a report on this specific issue perhaps raises more questions than it answers. There are questions, going back to the original process, about which organisations or experts have supported the proposal to house under-15s and girls in an establishment of this kind. I am not aware of any. Perhaps the Minister can identify some. There is also the question, raised before by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about whether the Government have considered similar schemes in, for example, Spain and the United States—similar in the sense that they are addressing the problems of this young age group but conducted on very different principles from that which the Government propose to put forward in the context of the secure colleges envisaged by the Bill. Moreover, there have been representations from a wide range of major, national bodies, such as the Children’s Rights Alliance, the Prison Reform Trust, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, the Howard League for Penal Reform and, in a recent briefing, which some of your Lordships will no doubt have received, eight national women’s organisations concerned particularly with the problem of girl offenders in these institutions.
There are also questions about the proposed consultations that the Government will enter into. Will they take place after the go-ahead is given for the construction of that part of the college that would house these young people or is that element of the proposed building contract to be deferred until the process is completed by the consultation to which the Minister refers? If it is not, I fear that it will become pretty much a fait accompli. Once the provision is made it is hard to envisage that the Government would fail to use it in the way that is currently envisaged.
There are also questions about the nature of the consultation. The Minister has circulated documents saying that the Secretary of State will consult the Youth Justice Board, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and Ofsted. The Minister has said it this afternoon. One would expect that and it is welcome, although I note in passing that the Chief Inspector of Prisons has, in what unfortunately will be his last few months in office, just published a response to the questions about the rules of the proposed college. In that response he is clearly expressing concern about the provision for under-15s and girls as well. So one potential respondent to the consultation is already expressing those concerns, although the chief inspector will no longer be with us as he is leaving his office in the new year before the final decision is made.
Will that consultation be confined to those three important institutions or will it go wider? Will it, for example, embrace the British Medical Association, which published a report this year called Young Lives Behind Bars, dealing with the provision of custodial facilities and the treatment of young offenders, which raised a great number of concerns? Will it embrace the local authorities to whose areas these young people will go back? It would seem to be essential that the social services—children’s services departments in particular but perhaps also other departments; one thinks of housing and the like—should be consulted about the provisions that are to be made for their young citizens who will be for a period incarcerated in the new college. The question also arises as to whether the other bodies—for example, the probation service, however it is to function under the new regime—will be separately involved. Again, one might have thought that that would be a given but it is not explicit in the Minister’s paper that outlines the consultation process.
It seems to me that there are significant questions to be asked even about the limited process that the noble Lord has outlined. I concur with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that it is an inadequate response. I take the point that was raised in the intervention by the noble Lord from the government Benches, who—if I may respectfully say so—perhaps rather naively thought that the Government might have contemplated that the report would require parliamentary approval. I agree with him, it would have made a significant difference, but that is not, apparently, on the agenda. One has to ask again why the Government are so reluctant to put their report on this hugely sensitive area to the test of the support of both Houses in the event that the consultation concludes that it is desirable to proceed with this very controversial measure.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in hoping that Members will look at this one, now limited aspect of what has been a very controversial proposal and conclude that the Government have not made their case to proceed in the way that they propose to do, even with the very limited concessional gesture that the Minister has outlined. If the noble Lord seeks to divide the House, I will ask my colleagues on these Benches to support him but I hope, as he does, that that support will not be confined or indeed even governed by a political stance as much as a genuine concern for these young, vulnerable people, and doubts about the rationale for and the potential problems that might be caused by the Government’s proposals, if implemented.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I wish I could support the Minister. I am most grateful to him for all he has done recently for 17 year-olds in police custody and for acting promptly on the concerns of parents for their 17 year-olds in custody. However, I fear I must support my noble friend, to whom I pay tribute for his campaigning and determination in pursuing the welfare interests of these young people—girls and boys.
I have consulted with the experts whom I trust the most and their view is identical to those of the many other experts who have responded on this issue: it is far better to keep girls and boys under 15 in small local units. In large part that is because family relationships can be better sustained and strengthened. In some cases these relationships are unhelpful. In general, however, one has to try to support them.
I recall visiting Dr Camila Batmanghelidjh at Kids Company. One of her young people was my guide. He showed me the scar on his back from a bullet and spoke of his time inside prison. We also talked of the great pains Dr Batmanghelidjh took in helping to reunite him with his mother. He spoke movingly of the experience of the renewal of his relationship with his mother and the importance to him in his rehabilitation.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and another Conservative Peer, recently spoke about the importance of fathers—the “dad deficit”, as it is called. According to the OECD in its data on family formation, from memory, 15% of children in Germany live without a father in the home; 18% in France; 22% in the UK; and 25% in the US. The OECD predicts, however, that we will overtake the US in the next 10 to 20 years.
We cannot continue to overlook the value of sustaining family relationships. It is vital that girls and boys under 15 are housed in local, small units, where those relationships can be fostered and supported. I urge your Lordships to support my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I am a patron of a secure unit in Exeter, the Atkinson unit, which at the moment has troubled children coming under Section 25 of the Children Act, but it used to have children from the Youth Justice Board. It is a very small unit, taking 10 to 12 children. From my frequent visits there I have had the opportunity to see how this very small unit works extremely well with young children—those under 15. I am very unhappy about the Government’s proposals that children as young as under 15 should go into a large group of children, many of whom will be over 15, from whom they can learn all too much. I therefore also support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the arguments on this issue have already been well developed today by other noble Lords who have spoken, as well as at earlier stages of the Bill. I do not propose to develop the position that I have taken earlier in the Bill’s passage.
We all know that the reason for this House’s amendment was that the virtually unanimous professional evidence is to the effect that it would be unsatisfactory to place a small number of girls and younger boys in a secure college with a very large number of older boys. The pathfinder college at Glen Parva in Leicestershire is proposed to hold about 320 young people. There are currently only about 45 girls and 40 offenders under 15 in custody throughout the secure estate. Even adopting for Glen Parva a very wide catchment policy—which would itself be undesirable because of the distances these children would be from their homes, although I accept that that is not always a negative—it is highly unlikely that more than about 15 girls and 15 boys under 15 could be placed in Glen Parva. In my view, that is entirely unacceptable. It would be intimidating and unsafe for either group to be in this tiny minority in this very large secure college.
The Government say that they will not put boys under 15 or girls into Glen Parva at its opening. In a sense that concedes the case. They nevertheless say that they wish to be free to put boys under 15 and/or girls in Glen Parva or other secure colleges in the future. They propose to go ahead with the building of the two houses for these groups at Glen Parva. The design for Glen Parva has those two houses for girls and younger boys cut off from the main site, but the children held in them would share the main health and education block and access to the main site with a very large number of older boys.
My noble friend says that the Government will not use secure colleges in this way until they lay a report before Parliament. However, originally they did not say who would write that report. It now appears from what my noble friend said that it is the Secretary of State who will do the consulting and therefore, presumably, the Secretary of State who will prepare and approve the report. However, it is the Secretary of State’s own plan to use Glen Parva. The Minister does not say whether it will be incumbent upon this or any future Government to follow the recommendations in a report, nor has he offered any effective form of parliamentary scrutiny. An offer of a chance for Parliament to debate the report, with no right to stop a proposal proceeding, is no safeguard.
I have made it clear to my noble friend that I would want to agree a compromise on this issue if it were possible to do so. In particular, I accept that there is no definition in the Bill of what is meant by “secure colleges” or what size they should be. They could be smaller colleges than Glen Parva and more specialist, so that an educational environment that was mixed in gender and age might not be so inappropriate. However, that is not what is proposed at the moment. If the Government were to offer not to put under-15 year-olds or girls into secure colleges without parliamentary approval, that would offer Parliament a chance to consider and vote on any new circumstances that might be said to justify the detention of these groups in secure colleges. However, when my noble friend Lord Willis asked the Government for such an assurance, he was categorically refused it. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, says that he was naive to ask for it. I do not believe that it is a naive request; it is a justified and justifiable one, and the Government’s position can be sustained only if they accede to it.
To date, no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny has been offered. In these circumstances, while I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has to say, I find it impossible to support the Government’s position.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, largely because since this House last discussed secure training colleges, two secure training centres have been given notice of closure by the Youth Justice Board. One of those, Hassockfield, was in my constituency. What lessons have the Government learnt from the introduction of secure training centres? My recollection is that I opposed them when we were in opposition when the legislation went through in, I think, 1996. My Government said that they had to carry that through because the contracts had been signed. When Hassockfield opened, I was contacted virtually daily by the police who said, “The children in here are too young. They do not understand what it means to be in a secure establishment. We are being called every day and they’re ending up in police cells”. Indeed, they wrecked the place. So the initial contract, which was given to an American company, then went to Serco. Someone from the Youth Justice Board had to be in there full-time to sort out the regime, and since then Hassockfield and, I understand, the other secure training centres have not taken many children under 15 because the regime in a secure centre, even with what Ofsted says is now very good education, is not suitable for young children.
The other issue is about being near home. There was a tragedy at Hassockfield. I discussed it at great length with a whole range of people, and one of the reasons for that young boy taking his life, although by no means the only one, was his distance from home and his contact with home and his own community.
The Government are taking enormous risks with the safety—and the ability to change and handle their lives—of children in incredibly complex difficulties. In relation both to having one centre in the middle, to which children have to travel a long way, and to the issues of the age group and including girls, the Government need to learn the lessons of their own history in setting up secure training colleges. They should think about this again and look at the language used when the colleges were introduced. It was very similar to the language that Ministers used in this House today and in the Commons last week. If they do so they will recognise that they are making a mistake and that they really do need to rethink this policy.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
I will ask the Minister three short questions, but before I do, perhaps I may give a little reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who moved the amendment. He encouraged Members of your Lordships’ House not to vote according to party diktat. As a Liberal Democrat, I can assure him that although we are given advice—sometimes strong advice—we do not deliver party diktat in my party. I am happy to be able to say as a Liberal Democrat that nobody in this party expects us to vote for a proposition to which we conscientiously object. That is why I shall be voting for the noble Lord’s amendment unless we hear a meaningful concession from my noble friend the Minister in the course of the minutes to come.
My three questions are these. First, the Government have said that they do not intend in the foreseeable future to use powers to allow the secure college estate to be used for under-15 year-old boys and girls. What does “the foreseeable future” mean? Does it end at the time of the next general election, thereby meaning that in the unlikely event of a Conservative Government being elected, the foreseeable future will be over and they will immediately decide to allow these facilities to be used for girls and young boys? If the foreseeable future does not end at the time of the forthcoming general election, why are the Government in such a hurry to allow these facilities potentially to be used for girls and young boys?
My second substantive question is about the secure college at Glen Parva itself. My noble friend the Minister and other Ministers have been kind enough to allow Members of your Lordships’ House to attend repeated meetings in which we have pored over the plans of this establishment. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, those plans are entirely unsuitable for girls and young boys. The whole design of the place is founded upon the availability of the land, not upon starting with a designer’s brief to produce a secure college. That being the case, and that being the overwhelming opinion of all experts who have looked at this proposal—other than those who are within, as far as I can see, the Conservative part of this coalition Government—why do the Government not wait to obtain permission to send girls and very young boys to a secure college until there is a plan that has been properly consulted upon on a wider basis and fulfils empirical need?
Thirdly, why do we need this now at all? We know that the Glen Parva secure college will not open until, at the earliest, 2018. I do not think that I can remember a single year in my 30 years in one or other House of Parliament in which there has not been a criminal justice or sentencing Bill—or two, or three. Why can we not wait and have primary legislation based on proper evidence in the next Parliament? I doubt whether anybody from any Front Bench in this House would deny that there will be a criminal justice Bill in the first Queen’s Speech at the end of May. What is the hurry now? It is because of what I suspect will be the answer to those questions that I shall be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
Lord Glenarthur (Con)
My Lords, I had not taken a deeply close interest in what this amendment is about until I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said. About 30 years ago, I took over from my noble friend Lord Elton as the Minister in the Home Office responsible for prisons. Subsequently, I have been a patron of the Butler Trust, which has done a lot to support the work of prison officers and prison staff of all sorts in the work that they do, not only in England but in Scotland, where I was the Scottish patron. One of the most disturbing elements I found in my work, not only in the prison world but in the Butler Trust world, was the parlous state of those young people who ended up in incarceration in one form or another. It disturbed me immensely.
What is proposed by the amendment makes sense up to a point, but I am increasingly concerned that one of the ways in which the Government would be wise to try to buy off the opposition to this is by moving from the current negative procedure to the affirmative procedure and using the opportunity that affords them to allow Parliament to debate what it is not otherwise being allowed to debate. In that case, the Government will have the support of many of us, but denying that opportunity is something I find extremely difficult to live with.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, I do not understand to which procedure the noble Lord referred. I can see no example of the negative or the affirmative procedure. In any case, in your Lordships’ House we either accept everything or vote it down completely; that is not amendable.
I approach this as a parent and a grandparent and as somebody who has been on a police authority, a social services committee and an education committee. I have visited secure establishments. Let me reassure noble Lords who believe that those of us who are expressing concern are not concerned about reoffending. I am concerned about reoffending for the sake of other young people as well of as the young people themselves. I am deeply committed to extending anything that will help young people not reoffend. However, I ask noble Lords to imagine that they are members of a local authority considering this proposal. Placed on you by law would be a duty of care to the young people concerned. Negligence could well end up with proceedings being taken against you.
We owe it to those young people to ask about this. I accept that the argument about secure colleges is lost, except for these two groups. I remain deeply uneasy. I cannot possibly do anything other than accept the noble Lord’s Motion and sleep easy believing that we have fulfilled our duty of care.
I again ask the Minister, for whom I have respect: why on earth will we not be allowed to debate and offer detailed observations before any decision is taken? That is a simple proposition. If the Government are proved right, your Lordships’ House will listen and be fair, but we are not being offered that. I ask every noble Lord to say to the Government: at least convince me before you ask me to reject the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could add two further questions to the three asked by my noble friend Lord Carlile, which will help me in deciding exactly what to do. First, will he confirm to the House that neither the affirmative procedure nor the negative procedure is to be applied before the scheme is brought in? As it stands, the scheme can be brought in by the Minister without either. If that is right, will he then explain why the Government decided in the other place that they would ensure that the affirmative procedure would be used to the extent that the Government wanted to authorise the use of force, but not otherwise? Why is the affirmative procedure being used in that case but not in this?
My other question is this. I have looked in vain at the debate in the other place to see whether they had the opportunity to consider the extremely powerful points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, with an answer by the Minister. I cannot find anywhere in Mr Andrew Selous’s speeches on 1 December even the beginning of a reply to the noble Lord’s points. I ask that question because, before taking the solemn step of sending the matter back to the other place, it is important to know what happened. If I had seen a rebuttal of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that would affect the way in which I will behave, but I ask my noble friend the Minister whether I am right in saying that the noble Lord’s points simply went unanswered.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I would briefly like to speak on Motion A1, which would ensure that girls and younger children are kept out of secure colleges as we know them. We know them to be tough, intimidating and challenging places. The children’s charity, the NSPCC, believes it would be unsafe, inappropriate and potentially damaging to hold girls and under-15s in such institutions, especially as they would be with many older boys. The main reason for this is that many of the girls in custody are highly likely to have experienced sexual abuse. Placing them in custodial institutions may be traumatising and damaging to their rehabilitation. Placing girls and young children in secure colleges will cause serious and unprecedented safeguarding risks that should be considered.
Every child deserves to have the best education on offer, to help them prepare for the future and to help them cope with life. But to reach their full potential, children need to feel safe and not intimidated or bullied. We know that these environments will be made up of the most troubled children in the country. There is a need to give these vulnerable children the confidence to reach their potential, to help them engage with their education and to give them stability and consistency. The evaluation report by Ofsted does nothing to address these serious safeguarding concerns. I ask my noble friend the Minister: how will these concerns be addressed? What type of facilities will be put in place to give children and young people the stability, safeguards and requirements that are needed to deal with their mental and physical health and well-being? I look forward with great anticipation to my noble friend’s response, and hope he gives full consideration to our concerns today. I will accept nothing less than a compromise.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I was the Minister responsible for the police and the probation service for one year, and Minister for the Prison Service for three years. I was a teacher for 10 years and have been a father for 50, as well as a grandfather for just a few. I find myself in a very uncomfortable position. I have a great loyalty to and a great length of service in this party. On the other hand, I come here not by appointment by any present power but through my father having preceded me, and I remain here on a vote not of my party but of the whole House. Therefore, I feel that I have to be thoroughly independent in this matter.
I must say to my noble friend that all those spheres of experience that I have chime with the advice that he is getting from all quarters of this House. It is not necessary for me to repeat in a humdrum way what has been so eloquently and inspiringly uttered by others, but I want to tell my noble friend that I cannot possibly follow him into the Lobby on this occasion.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on what he has said and the courage that he has shown. There are just two other questions that I should like to ask the Minister. I was once upon a time, and for some years, a Prisons Minister.
The first question rests on the fact—noble Lords can check this—that young women are most likely to engage in serious self-harm between the ages of 16 and 20. Self-harm is much more common among women prisoners than among male prisoners; it is four times as high—so disproportionate is this attempt to raise sympathy and get attention. Is the Minister aware of these quite striking figures for the very high level of self-harm among young women, some of it serious self-harm, in the very age group that we are considering sending to secure colleges? What steps will be taken to ensure that any girl sent there has no previous record of self-harm?
My second question is quite different. We have all listened closely to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and we respect his extraordinary integrity in this House on issue after issue. Is the Ministry of Justice determined effectively to rule Parliament out of a system of consultation, advice and help, which I believe that most of us in this House are crying out for? We have seen an astonishing list of dismissals of Parliament in the course of proceedings on this Bill. I find it very unfortunate, and I am not sure that it is what the Minister intended, but it is certainly the net effect.
Will there be any consultation with the House about who will be the author of this report? In the light of the Home Office committee on sexual abuse, one can see what an intensely controversial question that will be. Will there be any willingness to listen to the House on consultation after the plans have been put forward for submission to the ministry? Finally, will the Minister consider whether the response given by the Commons to our amendments—namely, “it is not appropriate”—is an appropriate argument or even an appropriate answer to the many issues raised by the deep concern of many of us, of all parties, in this House?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister briefly explain precisely why the Government feel unable to take the further step, which seems very reasonable to a lot of noble Lords who have spoken, of allowing parliamentary approval of that next step—for younger boys and girls to go into secure colleges? There is some bemusement over why the Government could not take that further step, as it seems unreasonable to withhold it. It would certainly help me in my decision in voting to understand the reasons why the Government feel unable to agree to that procedural step.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that teenagers and pre-teenagers are the most racist groups, particularly those who are disturbed? Putting young, vulnerable minorities in the context of intense racism creates future terrorists. Has the Minister considered the cost to this nation of creating more enemies within its own people?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not speaking before but I have faced two family bereavements. The Government ought to congratulate themselves that the number of young people held in secure accommodation has dramatically reduced. These young people obviously need education. Some 70% are special needs pupils; 20% are statemented. They are also terribly emotionally damaged. They are children; I am not talking about youths or young adults. A 12 year-old child can potentially be hundreds of miles away from the thing they need most—the love of their family and friends. Could the Minister say whether, if this custody provision—we are told it is Europe’s largest—goes ahead, any provision will be made for travel costs for those parents wishing and perhaps hoping to visit their children on a daily basis?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, this has been a lengthy debate in which we have had some important contributions from a number of noble Lords, some of whom have been with us for the whole journey of scrutiny and some of whom have made their first appearance today. I am sorry that more noble Lords were not able to participate in the very considerable number of meetings in which the Government explained what they were doing. We answered many of the questions which have been raised by a number of noble Lords for the first time today. We answered them in correspondence. We also had a number of meetings in which we went through the plans. While I do not wish any disrespect to those noble Lords who have asked a number of questions to which I have already given the answer in various contexts, I hope they will forgive me if I refer significantly to the debates that have already taken place at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and to various letters to all Peers. I will try to keep my remarks as short as is consistent with answering the general burden of the debate.
I was disappointed that my noble friend Lord Marks said that there had been no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. I accept that the scrutiny may not have satisfied him or other noble Lords that the plans are appropriate, but scrutiny there has been.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but he has plainly misunderstood what I was saying. I am not complaining about the scrutiny of this Bill. I am complaining about the lack of a parliamentary approval proposal from the Government before girls and under-15s can be placed in secure colleges.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful for that correction or clarification by the noble Lord. It is important to remember that the context in which the Government are approaching the secure colleges is, as my noble friend Lord Storey correctly pointed out, that we have a reduction in the youth estate, which is to the credit of the Government, the Youth Justice Board and all those concerned with the criminal justice system. However, we have a small number of young people who, for various reasons—and those reasons have been touched on by a number of noble Lords—present many different problems and issues and need to be detained in one form or another on the youth custodial estate.
We cannot be satisfied with the fact that 68% of young people reoffend after leaving custody. Nor can we be satisfied that education is not a greater focus of the efforts to turn these young lives around. In fact, it is 74% where secure children’s homes are concerned. For these reasons, we do not wish to exclude any groups from accessing the benefits that we believe the new model of custody will deliver.
I wonder how much there is, in fact, between the Government and many noble Lords who have spoken. The Government are indeed careful and wary, for all the reasons that have been outlined, before sending those aged under 15 or young girls to these secure colleges. That is why I gave a commitment to the House that we would not cause them, in any circumstances, to be sent there at the beginning. It is also extremely important to emphasise that they will be sent there only if the Youth Justice Board and the youth offending teams think that it is appropriate, because all those bodies and the Government recognise precisely the points that have been made, namely that these young people are extremely vulnerable and that it should only be—
The Earl of Listowel
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard him make this assurance previously. I ask him to bear in mind the case of Joseph Scholes. This was a young man in care. He was in a children’s home. He was involved in a gang that stole a mobile phone. It was determined that he should be placed in custody. The court recommended that he should be placed in a local authority secure children’s home. There were not sufficient places available, so I think he was placed either in an STC, a secure training centre, or in a YOI. He took his life after that. Realistically, one has to recognise that the YJB and others are under severe financial constraints and will perhaps be even more so in future. While they may wish to do the very best for every individual child, if these spaces become available there will be great pressure for them to be used.
Lord Faulks
These institutions are important. Those who have seen the plans will appreciate that they are bright and barless. In answer to some of the points made, they also provide a separate, small group of 10 to 12 units for girls and under-15s, if they are placed there, to ensure a degree of separation for them. As for the provision of medical attention, there is to be, as those who have seen the plans will know, a rather sophisticated provision of mental health, provided by NHS England, as well as physical health and dentistry—which should in fact, I respectfully suggest to noble Lords, more effectively address health needs than they probably are in the community or in any of the other institutions that currently exist in the youth custodial estate.
I was asked a large number of questions, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and my noble friend Lord Lester, essentially saying, “What is the hurry? What is the foreseeable future? Why do you want to have this provision approved now? Can we not wait until there is a subsequent Bill?”. The answer is this: we have parliamentary approval to set up these secure colleges. I know that many noble Lords do not approve of this, but that issue is now no longer before the House. If the colleges are satisfactory and meet the approval of the inspections, we wish to allow those who may benefit—provided all the safeguards have been followed—to take advantage of that institution.
My noble friend Lord Lester asked where my friend the Minister, Andrew Selous, answered the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I refer him to cols. 101 and 102 of Commons Hansard, rather than reading it all out. During the course of his peroration, Mr Selous said that, as the father of three daughters, he would not wish to deny them the opportunity to go to a secure college. I would not, perhaps, go that far. However, the point that he makes is an important one. We should not, provided that the secure colleges are satisfactory, discriminate against girls having the possibility of taking advantage of what we solemnly believe will be a satisfactory educational provision.
Of course the noble Lords say that there should be an affirmative or a negative procedure. It will not be forgotten that this was a case in which there was a loss by one vote in your Lordships’ House, and then it was reversed by a significant number in the House of Commons. It might have been thought that the Government would simply ask this House to think again. We have been endeavouring to provide some assurance. The Secretary of State will indeed provide a report. As I have indicated, he can consult whomever he thinks is appropriate before providing a report as to why he thinks it necessary, if indeed he comes to that conclusion. He may well come to the conclusion that it is not appropriate; that remains an option.
I am sorry that there has not been an acknowledgement that the Government have tried to engage with interested Peers on this issue. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is extremely hostile to secure colleges as a whole, but we ask him to bear in mind the essential failure—we regretfully say—in the current arrangements to answer the real problems that have been identified in that relatively small number of people who are in the youth custodial estate. We urge him to ask himself whether it is really appropriate to deny this vulnerable but important cohort of people the opportunity—if it is appropriate, with all the safeguards that we have examined—to take advantage of those secure colleges. We want them—if it is appropriate—to have that opportunity. We can assure the House that these safeguards will be gone through and furthermore that there will be a report that will make the Secretary of State’s reasoning transparent.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, I plead guilty to the indictment framed by the noble Lord of not having taken part in any of the previous debates. Having listened to the debate this afternoon, I wish that I had. The noble Lord keeps saying “if it is appropriate” and that we must not deny young girls the great opportunity that these colleges might provide. Will the Government say that they will not put any girls under 15 in these establishments until the Government have established that these colleges work and would be of benefit to those children?
Lord Faulks
As I indicated, there are inspectorates —HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Ofsted, the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams—and now we have a prospective report by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said that the Secretary of State wished to put these people in the secure colleges. With great respect to the noble Lord, what happens is that if they commit offences and a court has decided that it is appropriate to send them there, subject to all the other safeguards, they will be sent there. The Secretary of State has nothing to do with them being sent there. His task is to provide appropriate establishments.
I respect the concern that noble Lords have quite rightly shown for this cohort—and I fully accept that they have exhibited it not just now but at various stages during the examination of these legislative provisions. They have expressed their view, those views will have been communicated to the Secretary of State, among others, and this House has made its position clear. Nevertheless, having considered the matter carefully, I ask the noble Lord to decide not to press his amendment.
Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he would reconsider the issue of whether it is more appropriate to go to the affirmative resolution rather than the negative. I have sat on the Front Bench for many years with many of my colleagues here and have been through the same debate, but often it is wiser and more sensible to try to pursue something that allows Parliament to have that debate rather than simply to brush it aside. I understand the negative procedure only too well, and I hope that on this point my noble friend will reconsider.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, before my noble friend answers that question, will he confirm to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and the whole House that the present proposal is that there would be no parliamentary procedure at all apart from the laying of a report for consideration—no vote, no regulations and no SI is proposed?
Lord Faulks
I thought that I had made it reasonably clear that there will be the laying of the report. That is the limit to which I committed and I commit to it now. It is beyond what we committed before. It may not be enough for some noble Lords but none the less the report, informed as I have said that it will be, will enable Parliament to consider whether it is appropriate.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his summing up but, as he will no doubt understand, I do not find it convincing at all because he has answered absolutely nothing. We have heard nothing about the details of this college and we have never heard any evidence of why the Government think that it is appropriate. We have heard yet again about education, and about a healthcare centre, but we have not had an acknowledgement of treating all the multiplicity of problems that these children face.
We keep hearing the word “might”, because there is no evidence to show that this approach has worked. In the absence of that, it would be irresponsible of us not to press further. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very stimulating debate. They have shown yet again not only the vast amount of expertise in this House but the degree of compassion felt for the people we are talking about. I was particularly struck by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, questioning why it was that this Government chose to rule Parliament out of any consultation on these issues. Here again, the offer of a compromise was thrown down and rejected by the Minister. I feel that I have no alternative than to seek to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, we turn to Part 4 of the Bill, and specifically the clause concerning procedural defects highly likely to have made no substantial difference to the outcome of a judicial review. I pay tribute to this House, and the expertise shown in many corners, which has been brought to bear on these clauses. We have heard from my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who brought his unrivalled experience to the debate. He referred to comments of a former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who wrote in his book, Education, Education, Education:
“However, if Parliament was navigated quickly and unobtrusively, the same was not true of the courts. As soon as academy projects became public, opponents seized on judicial reviews as a means to stop them. Ultimately they failed, but only after years of lengthy, expensive and immensely distracting court actions”.
My noble friends Lord Horam and Lord Tebbit told us that judicial review does not exist in isolation and has an impact on projects in the real world that deliver employment to people and can significantly affect actual problems. There have, of course, been many contributions far less supportive of the Government’s proposals. For example, the House has heard from a number of distinguished judges with enormous experience of judicial review, including the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Woolf. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, of the important role that judicial review can have when used properly.
Throughout, the Government have listened carefully—more carefully than some of our more trenchant critics suggest. The amendments that we propose in later groups bear, I hope, testimony to that. In the case of financial information we have proposed an amendment, despite having won a substantial victory in the other place. However, I must say to the House that on the matter of this clause the Government have not been persuaded that any amendment is required.
When used appropriately judicial review is an essential part of the rule of law, by allowing for the lawfulness of public bodies’ actions to be tested in court. But it is an area that has been misused, with claims brought with no real prospect of success, and with a view to delaying and adding expense to perfectly lawful acts that are simply disliked. Such challenges place significant burdens on the public purse and strike at the economic development that the country badly needs.
The Government want to restrict judicial review, not abolish it—I must emphasise that. Rather, we want to restrict it to cases that have real merit. Judicial review should not be used as a campaigning tool. It should be concerned with unlawful activity that has or is likely to have a real effect on outcome.
Clause 64 is intended to filter out claims brought on technicalities highly unlikely to have made a substantial difference to the claimant’s position earlier and at a lower cost. Your Lordships’ amendments would, in the Government’s view, undermine the clause. The elected Chamber rejected the House of Lords amendment, voting by 319 to 203 last Monday.
As this House amended it, Clause 64 would permit the court to refuse permission or a remedy where it was considered highly likely that a complained-of flaw would have made no difference to the outcome for the applicant. The Government’s formulation would require the judge to consider an argument that it was highly likely that a complained-of flaw would have made no substantial difference to the outcome for the applicant, and to refuse a remedy or permission where he or she was satisfied that the argument was made out.
Although the clause introduced duties on the court, it retained significant judicial discretion—primarily, of course, in deciding when the “highly likely” threshold is met in a particular case, and where the court is of the view that there is any significant doubt that it is, it can act as it thinks fit. Indeed, we have deliberately avoided defining “highly likely” in the statute, meaning that the judiciary will determine how it will apply in practice.
In the House of Commons, in speeches pitched against the Government’s original position and in favour of the amendment made by your Lordships’ House, it was said that we would be putting the judge in the position of the decision-maker. I simply fail to understand this point. The judge is not being asked to second-guess the decision of the administrative body; he or she is being asked simply to consider whether it is likely that there would have been a substantially different outcome if the impugned decision or the conduct had not occurred. This is very much judicial territory. Judges perform such assessments in all sorts of different circumstances.
The second point made in the House of Commons was that the judge would not be able to come to a decision without a mini-trial or dress rehearsal. I do not accept that point either. At the moment he or she will have to decide in appropriate circumstances whether it is inevitable that the outcome would have been unchanged. Now the bar is slightly higher but the process by which the judge arrives at the conclusion will be very similar, if not the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to public interest. Of course, public interest plays a part in a number of different legislative provisions in different contexts. But we believe that the threshold established in this clause does best serve the public interest. It will ensure that judicial review cases that progress beyond permission stage are not purely academic and are not based on minor technicalities highly unlikely to make any difference. We therefore think that this strikes the right balance. Indeed, the House’s amendments to the clause could serve to undermine the intended effect, and underestimate the significant safeguards built into the clause as agreed by the other place.
There is a balance between imposing appropriate duties to ensure that these reforms have the intended effect and preserving the important role of judicial decision-making. I strongly believe that this clause gets the balance right between allowing judges to decide matters of judicial review and nevertheless providing appropriate safeguards to ensure that inappropriate and meritless judicial reviews do not proceed further. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
Before my noble friend sits down, will he be so kind as to give a little more information about the underlying justification, as he puts it, for the rejection of this amendment? That is, he put it in terms of abuse of the judicial review process, technicalities, academic applications and so on. Has he any statistics or indications as to the extent of that abuse?
Lord Pannick
As an amendment to Motion B, at end insert “, but do propose the following amendment in lieu of those Amendments—”
Amendment in lieu
“( ) The duties of the court or tribunal under section 31(2A), (3B) and (3C) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, or section 16(3B), (3C) and (3D) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, are subject to the discretion of the court or tribunal to act otherwise where it considers it in the public interest to do so in all the circumstances of the case.”
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. His door has been open in recent weeks to discuss matters of concern and interest with noble Lords who are concerned about this clause.
On Report, your Lordships voted by a majority of 66 to amend this clause to maintain a degree of judicial discretion. The Government lost that vote because they lost the argument. Judicial review is of central importance to the rule of law. It is the means by which citizens seek to establish before an independent judge that public authorities, including Ministers, have acted unlawfully.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, it is a measure of the importance of the matters that we are now debating, and upon which we will have to vote, that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made special arrangements to fly back this morning from Moscow at 5.45 am, Russian time. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor has ever been to Moscow, but I suspect that Mr Putin’s views about holding government and other public bodies to account for the lawfulness of their decision-making would be closer to the Lord Chancellor’s than to the noble Lord’s.
After all, Mr Grayling has proclaimed that judicial review is,
“not a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners”,
or, as he put it in the course of the 58 minutes that the House of Commons devoted to debating the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House:
“Judicial review was never intended to be a tool for pressure groups to seek to disrupt perfectly lawful decision making in Government and Parliament, it was never designed to be used as a political campaigning tool, and it was never intended to put the courts above the elected Government in taking decisions over the essential interests of this country”.
He went on to claim that,
“in far too many examples, that is precisely what it has become”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/14; col. 70.]
Oddly enough, the Lord Chancellor failed to provide any examples of these malign abuses of the system, the essential interests of the country that he felt were under threat or indeed the identity of the so-called abusers. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, at least condescended to cite an example. Members may recall shuddering with horror at the revelation that the building of a supermarket in Yorkshire was delayed by all of six months due to an application for judicial review—brought, incidentally, not by a left-wing or other pressure group but by a commercial rival of the developer. I do not blame the Minister at all for relying on this underwhelmingly persuasive case. He was struggling with a grossly inadequate brief—something that I suspect from time to time he has had to deal with over the years, though perhaps in less important contexts.
The Secretary of State for Justice, moreover, whose title looks increasingly like one coined by George Orwell, gives the game away in presuming that, “perfectly lawful decision making” is what is at stake. The implication is clear: what the Government legislate is ipso facto lawful. In the fantasy world in which the courts are besieged by meddlesome litigants pursuing left-wing causes—litigants such as the Countryside Alliance and the Daily Mail—the courts are deemed to be wholly incapable of sorting out the legal wheat from the campaigning chaff. Typically, though, Mr Grayling, in the amendments that he has produced, which were never spelled out or indeed debated in the Commons, ignores the basic requirements, already enshrined in law and practice, that permission from the courts is required both to bring a case to hearing and for third parties to intervene. The Government, themselves a possible defendant in these cases, seek to restrict the exercise of judicial discretion in their own interests, and on the basis of the flimsiest evidence of the abuses that they affect to detect in the working of the system and the decisions of the courts. In the unlikely event of Mr Putin becoming aware of the Government’s approach, he would be lost in admiration.
The Opposition support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, Motion B1 and Amendment 102B to Clause 64, which would preserve the court’s discretion to grant judicial review where the court considers it in the public interest to do so. I invite my colleagues and others to join the noble Lord in the Content Lobby.
It would be convenient if at this stage I indicated the Opposition’s position in relation to the other amendments. We support the noble Lord’s amendment to Motion C, dealing with Clauses 65 and 66, and his amendment to Motion D, which sets out in Amendments 107A to 107E what purport to be the Government’s concession in relation to the financial position of interveners. I remind the House again that interveners must obtain permission before taking part in any application. The Government’s amendments would oblige the court to order an intervener who has been granted permission to pay costs to any other party in any one or more of four instances. The instances are: under subsection (4A)(a) of Amendment 107B, where they act as a party, although the court already has a discretion in such a case; under subsection (4A)(b), where the intervention has not provided significant assistance taken as a whole, whatever that is supposed to mean; under subsection (4A)(c), where the intervention relates to matters not necessary to resolve the issue—although, again, if they did not, permission would presumably not be granted in the first place; and under subsection (4A)(d), where the intervener has behaved “unreasonably”, whatever that means in a context in which the court already has a discretion.
The potential for mandatory awards of large costs against interveners is self-evident and self-evidently chilling. In addition, I understand that the question of financial resources and the extent of any liability would be left to the Rule Committee to determine, subject only to a negative resolution. In this context, it might be thought that this is a highly debatable procedure for dealing with such an important issue in such an important area.
I do not need to enlarge on the weight of opinion opposed to these measures in the senior judiciary, past and present, or the wide range of opinion, including that of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not to mention such subversive organisations as Age UK—I declare my interest as honorary president of Newcastle Age UK —Mencap, Mind, the National Autistic Society and many other highly esteemed and reputable organisations in the voluntary sector.
I conclude with a particular appeal to Liberal Democrat Members of this House, several of whom voted for the amendments in your Lordships’ House when we last debated this matter on Report, and several of whom joined some of us—from the Cross Benches and these Benches—in the Division Lobby in the vote just taken. Sadly, very few of their colleagues voted in support of this House’s amendments in the House of Commons. If anything has distinguished the Liberal Democrats—and particularly the former Liberal Party—it has been a sincere attachment to civil liberties and the rule of law. They have been vigilant in questioning, and, from time to time, opposing, policies of different Governments that were perceived to be in conflict with those legitimate concerns. I believe that many are troubled by what this part of the Bill seeks to achieve and by the Government’s amendments. There is nothing, of course, in the coalition agreement that refers to the measures we are now debating. If ever there was a case—with a general election only six months away—for this House to exercise its role in scrutinising and amending important legislation, and in making a judgment on the merits rather than according to political calculation, this is such an example. My appeal to Liberal Democrat Members—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, and I know that what he is saying is being said in a constructive spirit, but he might like to bear in mind that lectures from the Labour Party on civil liberties are not popular in the Liberal Democrats. He might possibly just leave it to our own consciences to determine how we vote on this matter.
Lord Beecham
It is, of course, entirely a matter of conscience for the noble Lord and others, and I would not defend everything that Labour Governments have done in this area either. That is why I referred to the stance that Members of the noble Lord’s party took on proposals made by more than one Government. It is a perfectly fair point.
I hope that, in addition to Members of those Benches, there may be other Members—from the Conservative Benches, perhaps—who will follow the example not only of some Conservative Members of Parliament who voted for this House’s amendments in the Commons, but even, much to my surprise, of the two UKIP MPs. I would not normally be encouraging people to follow where UKIP has led, but in this particular case, they were for once on the side of the angels. I hope, therefore, that this House can support the noble Lord’s amendments and, in so doing, encourage the Government to rethink their direction of travel in this very sensitive area of the rule of law and of the way in which government in this country—not just central government, but local government and other executive agencies—carries out its important responsibilities.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion B1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pannick. Noble Lords will know that I have expressed serious concerns about Part 4 at every stage of the Bill, and I remain deeply troubled. I know only too well how much vulnerable people, especially those who are disabled, rely on state services and how catastrophic it is when things go horribly wrong. I feel that in the other place the Lord Chancellor is still peddling the line that judicial review has been hijacked by pressure groups for political campaigning, citing again and again the example of Richard III. If political campaigning includes campaigning for justice and people’s access to justice, then I am very happy to plead guilty; I am one of those campaigners.
The Lord Chancellor also said in the other place that tough times mean tough decisions and tough love. I agree with that, but judicial review is even more critical in times of stress—in tough times—to ensure that the Government do not ride roughshod over their citizens. These reforms must be seen in the context of cuts to legal aid which already hinder access to justice for those at the margins of society, especially disabled people. This is not an issue about lawyers protecting their status or income. I am sorry, but it just is not. Where is the evidence? It is truly about weakening the ability of ordinary vulnerable people to hold public bodies to account and increasing the power of the state.
Clause 64, if not amended, would require judges to refuse judicial review if the outcome would be highly likely to be no different. It would remove their discretion. We need their discretion. The Government want to exclude judicial review for what they call “minor technicalities” —for example, the need for a bit more consultation. So much for due process. Removing judges’ current discretion would allow unlawful or dishonest decisions to go unchecked and public bodies to be let off the hook. It would also dramatically change the role of judges in second guessing what might have been. I cannot understand it. It cannot be right. The amendments made by this House to restore judicial discretion were rejected in the other place. I thank my noble friend Lord Pannick for his Motion and entirely support it. I seriously urge all Members of your Lordships’ House to think beyond the campaigning and those odd cases where it may have been quite ridiculous and to think about the hundreds of very vulnerable people who will need this over the coming years as, I have to tell the House, things are getting really tough for us.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, it is always important to listen to what is said by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. She has an insight into these matters that Members of the House who come from a legal background, as I obviously do, do not have personal experience of. It is very apposite that she should have said what she just said. I hope that the House will heed her plea.
Knowing that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would have to go to Moscow, I am bound to say that I had prepared for him not to be here, and therefore had prepared a much longer speech than I am going to give. But I would like to add just one or two things. As I am sure your Lordships understand, this is a very important issue. If noble and learned Lords have any ability to assist and advise the House, then it was clear in the earlier stages of the Bill that this was something they thought was wrong. They gave their reasons, and I played a leading part in that. The reason we did so was that we thought it was going to be bad for justice, for the citizens of this country and for the reputation of this country as a leading adherent of the rule of law. Judicial review is all about the rule of law. Every application that has any prospect of succeeding initially has to prove that something happened which the Lord Chancellor and the judges would regard as being unlawful. So if you are refusing relief in this situation, you are doing it with regard to something which has been illegal, or is in a position where there could be illegality.
The second thing to remember is that the procedure for judicial review is an exceptional procedure, designed initially by the judges, but then enacted in what was the Supreme Court Act and is now the Senior Courts Act 1981, in Section 31, which sets out the position as to the jurisdiction of the courts. That section makes it clear that heavy responsibilities are placed upon the judiciary with regard to its operation. The safeguards are there, because they have a very heavy responsibility of holding the balance. The amendment we are now considering is a small one. It is in relation to the first amendment, which I am addressing. As required by the Government, the judge—the word in question is— “must”. As required by the amendment, the word is “may”. The difference between us is “must” and “may”. As you have already heard, in the House of Commons—and I am going to come back to this—the Lord Chancellor misled the House. I have to say that. I am sure the Minister will accept it. He said to it that each of the amendments—
Lord Faulks
I am only interrupting to agree absolutely with what the noble and learned Lord said. The Minister has in fact written to say he was in error. The letter has, I believe, been placed in both Houses of Parliament, but there was a mistake and the noble and learned Lord is quite right to draw attention to that.
Lord Woolf
I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear. I was not aware that the Lord Chancellor had done so, and I thought it was very regrettable that he should have failed to do so. It is extremely important that the one Member of the lower House who has a statutory responsibility of a particular nature with regard to the rule of law and the administration of justice should have made that mistake, because he dealt very summarily and quickly with the position which was before this House in some detail. We have heard the relevant passages of what he said.
I recall that on, I think, 5 December—I have the reference to it if it is required—the Minister took care to say that there was a convention that the courts, Parliament and Government each respected each other and therefore did not unnecessarily criticise each other. I was well aware of that convention but I would suggest that it is much wider than that. It is a convention that, in respecting the other arms of government, each of them—I include the judiciary here as an arm of government—will not trespass on the other’s area of territory or a different part of the arm unless there are particular reasons for doing so. One can see why that should be so. In the courts, we are very particular indeed not to trespass on the privileges of this House and the other place—and they should be equally sensitive.
Knowing what had been done by this House, which appeared to me at any rate to be so clearly necessary, I read with great care what was said in the lower House. I must say that I was very concerned that the Lord Chancellor in the lower House had indicated the three reasons that noble Lords were told about by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, when he read the speech, including one that clearly amounted to a reflection on the judiciary. I have heard many protestations that the Lord Chancellor greatly respects the independence of the judiciary. However, when he talked about its difficult task of administering judicial review, as it does, day in and day out—and the task of presiding over judicial review is allocated to earmarked judges, so we can be sure that the matter will be properly considered—he was concerned that it was never intended to put the courts above the elected Government in taking decisions over the essential interests of this country. That is one of the problems that the Chancellor was concerned about. I would gently suggest to the Lord Chancellor, if he is writing apologies, that that is another matter that certainly calls out for an apology. It is wholly inconsistent with his statutory responsibilities under the Constitutional Reform Act. That is something that, having been said, either persuades the House or does not. However, if the other place was misled as to the background, what is at first sight a very difficult decision to understand is explained. I suggest that, because the matter was not put fairly to the other place, that is another very good reason why the matter should be returned to it.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord opposite but it does not need to be a particular party to see that there is something deeply wrong with what is being presented today. I am sorry about the tone that he adopted. I think it was entirely wrong and he may have done his cause and my cause a great deal of harm as a result.
The Government have not distinguished themselves by the way in which they have listened to this House or by the way in which they have thought through what they have presented. I remember the comments of the late Harold Macmillan that it is a mistake to revolt on more than one thing at a time because it confuses the Whips. I am concentrating on this particular issue because it is the most important issue of all. I think my noble friend misunderstood something I said earlier as criticising him. I do not criticise him at all. I think he has presented the case in this House as well as humanly possible, with a courtesy which one would expect and which he has fully expressed. The trouble is that there is not a case for what is being proposed. That is the difficulty. I do not think I have ever heard so damaging an apology as the one which was revealed during the course of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—that the Minister got wrong the only argument of any importance that he presented and then tried to uphold in this House the decision of the other House which would not have come about except with the exercise of the Whip. That would have done credit to the Chief Whip on the Benches opposite during his period in the House of Commons. It is very serious indeed. We have to say no to the Government’s determination. We have to support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because we have to give the other House an opportunity to reverse the decision that it made when it was not in full possession of the facts. That is the first thing we have to do.
My noble friend said that all that is happening is that the bar is being raised slightly higher. I am not a lawyer. I am proud of not being one and am keen to enter into this discussion because sometimes it seems as if the only people who understand these things are lawyers. I think that most normal people understand these things and they understand them very simply. With the greatest of respect, the bar is not being raised slightly higher. Its nature is being changed. What is being asked now is that judges must make a decision which does not seem to be a proper decision for the courts in any case. Decisions of courts should fundamentally be on the facts of the law—on what something means. But that is not the decision that is being asked for here. The judge is being asked to decide that somebody’s unlawful act was highly unlikely to have affected the people who would otherwise have been affected. That is a curious thing to ask a court to do. Surely a court ought to be asked to say whether a proposal is so unimportant or vexatious that it should not occupy the time of the court. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. If judges had constantly allowed people who wanted to argue how many angels danced on the point of a pin, then I would have accepted that we needed to do something about it. However, when my noble friend was challenged for the statistics on which this very serious proposal was based, he honestly said that he had not got any.
Your Lordships might reflect that if I were presenting a proposal to a board of directors of a public company and I said I wanted fundamentally to change the product they had—its constituents, the way it was advertised, the market for which it was being manufactured—I would have to present some figures. I would have to say how many people did not like the product and thought that it needed to be reformulated. I would have to say how often the product had poisoned people or upset their stomachs. I would have to produce some kind of basis.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way on this point. I said that I had no statistics; I did not say that I had no examples.
Lord Deben
I have listened carefully to the examples that my noble friend put forward, but has he any more? I do not think that any of them have been convincing so far. I am happy to give way to him if he is prepared to give us some new examples.
Lord Faulks
If the noble Lord had looked at the website in which all the examples were set out in the build-up to the Bill, he would have read them. I cannot read them all out now; it would be an inappropriate use of the House’s time.
Lord Deben
I am sure that most of my noble friends, and noble Lords generally, have seen those examples. I have to say to my noble friend that they are not very convincing. They are not sufficiently great to suggest that we should change the law of the land in this very particular way. That is my concern. I can see that it is easy to say, “Look, there have been a lot of judicial reviews that have not really been necessary”, or to say that we really need to shorten the time to build and to develop. I have a long history of being keen on building, developing and getting this country ahead of its neighbours, and of being unhappy about the way that we seem to take such a long time to do things. I am therefore a natural voter for this. I am on the side of the Government; I would like to be with them. However, this is not the way to do it. There are ways in which it could be done that would not break the fundamental reason for judicial review.
I come to my third point. During an earlier debate I said that the foundation of British law is that no one is above the law. I am a great enthusiast for King Charles the Martyr, but it was perfectly right to say that he should not be above the law. I think it extremely dangerous—I say this to my noble friend very carefully—if Ministers should feel it reasonable to break the law because it is not really very important, or because it does not really have much effect. Breaking the law, if one is in a position of authority, is ipso facto a serious thing to do. Having been a Minister for 16 years, I would expect my civil servants to tell me very clearly if I proposed something that would break the law. I would take that very seriously indeed. I do not believe that ordinary people will respect the law in the same way that they do today if they think that Ministers have a special arrangement, which is that when they do things somebody has to show that it was really serious, really upset somebody or really made a difference before the courts can adjudicate on it.
I come to my fourth point, which I must say is, to me, very serious indeed. We have to be very careful about legislating in a way that suggests that we do not have trust in the judges who make decisions. Of course, this might be thought to be a dangerous place to say this as there are so many judges here, but it is the thing that distinguishes us from many Administrations: there are very few people who will not say that the judges in this country make decisions without fear or favour. If judges have made decisions that judicial review cases should be heard, I would prefer to rely on them than on people who are parti pris—that is, the Ministers—who find those decisions embarrassing. Ministers of any political party ought to be embarrassed if they break the law. That is an essential part of defending the law.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I listened carefully to the last debate on this issue. There was nothing to add to the wide experience, in more than one capacity, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. In my non-ministerial years while at the criminal Bar, dealing with murders, rapes and frauds, the opportunities of polishing my talent in judicial review applications were few and far between. Hence, I did not speak earlier. However, what I want to say—it is a fundamental point—is that what I find offensive is the fettering of judicial discretion in a constitution that does not have the protection of a Bill of Rights. That is important.
The only point that I want to make in this debate is to show and illustrate, from my own experience, how government departments respond to an adverse finding in a judicial review. The Attorney-General’s office, for which I was responsible, has never, to my knowledge—certainly not up to my time—been judicially reviewed. However, the Attorney-General is responsible in Parliament for the Director of Public Prosecutions and supervises that office. By Act of Parliament, the Attorney-General appoints the director. He or she would be seen week in and week out, when significant cases would be discussed, although it is the director alone who takes the decision whether or not to prosecute.
Three important cases of death in custody—nothing, to my mind, having had a constituency next to a prison, would cause greater concern than an issue of that kind—were judicially reviewed as to the director’s decision not to prosecute. The court criticised the Crown Prosecution Service severely. What did I do? I immediately set up a non-statutory inquiry under a senior retired circuit judge, His Honour the late Gerald Butler, whom I located late on a Sunday night in the serenity of Cornwall and seduced him to do some additional work. His published report was extremely critical. I knew immediately that lessons had to be learnt and supported the work that I had undertaken to review fundamentally the Crown Prosecution Service. This was important additional evidence and it was essential to avoid a recurrence. Firm and speedy action was necessary. I hope that that brief example illustrates how one government department responded immediately to the findings of the court. The result was a huge transformation in the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service.
I have no reason to believe that any other government department does not take the findings of judicial review equally seriously; hence my firm belief in the unfettered judicial curb on the Executive—to ensure legality, to ensure that Ministers believe and act legally—and in the continuation of the long-standing judicial discretion which is the bastion for the maintenance of the rule of law.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Mr Geoffrey Cox, a Conservative Member of Parliament, asked the Secretary of State for Justice what he meant by “a minor technicality”, and he replied by giving examples of a failure of proper consultation. In my experience, a failure of proper consultation can be a very serious matter. I want to give just two examples of cases that I was involved in—one I won and the other I lost. One was about closing Barts Hospital. A judicial review challenge was brought on the basis that the Minister had not properly consulted before deciding to close the hospital. The judge exercised discretion in any event, and we lost. However, it was a very important exercise because it involved the court in calling to account what the Minister had done to see whether it was an abuse of power; it was not.
In the other case, involving a Labour Government, the consultation was about the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation and whether the new rules on anti-corruption had been properly consulted on. It turned out that the only people who had been consulted were large corporations. A small NGO, the Corner House, brought a challenge based on the fact that it was not a proper consultation, and it succeeded. As a result, the Minister had to do a further, proper consultation and to beef up the anti-corruption rules. I give those two examples to show that the Secretary of State for Justice simply does not appreciate how important a breach of procedural good government can be in a particular public interest case.
I want to say two other things. One is that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, has repeatedly pointed out that the Government have produced no evidence, as distinct from ideology, to justify the changes that are being contemplated and are now the subject of ping-pong, and they still have produced no evidence. The Constitution Committee, on which I also have the privilege of serving—not a left-wing, radical, subversive organisation—led by its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Lang, on 4 July asked the House to reflect on the wisdom of the Government pressing ahead with the reform to judicial process despite the warnings of the judiciary. In spite of the Constitution Committee ringing the alarm bell and repeating the warnings—I will not bore the House with the details—the Government went ahead. As far as I can see, neither of these reports was even referred to by Mr Grayling in the debates in the other place.
It is very important, if we have expert committees that are advising both Houses, that at the very least Ministers do them the courtesy of replying to them in the debate, and they have not done so. I cannot match the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, or the eloquence and wisdom of my noble kinsman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in what they have said, but I very much hope that we will rise above party politics this evening.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, I speak as a member of what was last week dubbed the sisterhood and brotherhood of non-lawyers. It is very important that non-lawyers speak in support of lawyers on these issues because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said at Second Reading of the Bill, “These are citizens’ issues”. We are talking about the most marginalised, powerless and voiceless citizens whose concerns are at stake.
I speak also as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We opposed the original clause on grounds of both principle and practice, including the argument put so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that we should not condone unlawful decision-making. This is of particular importance to the enforcement of the public sector equality duty, a point which has been made to us by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I declare an interest as the honorary president and a former employee of the Child Poverty Action Group, which, as Sir Stephen Sedley has pointed out, was a pioneer in the use of judicial review to further the interests of children in poverty and their parents and played an important role in elucidating the law on social security to the benefit of everyone involved.
I will recount briefly a recent case that is relevant also to Motion D, in which the CPAG acted as an intervener. It was a judicial review against a decision to cut the funding for local welfare assistance schemes—which replaced the discretionary social fund—which we know, from a growing body of evidence, is causing real hardship. The decision has taken place without consultation and without first carrying out the review that had been promised to Parliament during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. As it happened, the Government settled the case—they clearly did not think that they would win it—and have now consulted. The CPAG’s solicitor said to me that if the Government’s version of the Bill becomes law, this intervention probably would not have been possible,
“because of the uncertainty around whether our charity would end up liable to pay costs. As a result, the Courts would have been ignorant of the broader issues at stake”.
Indeed, the case may not even have got permission because the Government might have argued that, even if they had consulted, their decision would have been highly likely to be the same. I hope that that does not prove to be the case. We do not yet know what the decision will be. However, in answer to a Written Question just the other day, I was told that they have had over 5,000 responses to that consultation. That is not a mere technicality; that is about listening to what local authorities and other citizens of this country think about this issue.
To echo the very powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, at issue here are the accountability of the Government, the rule of law and access to justice—the very kind of principles that your Lordships’ House has traditionally upheld. I hope very much that your Lordships will uphold them again today.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will do no more than bring the law into accord with the position as described, with apparent approval, by the Secretary of State for Justice in the other place. I hope the Minister will do what he has not yet done, which is to explain to this House why it is open to objection.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Deben said in a truly remarkable, powerful and splendid speech. What he did not say—which I think that we can all say—is that the other place, of which I was proud to be a Member for 40 years, was misdirected by the Lord Chancellor. To misdirect a jury is not exactly a trivial matter but the Lord Chancellor has had the good grace and dignity to apologise. The fact is that the House of Commons made its decision having been wrongly advised and made it in a very short space of time. An hour was given up for debates on which your Lordships’ House had spent considerably longer.
Like my noble friend Lord Deben, I was somewhat concerned by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He is not normally like that but he almost put me into a position where I could do no more than abstain. I say to him that no party has the monopoly over upholding the rule of law. I am inclined to vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because I am a Conservative and because, like my noble friend Lord Deben, I am proud of the part that the Conservative Party has played over the centuries in upholding the rule of law.
I say also to all my colleagues on these Benches that this is not a question of party loyalty or disloyalty. I was in the other place for the whole of the 16 years that my noble friend Lord Deben was a Minister. Of course, I was not a Minister for any of those years and frequently found myself at odds with things that the Government proposed. On a number of occasions I voted accordingly because I always tried to uphold the dictum that one’s order of priorities as a parliamentarian in the other place is country, constituency and party. In your Lordships’ House, we do not have constituency responsibilities but we do have national responsibilities.
If we believe that something is being done that is not in the national interest, we have an absolute duty to speak and to vote accordingly. If this House has any point or purpose—I echo in slightly different words something said by my noble friend Lord Deben—it is to say to the other place, “You have, we believe in all humility, got it wrong. Please, please think again”. We did that last time and the other place did not. It did not think again because it was wrongly advised by the very man who should have been advising them correctly.
Therefore, we have every right this evening to say, “Please reconsider and take a little longer in reconsidering”. We are not talking about the convenience of governance or about narrow party advantage, we are talking about something that is fundamental to the survival of a parliamentary democracy and to the rule of law. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister, for whom we all have real regard, will be able to say something that will satisfy us, but I am bound to say that I am not overoptimistic. If he does not, I shall have no alternative but to go into the Lobby behind the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, when I intervened on the Minister and asked for the evidence or indications to underpin the need for this amendment, he, as the House heard, declined to give the same. It was important to add evidence or indications. I perfectly accept that a lot of the matters with which we are dealing in this amendment cannot be susceptible to simple adding or subtracting.
I want to make one point. I believe that we live in a time of democratic crisis. The public are voting for UKIP and, to some extent, they voted in droves for Scottish independence because there is a real breakdown of confidence in the main parties. We all know that there is a breakdown of trust in the great institutions of our state, in business and in us. We cannot brush aside the expenses tragedy of a few years back as if it is all forgotten and done with. It is not. I went to Clacton and canvassed. My goodness, it is not. There is a breakdown in trust. Of all the times to bring in a provision as contained in Clause 64, this is absolutely not the time.
Surely it is a simple point that the one thing that controls and contains any Government, however strong or however wrong, is the instrument of judicial review. I do not think that it is justifiable at all to reduce the extent and power of judicial review to any extent. That is the rule of law. If the proposal were to be brought forward, it surely could be brought forward with any semblance of decency only if the evidence for the need for it—the essentiality of it—was abundantly plain. We all know that it is absolutely as miles from that as it could be.
I am completely persuaded that there is only one thing to do tonight. I regret voting against a heavy whip but sometimes we all know that we have to do that, which is what this House is here for. I say again, we cannot take the step proposed by the Government to reduce the extent and power of judicial review.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may add an element of balance to this debate, although balance may not be exactly the right word since I probably am the only person who is going to speak in support of my noble friend the Minister in order that the debate may be not wholly, completely 100% unbalanced but a little bit balanced. I want to explain to noble Lords what worries us. I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment on some of the technical points that have been made. I am worried that there is considerable abuse of judicial review.
My noble friend Lord Deben—who was kind enough to say on a previous occasion that we have never disagreed on anything even when we were in different parties, which is largely true—said, in relation to the example brought forward at the beginning of the Minister’s speech, that it was not very convincing. I remind the House of the example which is, I think, shocking and a defining example of how judicial review can be abused. That point is made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in his book, Education, Education, Education. He wrote:
“As soon as academy projects became public, opponents seized on judicial review as a means to stop them. Ultimately they failed, but only after years of lengthy, expensive and immensely distracting court actions, mostly funded by legal aid with the real opponents—the National Union of Teachers and anti-academy pressure groups—masquerading as parents too poor to afford to pay legal fees”.
That is an example of some years ago.
My understanding is that that is happening today not only in education but in rail. For example, the Government have already had to spend £460,000 in outside legal fees to defend the judicial reviews against HS2. I am aware of judicial reviews in regard to roads. Development was rather scoffed at by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but in many instances it means housing projects and we need more housing in this country.
Lord Cormack
Is my noble friend really saying that the legitimate environmental concerns of people who have misgivings about HS2 should be overridden regardless? Surely it is entirely legitimate for those who have real interests to be able to pursue those interests by legal means.
Lord Horam
Indeed, but the point about judicial review is that it is a technical discussion about the process of law-making. Have the Government behaved illegally? Have they consulted properly? That is what judicial review is about. If you want to have an argument about HS2 it should take place in the Chamber quite openly. There are quite clearly profound differences of opinion about the process of HS2 but it is not judicial review that should be encompassing that. There should be an open debate about the merits and demerits of a particular project.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Is the noble Lord really suggesting that the whole planning appeals procedure should be abandoned for government schemes? That is the clear implication behind what he said. As he said there are—I forget the adjective he used—many abuses anyway of judicial review, would he like to give us perhaps three examples of cases that have been an abuse of the process so we can have an evidence-based discussion.
Lord Horam
I am personally aware from my experience in this House and as the former Member of Parliament for Orpington of cases affecting Travellers and the green belt. My constituents were concerned about Travellers camping on green belt land. Ultimately, Bromley Council, which was the council in question—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I want to challenge the noble Lord. Is he saying in this House that Travellers do not have the right to challenge the Government by judicial review? If so, we might as well throw away all our democratic values.
Lord Horam
No. What I am saying is that the judicial reviews raised by Travellers in Bromley were ultimately found to be completely meritless. They were meritless because Bromley Council, which has more Travellers than any other council in the country, had plans on how to deal with Traveller sites. Therefore, it was an argument about the nature of the problem of dealing with Travellers. It was not something that could be dealt with by judicial review. That is my point. The abuse of judicial review arises from the fact that questions of merit are being subject to judicial review simply because lobbyists and others are using judicial review as a route to object to proposals they do not like.
If I can complete the list of examples, it was not only green belt and Travellers—
Lord Deben
I have taken advantage of now being able to look up online in this House the suggestions as to why these cases are important. The first one is a case study on residential development in which the judge decided that there were two grounds of law which ought to be met. They were discussed and both were dismissed. Is my noble friend really saying that because it was inconvenient those two particularities of law should not be looked at? There is a second case put before us about a free school which is quite complicated but there were people who had a real issue. They are the only two cases to explain the argument that there have been more and more cases of judicial review. Frankly, there have been more and more cases of the Government interfering in the detailed arrangements of life and therefore it is not surprising that the number of judicial review cases has increased.
Lord Horam
I cannot comment on a churlish Government interfering more and more in the minutiae of daily life. That is something the Government would have to answer. None the less, the fact remains that the use of judicial review, where people are really arguing about the merits of a project, case or change in the NHS, in education or whatever, is fairly extensive. Indeed, I am told by friends and acquaintances in the lobbying industry that if you go to a lobbying company and say, “We are worried about this project and we want to object to it.”, one of the things it will tell you is that if you can afford an expensive lawyer it will find a technical means through judicial review of objecting to the proposal. That is a standard part of the package, I am told. It is hearsay, I fully accept that, but I am told that it is a standard part of the lobbying system in this country. They are the sort of examples I am aware of. It is not particularly statistical evidence but in this field that is rather hard to come by. None the less, it gives a flavour of what is happening out there in the ordinary world.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
I want to make one simple point. Even if the noble Lord is right that there are some cases of abuse—there are in every sphere of life including the police or indeed Parliament itself—is it not worth paying that price for the man in the street or the small community to feel that they have some way of redress against large institutions, government and big business? Many people feel it is their only way of making their point. We should not deprive them of it.
Lord Horam
That is precisely why, as I understand it, my noble friend is introducing in a later amendment a de minimis clause precisely designed to exempt small communities. When there is a project and neighbours perhaps contribute £100 or £150 each to object to it, that would be entirely legitimate and I would be wholly in favour of it. That would not be stopped by this precisely because the Government have recognised that point and in a later amendment are introducing a de minimis clause.
Lord Woolf
That is not correct on the first amendment. There is no qualification being introduced by the Government.
Lord Horam
I totally agree. I said on a later clause. Here, we are dealing with a situation where the actual result would be highly unlikely to make any difference. The noble Lord’s point would not occur because obviously they would hope to win their case. Here we are dealing with cases where it would be highly unlikely to make any difference at all and therefore the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, does not arise.
There is abuse which I think is doing the rule of law and judicial review damage. That is a real problem. How does this Bill affect that? There is a suite of measures here to deal with the treatment of interveners, financial transparency and lowering the bar slightly in meritless cases where it would make no difference to the eventual result. That is a complex series of measures and we do not really know—I do not suppose the Government know entirely—what effect they will have but clearly it is an attempt to remedy abuse. Remedying abuse in this case would serve the purpose of government. It would certainly help judicial review because it would diminish the impression that people have, rightly or wrongly, that it can be used and abused in the way I have described and is happening up and down the country. You could argue that it would not really detract from judicial review but in many ways would improve its performance. I say to my two Conservative colleagues that one aspect of being a Conservative is that very often you want to improve things for the sake of keeping them as they are. It is a classic Conservative position. I would not regard it in any way un-Conservative to be asking to improve these matters rather than defending the status quo, warts and all.
I think there is a serious problem here. The Government are addressing it. Noble Lords may disagree with the way they are addressing it. I think that the Government need some understanding of where they are coming from. In response to the views in the other place, they have listened and changed their position; not here, I agree, but in later amendments. I wholly agree that the discussion in the other place was truncated and in many respects very unsatisfactory, as has been pointed out. None the less, between the two Houses, we are beginning to get to a more rational and sensible position that acknowledges that there are problems and tries its best to find a way through without damaging judicial review.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
The Government have repeatedly characterised this clause as being concerned with cases involving procedural irregularities only. Indeed, the Minister used the term “technicalities” as a diminutive, which is inappropriate. Such terms are inaccurate in relation to this clause. At very best, they are inadequate. These are public law cases concerned with unlawful conduct of the Executive where an organ of government has ignored the law in taking or carrying out decisions.
With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Horam, I must say that his assertion that the system of JR is rife with widespread abuse is unsupported by the evidence. Nor does he take into account the fact that judicial review is, at its heart, about decision-making in accordance with law. Nor does he take into account the fact that, certainly over recent years, judges have made it very difficult indeed, in the exercise of their discretion, for unmeritorious cases to get permission to proceed.
I do not regard this clause as merely protecting government from the effects of minor procedural errors that have made no difference to decision-making. I regard it, as do other noble Lords who have spoken, as an attack on the rule of law and an attack on parliamentary democracy. To take the example given by my noble friend Lord Lester, where a statute is passed by Parliament, often after discussions such as the ones that we have had on this Bill, which requires that the Government consult before making a decision, it should not be open to government to flout that requirement imposed by Parliament and then claim an immunity from judicial review on the basis that a lawful consultation would have made no difference to the outcome of the decision-making so that permission and relief should be withheld. That is the heart of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
The public interest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reflects an amendment that I moved in Committee. If carried, and if this House insists on it, a court will not be compelled to say, where a government department has acted unlawfully, that the decision would have been the same anyway and therefore permission to apply for judicial review must be refused and relief must be withheld. The court will instead be able to say that the decision was illegal and, before it can be properly made, the Government must follow the law—quite simply because that is what the law requires. That is the rule of law. That respects the will of Parliament. That gives effect to be principle of government accountability. This House has a constitutional duty to be very careful indeed when what is happening here happens—when the Executive seeks parliamentary sanction for breaking the law, as this clause does. I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the question in this particular amendment is a simple one. The courts have developed law in relation to situations in which the outcome would not be any different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. My understanding of the decision in that area is that the court may decide, if it concludes that the result would inevitably be the same, that the relief is to be refused.
The government Motion that is the subject of this substantial debate simply raises the question of whether that would be inevitable or “highly likely”. In the civil law, of which judicial review is part, the ordinary rule is that the balance of probabilities determines the fact. That is the question that was raised here and there is quite a lot to be said for that point of view. But the situation tonight is affected by the way the debate was conducted in the other place. It is not for us—it is certainly not for me and not for any of your Lordships—to criticise what happened in the other place. On the other hand, the Lord Chancellor has apologised to a Member of the other place for the mistake that he made, which is fairly fundamental to the consideration of this amendment. Therefore, for my part, I would like to see this amendment going back to the House of Commons, not necessarily to change the result—that is a matter for the Commons—but so that the debate should proceed on a basis that is 110% correct.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I begin my concluding remarks, which will be short, by saying how much I agree with much of what has been said during the course of the debate. First, the Government and I have great respect for our judges and their capacity to deliver justice in the course of judicial review and in any other field. I also have, of course, profound respect for the rule of law. In particular, I respect the role of judicial review in upholding the rule of law. I do not for a moment believe that anything that we do in Parliament should provide any form of carte blanche to a Minister or any other public body in how they conduct affairs.
The Government very much appreciate the careful consideration of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Lords Constitution Committee and their respective reports. They were not referred to by anybody on either side during the course of the rather truncated House of Commons debate. I do not know the extent to which they were taken into account sub silencio, but they are important and I fully acknowledge that.
Nor do I suggest that failures of consultation are not—or are not capable of being—serious matters. It is not the Government’s contention that failures to consult should be regarded necessarily as trivial—far from it. The clause refers to “substantially” and the Government’s intention is to ensure that judicial review focuses on issues that might have made a difference, not mere technicalities. We do not consider that the clause will give public authorities carte blanche to act unlawfully. No decision-maker will deliberately do something unlawful on the basis that they might hope that they can survive judicial review on the basis of the inevitability of the outcome or the outcome being “highly unlikely”.
I accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said about the importance of declaratory relief and how it can play an important part in ensuring that public bodies understand their rights and responsibilities. If a judge looking at a particular case considers it important that there should be a declaration, he or she is most unlikely to decide that the case should not go further forward.
However, as my noble and learned friend, Lord Mackay, so correctly said, there is nothing revolutionary about a judge looking at a case on the question of what the outcome would have been. In particular, I refer the House to the well known case of Cotton v Chief Constable of Thames Valley from 1990 and a number of other cases that had the same effect. It was decided that the courts should look beyond the narrow question of whether the decision was taken in a procedurally improper manner and consider the wider question of whether a decision properly taken would or could have benefited the claimant.
Much of the law in this area is concerned with consultation. While consultation can be very important, if it is a trivial omission, it is appropriate that the court should look and be capable of looking at a particular case and saying, “I do not think it is an appropriate use of public resources or an individual’s resources for a judicial review to proceed, notwithstanding the putative unlawfulness, if in fact it would have made no difference or was highly unlikely to make a difference”. That is why I agree with much of the rhetoric around this important point of principle because what the Government are inviting the House to approve is a minor change to the existing law. We are not abandoning judicial review. We are not inviting the Government, local government, Ministers or public authorities to ride roughshod through the law. We are simply saying that judicial review may be reviewed. Judges can be relied on to prevent abuse in this regard, but I suggest that it is not inappropriate for Parliament to say, “If you, as a judge, consider it is highly likely that it would make no difference, we invite you, on reviewing the facts and not fettering your discretion, to decide that the case should go no further”.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Before the Minister sits down, I wish to ask one question: how does he answer the second part of the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern?
Lord Faulks
It is a matter entirely for the House. The whole of the speech was before the House of Commons. It was clearly regrettable. The Lord Chancellor has written a letter which is deposited in both Houses. This House will take the view that it thinks appropriate.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. He has been put in a quite impossible position, not, I think, for the first time, and I sympathise with him.
There are two central points here. The Minister very fairly accepted that the Lord Chancellor inadvertently misled the House of Commons when it considered the amendment that was approved by your Lordships. The Lord Chancellor misled the other place on the very issue that is at the heart of this amendment. He wrongly suggested that there is an exceptional circumstances provision in this clause which confers discretion on the judge. That alone is reason enough for this House to invite the other place to think again, and to do so on the basis of an accurate statement by the responsible government Minister as to the terms and effect of the clause that he was putting before the House of Commons.
However, that is not all. The public interest amendment is essential to the rule of law. That a Lord Chancellor should regard the need for a fair procedure and legality as unimportant technicalities which should be excluded from judicial control is, to my mind, profoundly depressing and alarming. I say to the Minister that that is not a matter of rhetoric but of substance.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, suggested that this clause is a development of the current law. However, the change is not merely to alter the test of inevitability to a test of highly likely; the vice of the clause that we are debating is that it imposes a duty on the court in all circumstances to throw out judicial reviews without retaining any discretion in the public interest. The Lord Chancellor and the other place should be invited to think again about the need to retain judicial discretion in the public interest, as Motion B1 states. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Faulks
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 103, 104, 105 and 106, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 106A, but do propose Amendments 106B and 106C in lieu.
Lords Amendments
“(3AA) Rules of court under subsection (3)(b) that specify information identifying those who are, or are likely to be, sources of financial support must provide that only a person whose financial support (whether direct or indirect) exceeds, or is likely to exceed, a level set out in the rules has to be identified.
This subsection does not apply to rules that specify information described in subsection (3A)(b).”
“(3AA) Tribunal Procedure Rules under subsection (3)(b) that specify information identifying those who are, or are likely to be, sources of financial support must provide that only a person whose financial support (whether direct or indirect) exceeds, or is likely to exceed, a level set out in the rules has to be identified.
This subsection does not apply to rules that specify information described in subsection (3A)(b).”
Lord Faulks
My Lords, we now come to Clause 65 and its sister clause, Clause 66. As introduced, Clause 65 would do no more than see a person provide financial information with their application for judicial review. This will prevent others from sheltering from their proper costs liability at, almost invariably, the expense of the taxpayer. As introduced, Clause 66 would do little more than require the court to consider that information.
The House’s amendments to Clause 65 would allow an applicant to be granted permission where they had not provided financial information with their application for permission, with nothing more said about the circumstances in which that would be appropriate. Similarly, the House’s amendments to Clause 66 would mean that, even where that information had been provided, the court need not consider it, nor consider whether a person identified should have costs awarded against them. Therefore, conceivably, a person might control a judicial review’s course while sheltering behind a shell company, precisely to avoid proper costs liability, and the judge could be given no information about that.
We think that those amendments, although undoubtedly well intentioned, simply go too far. The Government have, however, been persuaded to table an amendment, even after the other place so resoundingly supported the Government’s original clause, to give noble Lords additional reassurance that the Government do not intend Clause 65 to apply inappropriately or unhelpfully. I trust that the Government’s actions with regard to this clause, and the amendment itself, will give noble Lords the comfort they need to support the Government.
We have been clear throughout that we intend an approach which strikes a balance between the court having the information it might find helpful when deciding costs and avoiding providing it with too much information. The amendment provides comfort on that, by requiring any procedural rules which give effect to the clause to include a de minimis threshold. When providing the court with information, an applicant would not have to identify any person who had provided contributions below that threshold.
I am sure that noble Lords will understand that we are not in a position to bind the hands of the procedural committees that will make the rules as to what the figure will be. That would be as inappropriate here as it would be with regard to any other procedural rule. I am comfortable that, whatever figure is ultimately adopted, it will ensure that the rules are not overly burdensome or require an excessive level of investigation. Quite simply, setting the threshold too low would result in flooding the courts with unhelpful paper that would not suit the Government’s purposes. I can happily confirm that the Government will, of course, take into account evidence and views appropriately as they come to a view on what figure is appropriate.
It is important to emphasise that nothing in Clause 65, which would make mandatory the provision of information on an application for permission, would require any level of financial resources to be available before permission can be granted. This is not about taking discretion away from the judges but about giving them the information to enable them to take fully informed decisions.
We have not tabled an amendment to Clause 66 as we are satisfied that it continues to strike an appropriate balance. The clause as the Government wish to see it would not require the courts to award costs against a person or a type of person. It simply does not affect the judge’s discretion as to costs, but it would place the court under a duty to consider the information that has been provided and whether persons identified in that information should face costs—something that they would inevitably do in any event. What decisions it takes having considered that information is a matter for the court.
For the sake of absolute clarity, I am happy to repeat that there is nothing obliging courts to make costs orders against a person identified in that information; we require only that the courts have the full picture. The alternative is to say that the judge should make an order with a less than full picture and with less than full transparency, and I am not convinced that that is desirable.
Perhaps I might make one further thing clear. These clauses and the amendment do not alter the court’s existing powers on costs. The common-law position would remain. More than mere funding will be required before a third party is made liable for costs; for example, those parties who are not only funding but are seeking to drive the litigation or to benefit from a potential remedy in the case might be ordered to pay costs. We are concerned that the courts have the wherewithal to identify who is driving litigation—that people cannot shelter behind matters—but, equally, small contributions to a fighting fund, where those individuals do not expect to control the litigation, should not bring with them an obligation to declare that you have put a modest sum into a fighting fund. Therefore, you would not inevitably be liable for costs. In fact, you would probably not be liable for costs anyway but you do not have to disclose that information.
I hope that the House will not insist on its Amendments 103 to 106 but will accept Amendments 106B and 106C in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion C1
Lord Pannick
As an amendment to Motion C, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 103, 104, 105 and 106”.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the amendments that were approved on Report by your Lordships’ House by a majority of 33 arose out of two concerns about these clauses on financial information.
The first concern is that the judges would be prevented in all circumstances from granting permission to bring an application for judicial review unless the relevant financial information has been provided. As with Motion B1, on which your Lordships have just voted, so with this Motion C1 a degree of discretion is appropriate to permit the judge to decide that a case should be allowed to proceed in the public interest, even if some financial information has not been provided. An absolute bar is inappropriate in this context and the removal of all judicial discretion is inappropriate.
The second concern is about the effect of the provisions on people who contribute to the funding of a judicial review. The Minister’s helpful letter of 4 December to noble Lords explained that the Government wish to ensure that there is no “chilling effect” on contributions because of a fear by potential contributors that they will be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs. Therefore, as I understand him, the Minister has said that it is not the Government’s intention that those who provide small amounts of funds should be subject to costs rules, and that that will be ensured through rules of court.
As I understand it, the rules will state a threshold so that people contributing less than the specified amount would not need to be identified by the claimant and so would not be liable to be ordered to contribute to the defendant’s costs. That is all very laudable. The problem, however, is that the Minister has not told the House what the threshold level will be. If the level is too low, it will inevitably deter people from contributing to judicial reviews brought in the public interest because of the risk that the contributor will have to pay the defendant’s costs.
Funding judicial review has become much harder in recent years with the decline in legal aid. It is very regrettable that the Government should now wish also to impede the ability of claimants to fund judicial review applications by private contributions. I am not satisfied by what the Minister says unless he can assure the House that the threshold level will be sufficiently high that it will not deter modest or reasonable contributions to the funding of judicial reviews.
Lord Faulks
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he could assist the House by saying what he would consider a modest contribution.
Lord Pannick
I would suggest that one should look up the average cost of a judicial review application and say that if the individual concerned is contributing less than, say, 10%, 15% or 20% of the costs, then that figure would not lead to any cost implications for that individual. However, I am not the one who is putting forward this proposal; it is surely for the Minister to come forward to the House and tell us what his proposal is. This House voted on Report that it was not satisfied with the Government’s approach. The Government now come forward and invite the House to agree with the other place by reference to this new proposal, and I simply suggest to the House that the Government’s proposal cannot be adequate unless your Lordships are told what the relevant figure is. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, my concern with these clauses has been that they would require any individual who was minded to support a judicial review application financially to disclose to the court his or her resources. That requirement is coupled with a requirement for the court, when considering questions of costs, to consider making a costs order against a supporter of an unsuccessful application, making use of the information disclosed.
With the greatest of respect to his argument, the Minister understated the effect of Clause 66. He said that the court would have to consider the information; what he did not take into account was that the court would be enjoined to consider making a costs order against the supporter. The inevitable effect of that would be to deter people from supporting judicial review applications financially. Group applications—for example, by groups of villagers or school parents—would then become very difficult indeed to fund.
This House’s amendments gave the court a discretion relating to financial information and costs orders. The Commons rejected our amendments and, in response to the concerns raised, my noble friend Lord Faulks and the Government have nevertheless introduced an amendment to provide that rules of court would exempt some supporters of judicial review applications from the financial disclosure requirement, provided their support did not exceed a level to be,
“set out in the rules”.
The difficulty, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, is that the Government and my noble friend have given no indication of the level of support intended to be covered by their amendment. My noble friend and his officials—I am grateful to him and them for this—have met me and, I understand, others to discuss this amendment. I quite understand their position, enunciated by the Minister, which is that further work would need to be done to set an appropriate level. However, the Government are able to say nothing as to the level intended, except that it is likely to be a “few hundred pounds at most”. That is not satisfactory.
A very limited exemption for small-scale supporters would not significantly reduce the chilling effect of a disclosure requirement. It will not be anything like enough to enable groups to raise meaningful funds to support JR applications. I remind the House that most solicitors now charge about £250 or more per hour, even outside London. For the exemption to be meaningful, a supporter would have to be permitted to contribute several thousand pounds before financial disclosure was required. I accept the formulation put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but that could be assessed when formulating the regulations on a percentage basis. I had in mind a figure of 20% as the starting point. I had in mind a figure of somewhere between £10,000 and £15,000 as a likely level below which disclosure would not be required. However, from the Government we have heard nothing, except that it would be figure of a few hundred pounds at most. That is not a significant concession.
What is necessary is that individual supporters providing small or medium sums, who are doing so genuinely to support the application—not as the real principals and not to try to control the litigation—should not be deterred from so doing by the costs threat involved in this clause. We need that as a statement of principle, but it needs to be a statement that shows that the principle has changed to meet the objective that I have just set out.
The Government’s stated aim in these clauses, restated by my noble friend, has been limited to ensuring that wealthy people do not use impecunious applicants to pursue litigation as fronts, with no risk in costs to themselves. He rightly used the argument of shell companies as supporting an argument that their promoters should not get protection. That is an understandable aim, properly expressed by my noble friend, which no one could sensibly criticise. However, I remind your Lordships that the court already has the power to require information and make costs orders against non-parties in such circumstances. However, if the Government wish to legislate to implement their stated aim, it would be entirely reasonable to expect them to limit the legislation to what is required to achieve that aim. That would mean a firm commitment to this House that the level set out in the rules would be such as to exempt from financial disclosure small and mid-range supporters of judicial review applications who were not seeking to control the litigation.
I have made it clear to the Government that I would be prepared to support the amendment in lieu if there were a clear statement that genuine supporters in this category who provided significant funds but did not wish to control the litigation would be protected. In the absence of such a statement, I feel obliged to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to insist on the Lords amendments. The Commons will then have to consider whether it is prepared to incorporate the sort of principle that I have enunciated to protect the financing of group litigation and incorporate it into an amendment in lieu when it is sent back to this House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I had understood the Government’s proposed amendment as conferring power on the rule committee to determine what the rules should be. There is, of course, an ultimate power but I would expect the rules to be fixed by the rule committee, after appropriate consultation and with a fair amount of knowledge of how the whole system works. This kind of amendment would deal with the sort of problem that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I referred to in Committee. The Government’s amendment would be a sensible one to make and the Minister has explained the principle under which it would work. I am perfectly happy to leave that to the rule committee to determine, in the light of its great experience and knowledge of the situation.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I have listened, of course with enormous respect, to the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken but I do not agree with him. As my noble friend Lord Marks said a few moments ago, rules already exist to deal with the problems that are legitimately identified. What I want to say, in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Marks, is about who the people are who sometimes contribute to group actions and would be chilled out of them as a result of the proposed changes.
I have to go back to my period as a Member of another place, representing a geographically large but population-small rural Welsh community. From time to time in that community, issues arose relating to judicial review. For example, many people wanted to challenge the closure of small primary schools or the changes made by the Conservative Government of the time to the structure under which primary schools could be governed. There were challenges to new roads and planning decisions, which had been made on faulty procedure by the local authority.
Who are the people who contribute to these group actions? They include people with small businesses who decide that the issue matters more to them than might at first sight be apparent. They do not, however, want to open up their private business to the courts—not because there is anything wrong with their private business, but because they think it might be made public and their neighbours might know that business. Some small farmers are much more affluent than their neighbours know; others quite the opposite. The affluent ones may want to make a disproportionate contribution to a group action, because it matters to them and because their families have been central to the community in which they live for several generations. Elderly people may not want to leave quite as much as their unworthy relatives would like to receive from their estates; they may feel that there are community issues that justify their descendants perhaps paying a small price by a contribution being made to a community group action of judicial review in the public interest.
Those are just three illustrations of the types of people who will feel that they are simply not prepared to give more than a few pounds to a group action, whereas in the past they may have given several thousand. So I agree with the point that has been made eloquently by others. Before we go down this road, we need some indication from the Government—they must have some idea—at least of the proportion of costs that would fall within these provisions. Until we have that, we could not conceivably be responsible in agreeing to a proposal that would have such a serious chilling effect, not only on judicial review but on the spirits of small communities such as the one I represented.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I am a complete outsider on this, but I am now confused. The examples that the noble Lord has given I can recall from my own experience, not of judicial review but of group activities—the community. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, however, said that he would buy 15% to 20%. Now, 15% is six or seven people. That is not a group or a community. Twenty per cent would be five people funding. I am now at a loss. I realise that the Government should put something forward about the level, but I am confused by the idea of lots of people contributing for the community. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, “I could buy 15% or 20%”. That is not a group and it is not a community. That is a small tightly knit group of motivated people. So I am confused about which way we are going on this debate.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has, extremely uncharacteristically, if I may say so, missed the point. I am sure that it is my fault. We are talking about group actions that may involve a significant number of people—hundreds or thousands, maybe—to which a few individuals make a large contribution. They are making that contribution, often anonymously, to ensure that the matter is capable of going to judicial review for the reasons I gave earlier. We are not talking about 20% meaning that there are only five people involved in the action. We are talking about 20% of the funding that is collected, although there may be hundreds of people involved in the action.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. In my experience—which I am sorry to say is rather larger than I would like—of local communities in mid-Wales fighting, for example, wind farms, a lot of households give a few pounds, but a judicial review becomes possible because one or two people who really do wish to remain anonymous give significantly more. Many of these people have been terrified by threats of being sued for costs. So I would implore the Minister to give as much clarity as possible on this point.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am moved to continue with Wales because I acted for my community—the Gresford community—when there was a proposal to opencast mine part of Gresford colliery at a time when there were about 260 bodies still buried in it as a result of the 1934 disaster. Your Lordships will appreciate how people felt about that: they felt that there had been a stitch-up between the National Coal Board and the local authority.
Since the matter had not been properly advertised, we took it to judicial review. We could not, however, expect every member of the community to be involved, so a committee of about eight people was set up to instruct solicitors and counsel to appear on this judicial review. It is those eight people I am thinking about, who might be found liable for costs. I can tell your Lordships that even then—back in the 1970s or maybe the early 1980s—costs were a considerable issue for these people before becoming involved in this matter. The result was that the judicial review was successful. The county council advertised properly and the villagers —the community—then made contributions to the consultation that took place. Although the decision to permit opencast mining went ahead, it was with very stringent conditions. The National Coal Board was very concerned to keep to those conditions, so the work was carried out strictly in accordance with them and the land was replaced to such a degree that it is now the training ground for Wrexham Football Club. Your Lordships will appreciate that in that case a decision was taken that excluded a community which had the highest sensitivities about what had happened. The fear of costs was something that might have deterred that successful action altogether.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
I wish to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and resist the Minister’s Motion on rather a broader basis than perhaps has been suggested so far. The problem, or one of the problems, with the Minister’s Motion is that it leaves intact the central thrust of Clauses 65 and 66, which were of course objected to and disagreed with by the Commons on the basis set out in Commons Reason 106A:
“Because it is appropriate to impose duties, rather than confer discretions, on the High Court”,
et cetera. My deep disagreement with that basis of rejection is that I do not believe it is appropriate in this jurisdiction to impose duties and to narrow or eliminate discretions on the part of the judiciary.
In Committee in July, I suggested that it is difficult to think of any area of law less suitable than this one for this sort of legislative interference. We are here concerned with the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the courts to hold the Government to account; to ensure that the rule of the law is observed when the Executive take action. Yet here is another example of the Government seeking to weaken those powers with the inevitable chilling effect, and in many cases making it practically impossible to bring a challenge. The fresh ministerial amendments still leave intact the provision that you cannot bring judicial review unless you give a whole series of particulars about how the process is to be funded.
In that same debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—my respect and admiration for him is second to none, not least since he had the sagacity 22 years ago to promote me to the Court of Appeal—rightly pointed out that it was the judges themselves who had originally sought to underpin the rule of court under which judges had previously exercised their judicial review jurisdiction by giving it legislative form. Thus was enacted the section of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, spoke a little earlier: Section 31 of what used to be called the Supreme Court Act but, since the invention of a Supreme Court, is now called the Senior Courts Act. However, it must be recognised that Section 31 merely facilitated the exercise of the judges’ supervisory jurisdiction; in no way did it seek to constrain, limit or inhibit it. It imposed no duties on the judges and you will search it in vain to find such.
Now, though, in this clause, as in the one that we discussed a little earlier, the Government are intent on seeking to eliminate the judges’ powers and to impose duties upon them. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said about the earlier proposal: this is an amendment of constitutional importance. In truth, it is not a party political matter. It is a question of where the boundary should be drawn between the Executive and the judiciary. The judiciary in this country, unlike its American counterpart, has always fully recognised the sovereignty of Parliament. We do not strike down primary legislation. Parliament, in turn, has not hitherto sought to whittle down the judges’ supervisory jurisdiction, and it is really inappropriate that they should now start to do so.
If the Government have their way on this or, on reconsideration later, on the previous or the next amendment, the constitutional balance will have shifted. The fact is that the Motions that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is advancing are ones that are truly worth fighting for.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, this has been a very useful debate. The questions of the information available to judges are difficult. Most judges would say that the more information that they have, the better, to enable them to exercise any discretion in any context. When it comes to making orders for costs, which can be extremely serious in their consequences, it is important that they have information. By the same token, the Government take the view that it is only fair that people who seek the remedy of judicial review, who will inevitably cause costs to be incurred—often by a public authority, so indirectly by the taxpayer—should not be able to hide behind shell companies. That much, I think, is agreed. Where there is still some disagreement is over whether those who want to contribute to a fighting fund or a potential claim—however one likes to characterise it—should have to disclose that information.
The amendment is regarded by some noble Lords as being unsatisfactory because the Government do not specify a particular figure or percentage. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, quite rightly says, it is the Government’s amendment and he does not have to put anything forward, he said helpfully that it might be helpful if the figure was by reference to the overall costs of the judicial review. Our view, and I rely on the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is that these are pre-eminently matters for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. It is of course not a committee of which the Lord Chancellor—the subject of much criticism today and throughout the Bill—is the chairman or has control, but it has considerable experience.
The important thing, I suggest, is to consider what is really at stake here. I respectfully suggest that actually the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, put his finger on exactly the dilemma here: whether we are talking about people who are making small contributions to a community project or about quite large sums of money where there is a pooling of resources to take forward a claim. I shall try to characterise what we are trying to get at by these rules. We suggest that there is a difference between an amount of money that by most people’s standards would establish a vested interest in the outcome of a case and someone who, in support of a cause, wishes to make a small contribution to a fighting fund. It is the latter that our clause seeks to exclude. That is the difference. We have adhered to that as an approach. We are not seeking to exclude people who are making substantial sums. I respectfully suggest that £10,000 to £15,000, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Marks, is a substantial sum of money.
The amount that individual lawyers charge is of course often much criticised, but I am asked to give some idea about the sort of costs that may be involved in judicial review. For cases that proceed to a full hearing, the Public Law Project estimated in 2007 that, for a straightforward case, costs to a claimant could be in the region of £10,000 to £12,000—adjusted for inflation, that is £11,000 to £22,000. In 2012, Guildhall Chambers published information estimating this at £5,000 to £10,000. In relation to defendants’ legal costs, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department estimates that in 2013, in cases that it was involved in, the defendants’ costs ranged from £8,000 to £25,000 for non-immigration and asylum cases, and from £1,000 to £15,000 for immigration and asylum cases. For an oral permission hearing, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department estimates an average cost to a defendant for preparing and attending the hearing at around £1,000 to £1,500.
It is important to bear in mind that Clause 66 requires the court to consider the funding information and whether to make costs orders. Of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, is quite right: the funding must be provided for them to go on to consider how to exercise their power over costs. Importantly, though, whether to make any costs order against a third party, provided that the prerequisite is there, will be entirely for the court to assess. The clause itself, provided that Clause 65 is satisfied, does not affect the judge’s discretion. We think it is right that the judge, in exercising his discretion, should have regard to what information would reasonably be expected to make a proper judgment about whether costs should be paid.
There was a reference to the possibility that privacy would effectively be invaded by having to provide costs. The information would be made available to the court but not publicly available, in line with existing practice when the courts deal with information that concerns personal finances or is otherwise confidential. It is right that there is transparency in the more generally used sense, and that the courts are aware of the nature and extent of funding provided to a claimant from those directly party to, but not potentially controlling, the litigation.
The judiciary itself responded to the consultation on judicial review. So that I cannot be accused of misrepresenting what it said, I shall quote from paragraph 179:
“The court is already empowered to make costs orders against non-parties … We support the proposal that it should be mandatory for a claimant to provide details of how a case is funded … to assist the court in assessing whether to make a cost orders against a non-party. We welcome the acknowledgment that the court should retain full discretion in relation to the making of these orders”.
That is a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown; he says that there should be no obligation on the part of those who are funding matters to provide information.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, as I understand Clause 65, it involves an insertion into Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act. That will provide that no application for judicial review shall be made unless, as at present, the leave of the High Court has been obtained—that is fine. But then you insert these provisions—“unless the applicant has provided the court”. In other words, the court has no discretion left to grant leave to move unless this whole rigmarole is gone through and whatever it is ultimately decided has to be disclosed by way of the financial basis of the claim has been disclosed. That is the respect in which I suggest there is no longer going to be any discretion for the court to allow proceedings to go ahead.
Lord Faulks
That is entirely correct. The discretion would exist on whether to award costs. This is the discretion which is fettered, I entirely accept, to the extent that the Government think it is appropriate for it to be fettered because they consider that, because of what results from bringing a judicial review in terms of cost consequences, it is perfectly reasonable to provide within the realms of privacy the basis on which you are funding. That excludes those small contributors whom I have characterised, and whom I accept would be covered by the rules. Beyond that, however, we consider it to be an appropriate obligation. It is there to prevent what has been a potential evil. I will not go over the Richard III case again; the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is relieved. Undoubtedly there have been cases where shell companies have been used; the case is lost; there is nobody for anybody to recover costs from and again the taxpayer loses. This can happen. This is not a draconian matter: we have made a concession which, I suggest, is a reasonable one. The rule committee can be trusted to come up, with its experience in the matter, with an appropriate compromise reflecting the principles that I have endeavoured to outline on the Floor of the House.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I have two questions for the Minister. First, will he clarify that the figures for claimants’ costs—and it is, of course, the claimants’ costs that are important when considering financial information—are those related only to straightforward cases? Secondly, will he confirm that I am right in saying that the level that the Government intend as a matter of principle should be reflected in the rules is a level of only a few hundred pounds—in other words, very small contributions rather than significant contributions from larger contributors?
Lord Faulks
In answer to my noble friend’s first question, I did use the word “straightforward” and that is entirely correct; I adhere to that. On the second question, I am reluctant to give figures because, for the reasons I have given and in terms of what we are talking about, it relates to a small contribution to a fighting fund. That would not be £10,000 to £15,000. I do not think it is appropriate to go beyond that. That is a matter that I will leave to the rule committee: it will arrive at an appropriate figure in the light of its experience.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this is a really puzzling matter. The Minister accepts that a threshold figure should be included in the rules below which a contributor to the funding of a judicial review should not be liable to be identified or pay costs. That is a vital concession, because without it, private funding of judicial reviews in the public interest would not be able to continue. However, the Minister is unable to say what the threshold figure will be; he is not able to state any criteria by reference to which that figure should be determined, and he is reluctant, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to say more than that it will be a figure less —significantly less, as I understand him—than £10,000 to £15,000. That, I suggest to noble Lords, is quite unsatisfactory in relation to the Government’s attempt to persuade this House not to insist on its previous amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said that the rule committee will deal with this in an independent manner. However, the rule committee will no doubt be heavily influenced by what the Government say is the purpose of this. I am not suggesting that the rule committee is bound by what the Government say, but the Government will have a very considerable influence, particularly when there are no criteria set out in the amendment. In any event, there is also—as emphasised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood—a vital need in these clauses to retain a degree of judicial discretion in this sensitive context. The Government wish to impose absolute duties again and I, in this context, as in the previous context of Clause 64, suggest that judicial discretion should be retained. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Faulks
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 107 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 107A, 107B, 107C, 107D and 107E in lieu thereof.
Lords Amendment
“( ) The High Court and the Court of Appeal shall have a discretion whether to order an intervener to pay the costs of a relevant party to the proceedings, and shall have a discretion whether to order a relevant party to the proceedings to pay the intervener’s costs.”
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person is granted permission to file evidence or make representations in judicial review proceedings, and(b) at that time, the person is not a relevant party to the proceedings.(1A) That person is referred to in this section as an “intervener”.”
“(4) On an application to the High Court or the Court of Appeal by a relevant party to the proceedings, if the court is satisfied that a condition described in subsection (4A) is met in a stage of the proceedings that the court deals with, the court must order the intervener to pay any costs specified in the application that the court considers have been incurred by the relevant party as a result of the intervener’s involvement in that stage of the proceedings.
“(4A) Those conditions are that—
(a) the intervener has acted, in substance, as the sole or principal applicant, defendant, appellant or respondent;(b) the intervener’s evidence and representations, taken as a whole, have not been of significant assistance to the court;(c) a significant part of the intervener’s evidence and representations relates to matters that it is not necessary for the court to consider in order to resolve the issues that are the subject of the stage in the proceedings;(d) the intervener has behaved unreasonably.”
“and the proceedings described in paragraphs (a) to (d) are “stages” of judicial review proceedings.”
“(a) a person who is or has been an applicant or defendant in the proceedings described in subsection (7)(a), (b) or (c);(b) a person who is or has been an appellant or respondent in the proceedings described in subsection (7)(d);(c) any other person who is or has been”
“( ) If a person who is an intervener in judicial review proceedings becomes a relevant party to the proceedings, the person is to be treated for the purposes of subsections (2) and (4) as having been a relevant party, rather than an intervener, at all times when involved in the proceedings.”
Lord Faulks
My Lords, Clause 67 concerns those who intervene voluntarily in a judicial review and would see the court award reasonable costs against them—both their own and those their intervention causes a party—in most circumstances. Your Lordships’ Amendment 107 to this clause would provide absolute discretion to order an intervener’s costs against a party, or a party’s costs against an intervener, or not. That is effectively the current position, which in practice allows interventions to be made with very limited risk of any cost implications of how that is done, often with the taxpayer left to meet the bill.
As this House acknowledged during the Bill’s previous stages, the Government accept that Clause 67 as introduced caused concern, and we listened with care to the arguments raised. However, we think your Lordships’ amendments to the clause go too far, and so we have brought forward our own amendment in lieu. Our amendment strikes a proportionate and sensible balance: giving interveners the right incentives to ensure that they do not intervene inappropriately and more certainty about when they will face costs; giving taxpayers the protection they need; and giving the judges the scope they need to apply Parliament’s will to the circumstances of the case at hand.
Our amendment in lieu would place the court under a duty to award costs against an intervener if one or more of four conditions were met. The first condition is that the intervener has usurped a party’s proper role, perhaps because they want to drive the litigation without accepting the responsibility for costs which this entails. The second is where the intervener has simply not been of significant assistance to the court. Perhaps the intervener has argued at length, placing the parties at considerable expense, without advancing the court’s understanding of the issues. The third is that the intervener will meet a party’s reasonable costs of dealing with the intervention where a significant part of their arguments are not germane to the court’s consideration of the case. They may, for example, spend much of their time in court pressing the importance of a cause in which they are expert, or indeed their own importance, with only a small amount of time spent focusing on the issues really at hand. Finally, the court will be under a duty to order costs where the intervener has acted unreasonably.
Following the amendment in lieu, Clause 67 will continue to give the court significant leeway when it comes to making costs orders. First, it will be for the court to consider whether any of the four conditions has been met, so it will look at the facts in every case. Secondly, and importantly, the amendment preserves the court’s role in deciding whether costs were in fact caused by the intervener and incurred by the party reasonably. Thirdly, where the court is of the view that there are exceptional circumstances which would make the award of costs under the clause inappropriate, it need not make an award. I am happy to be entirely clear that the exceptional circumstances carve-out would remain in the clause in light of the Government’s amendment in lieu. In fairness, that was not particularly clear in the debate in the House of Commons. Nobody said anything to the contrary, but it was not emphasised with sufficient clarity. Finally, Clause 67 quite purposefully would not affect the court’s discretion to invite an intervener to participate in a judicial review, which would take the intervener outside the ambit of the clause.
In the Government’s view, your Lordships’ amendments to this clause went too far in undermining their intended effect and perhaps underestimated the significant safe-guards built into the clause as agreed by the elected House. As such, the Government continue to be of the view that the first presumption in the clause—that a party must not, unless there are exceptional circumstances, be made to meet the costs an intervener accrues when making their intervention—should be retained as it was introduced and without amendment.
Nobody doubts that interveners can and do make a valuable contribution in a number of cases. They make a valuable contribution and can assist a court in deciding a case, but equally we think that it is appropriate that interveners should pause long and hard to think about whether they can truly add anything to a case and to make sure what they add is proportionate and sensible and provides assistance to the court. They should not act simply as a cheer-leader because it is an issue about which they feel strongly, and repeat all of the arguments that have already been made by one party; they should not expand the scope of the case beyond that which is before the court; and they should not, as a matter of routine, simply join in the case because it is the sort of thing that they feel strongly about.
We encourage focused interventions, but we do not wish to deprive judges of the interventions that are appropriate, nor do we wish to deprive them of the discretion which they have. We simply ask them to make up their mind whether these four conditions are satisfied. If one of those four conditions is satisfied, then they must order costs, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Judges are best placed to decide whether they have been given assistance, and we do not seek to usurp that discretion. We think that interventions can be useful; they can also be overlengthy and expensive. This is a moderate compromise, and a reflection of the anxiety which has been expressed by a number of noble Lords, and indeed, some Members of the other House, and I ask that the House accepts the amendments of the Government. I beg to move.
Motion D1
Lord Pannick
As an amendment to Motion D, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 107 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 107A, 107B, 107C, 107D and 107E in lieu thereof”.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I shall be brief, given the time, given that your Lordships’ House has debated this issue on two substantive occasions already, and because I apprehend that your Lordships’ House will be anxious to move speedily to a vote on this matter.
Judges have repeatedly emphasised how helpful they find the contributions of interveners to be. Courts already have ample powers, which they exercise to control who can intervene on what subjects and with what costs consequences. The Government have at no stage in the debates on this Bill in either House identified any cases whatsoever in which the courts currently lack adequate power to deal with abuse or misuse of interventions. This clause, even with the amendments approved in the other place, will inevitably deter interventions which the courts will regard, and do regard, as valuable in determining the results of judicial review. I simply cannot understand what the Lord Chancellor hopes to achieve by this clause. I suggest that this House should ask the other place to think again. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, it has been a short debate. The issues have been fully covered at previous debates and at previous stages. I am not going to prolong this debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says that the Government have not identified any issue. I made a rather more lengthy speech at an earlier stage in which I did identify—or at least attempt to identify—what the Government were driving at by this amendment. It was indeed based—I have to declare an interest—on personal experience of lengthy interventions, which no doubt a judge with all good intentions envisaged being very minor, which turned out to be extremely major in terms of their volume. These involve lengthy skeleton arguments, volumes of authorities and lawyers no doubt seeking to justify their existence. This is not helpful.
Of course, judges are capable—it is perfectly true—of expressing their disapproval, of limiting those interventions by appropriate methods. None the less, those who are involved will have inevitably had to spend time in preparing the case, in the eventuality that all of these interventions will in fact be treated with considerable scrutiny. Perhaps the case may be lengthened.
We consider this is an appropriate compromise. It does no more than identify the sort of cases that judges should be looking at, and probably are looking at, to make an order against interveners in appropriate circumstances. There are exceptional circumstances and judges will know when they are helped and when they are not helped, but to suggest that all is perfect in the world of interventions is simply to ignore the reality.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, it is not an acceptable compromise for the Government to bring forward a clause, with amendments, which will undoubtedly deter the interventions which the courts currently find helpful. There are interventions from all numbers of persons and bodies, many of which have made representations to your Lordships that this clause will deter them from coming forward and assisting the court. I have seen representations from bodies ranging from Liberty to Buglife. They are concerned that they cannot, for financial reasons, seek to assist the court if they fear that, other than in exceptional circumstances, they are going to be liable to pay the costs under this provision. For that reason I respectfully suggest to noble Lords that we should ask the other place to think again about this vital matter. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Care and Support (Deferred Payment) Regulations 2014
Lord Lipsey
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Care and Support (Deferred Payment) Regulations 2014 laid before the House on 31 October be annulled on the grounds that the Regulations are to come into force in April 2015 instead of simultaneously with the other post-Dilnot reforms in April 2016. (SI 2014/2671)
Relevant document: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
At last, the big event of the day —the one you have all been waiting for. First, I declare an interest as an unremunerated president of SOLLA, the Society of Later Life Advisers, which is the body that accredits financial advisers who work with the elderly.
As there could be some misunderstanding, perhaps I may explain that there will be two separate debates and I will be making two separate speeches. This will not take any more of the House’s time, but I think it will make it a much less confusing debate than it otherwise would have been. I will speak, other noble Lords will speak, my noble friend Lord Hunt will speak, the Minister will speak, and then we will decide the first Motion; and then we will do the second one.
I turn to the first Motion, which is the fatal resolution. In a world of logical governance it would be taken for granted that the whole post-Dilnot package should be implemented in one—the new deferred payment scheme covered by these regulations together with other elements including the cap on how much people have to spend on care. The Government, however, have proposed that the deferred payment scheme should take effect in April 2015 and the cap and the rest of the measures in April 2016. By this new system, they have set a course for potential chaos. There will be chaos in local councils. The LGA says, quietly, that,
“the timetable is challenging for councils”.
A recent report by the National Audit Office says:
“It may not be feasible for local authorities to implement all the proposed changes to the indicated timetable”.
There will also be chaos for financial advisers whom, through SOLLA, I represent. There will be one development this coming April; the next the following year. How can they give coherent advice to older people on how to proceed in the gap year? As SOLLA has written to the Minister:
“This does seem to add a level of unnecessary complexity to an already difficult system”.
If advisers are struggling to understand the relationship between the two sets of proposals, how are older people themselves or their families supposed to understand? How are they to make the choices before them? It is batty—I can use no less a word. That is the unanimous view of all the experts with whom I have discussed the matter. My noble friend Lord Warner, who is a member of the Dilnot commission, has given me authority to say that, in the commission’s view, there should be one proposed date, not two.
Why? The answer is 7,600. This is the Government’s estimate of the number of extra people who would benefit in 2015-16 from the scheme taking effect in April 2015, rather than waiting another year for the rest of the package. The detailed calculations are set out in the impact assessment, pages 107 to 147. As there are 40 pages, your Lordships will be glad to learn that I do not intend to read them all out now. Broadly, this is the logic. There are 55,000 new self-funders going into care each year. Of these 25,000 are eligible for the new scheme. We will debate how 55,000 go down to 25,000 in my second Motion. If 40% of these take advantage of the scheme, that will be roughly 11,500 claimants in all. Take off the 3,900 who would get it under the existing, defective deferred payments scheme and the Government end up with an additional 7,600—the answer to the question, in their view—as a result of introducing the scheme in 2015 and not in 2016. That is a significant number.
I know it is difficult to take all these numbers in swiftly but I want to question whether this 7,600 estimate is anywhere near correct. The first law of statisticians—and I speak as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Statistics—is that if a number looks wrong, it probably is wrong. Having been involved in this subject for 17 years, I think it is, since the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and I were on the royal commission, I have to say this number feels completely wrong to me. No one can take advantage of the scheme unless they know about it. Do you find people rushing up to you in the street saying: “Oh, it’s great. In April I’ll be able to take out a deferred payments scheme”? No, nobody will start to know about it unless the Government have planned some information measures.
Secondly, to take out a deferred loan to pay for your care in this scheme is exceptionally unattractive to most people. It means that their wealth is tied up in a home—probably an empty home, with no income earned on it. Meanwhile, they are paying interest on the loan that the council is making to them. Interest is rolling up at compound rates. So the circumstances in which it is possible to conceive of an older person wanting to do this are quite rare. I sympathise with the Government in making these estimates. It is not surprising that they completely changed the estimates from the first impact assessment to the second one only months later, because it is very difficult to get an exact number. However, I think that the 7,600 is an exaggeration in itself.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)
I should advise the House that if this Motion is agreed to the second Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, cannot be called by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has done a singular service in bringing these two Motions before your Lordships’ House. I take this opportunity to welcome back my noble friend Lady Wilkins, who is in her place. It is great to see her back in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend made some very telling points about the scheme and the puzzle about the differentiation in numbers relating to the date of its introduction. I was particularly struck by his comments and concerns about the impact on local authorities, on financial advisers, and, of course, on old people themselves. I hope the Minister is in a position to answer my noble friend. He referred to the National Audit Office’s study of the state of readiness of local authorities. I had the opportunity of meeting with the Local Government Association yesterday. It is fair to say that it seems prepared for the introduction. However, its own report has pointed out some of the issues it faces: concern about an increase in total costs; measures around IT, workforce, information and advice, and market shaping; and feedback through direct conversations with its own members that suggests that other pressures on councils, including funding shortfalls and work on the better care fund, compounded with uncertainty on key advice and information, has delayed or otherwise impacted on its preparations in a number of areas.
We debate the introduction of the Care Act’s provisions by local authorities in the context of a huge squeeze on local authority funding. Remember that, since adult social care is probably local authorities’ biggest area of discretionary spend, there have inevitably been huge reductions in their resources. I remind the Minister that, as we have seen from the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor has said that he wants to keep the state permanently at the size it was in the 1930s—around 35% of GDP. If the Government are re-elected at the next general election, that is bound to have a huge impact on local authorities’ capacity to introduce and run the provisions in the Care Act.
I particularly want to talk about one issue relating to implementation. The Minister knows that local authorities will be liable to assess people’s eligibility as self-funders from 2016 onwards. That will then start the clock running to reach the 72,000 cap, at which point those self-funders will be eligible for local authority support. However, picking up my noble friend’s comment, it is clear that local authorities will not be able to assess all current self-funders in April 2016. In fact, I think some self-funders will not be aware of the provisions and therefore will not apply on the first date that they could. Others will apply, but the local authority will not be able to get round to assess them.
The question that I want to put to the Minister is this: will the introduction of the cap on individuals be retrospective? In other words, if I am a resident in a care home, it takes the local authority a year to come round and assess me because of lack of capacity, so will the Government backdate the assessment to the beginning of the introduction of the provisions in April 2016, or will the clock start to run only when the assessment has been made? The question also applies to those self-funders who did not apply on the first potential date when they could have done but were in a care home at that date. That is crucial. There is a risk, if it is not completely retrospective, that local authorities will ration people’s eligibility for this new system by simply delaying the assessments that take place. That is entirely consistent with the point raised by my noble friend. At the heart of his argument are the issues of capacity and the state of readiness of local authorities to undertake the considerable responsibilities that they have been given. It would really be helpful if the Government were able to state with confidence their assessment of the state of readiness of local authorities. What will happen to the thousands of individuals who, in my understanding of what these provisions mean, would be eligible right from the start of the new scheme? Will they have to wait until the clock starts for their assessment to take place?
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the Government have made a clear commitment to introduce a universal deferred payment scheme from April 2015. The fulfilment of this pledge directly addresses the long-standing problem in the care system whereby people who have gone into residential care have often had to sell their homes at short notice in order to pay for care. This has often happened at a time when people need space to adjust to a change in lifestyle and circumstances and to make important decisions about their care and finances. This has been a well known source of distress to people—I am sure we would all identify with that—as well as making it harder for them to plan. The introduction of the universal deferred payment scheme directly addresses this issue and that is why we are proud to announce the new scheme from April 2015.
The first Motion that we are to debate calls for the regulations bringing the universal deferred payment scheme into force to be annulled on the grounds that the reforms are coming into force a year before other changes to social care funding. There are two compelling reasons why the Motion is misguided and any delay must be resisted. First, many thousands of people stand to benefit from deferred payments in the first year of the scheme alone. These people would otherwise be at risk of having to sell their homes to pay for care. Secondly, local authorities are confident that they will be ready to implement the scheme in full from April next year so there is no sensible reason why these people should not benefit.
The need to reform deferred payments without delay has been accepted for many years. The Commission on Funding of Care and Support, chaired by Sir Andrew Dilnot, supported extending deferred payments in part due to its finding that,
“the availability and use of deferred payment schemes is patchy”.
At the moment, offering deferred payments is voluntary for local authorities, with no common eligibility criteria. As a result, not everyone who wants and needs a deferred payment can get one. The Dilnot commission identified that one of the key reasons for this patchy provision across the country was the fact that local authorities were not able to charge interest on deferred payments and were thus forced to run the scheme at a cost to them. By allowing local authorities to charge a low rate of interest that will help them run the scheme on a cost-neutral basis, we are removing one of the clear disincentives of the old scheme. From April next year, local authorities will be able to charge up to 2.65% interest, which helps to keep the scheme financially sustainable and compares very favourably with equity release products, which can charge in the region of 7% to 8% interest. Through the regulations being debated today, all local authorities will be required to have a deferred payment scheme from April next year. There will be a universal offer across the country, ensuring that those most at risk of losing their home can benefit from the support they need to meet their care costs, wherever they live.
It has been suggested by the noble Lord that the universal deferred payment scheme should be delayed by a year and not come into force until 2016. We are sympathetic to concerns that local authorities could have found the implementation of the scheme challenging, but I can reassure your Lordships’ House that the timetable that we have planned is realistic, necessary and achievable. The Department of Health has worked closely with local government colleagues through the LGA and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to ensure that the sector is ready to implement the Care Act from April 2015. To pick up on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we recognise that there will be a need for additional capacity to assess people and we are prioritising £335 million in 2015-16 to support implementation, including early assessments towards the cap. The latest survey of local authority readiness shows that progress towards implementing Part 1 of the Care Act from April 2015 is on track and that confidence is high and improving in almost all areas, including deferred payments.
It is important to note that the introduction of the universal deferred payment scheme from April 2015 will mean that an extra 7,600 people will be able to benefit from the protection of a deferred payment. This is in addition to the 3,900 people who would have benefited in the current regime anyway. This means that when the new scheme comes into force, we project a total of 11,500 new deferred payment agreements in the first year alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, questioned the uptake assumptions in the impact assessment. The figures used in the impact assessment are based on a local authority with a well established scheme. All who qualify for deferred payment would also qualify for the 12-week property disregard so will come to their local authority anyway. Noble Lords will surely agree that, bearing in mind the confidence of local authorities in being able to implement the scheme, it would be hugely unfair to these people to wait any longer than is necessary to introduce this historic reform.
Lord Lipsey
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which the world will be able to peruse together with my speech in Hansard and judge whether she has answered all the points that I made. She and her department are obviously getting quite different information from local authorities, which is not surprising because local authorities want to tell the department that they can do it but they tell us that they cannot. There is no seeing which is the truth.
Despite what I said about the 7,600 figure, the noble Baroness did not address the substance of my remarks. Perhaps I could deal with this matter quite easily. I will have a bet with the noble Baroness. For every one by which the figure that finally emerges is above 7,600, I will give her £1 and for every one that it is below 7,600, she will give me £1. If that is agreeable, perhaps the House will excuse me while I book my Mediterranean cruise for next year because the figure will not be 7,600, as in due course we shall find out.
I do not want to press this Motion to a vote today. I am concerned about adding chaos to chaos. It would have been much better if we had debated this some months ago. I do not want to do a screeching U-turn at this stage. I fear that the Government have very far from convinced me and I hope that they have not convinced the House that they are doing the right thing.
Care and Support (Deferred Payment) Regulations 2014
20:57 - Division on Lord Lipsey’s Motion. - Ayes: 54 / Noes: 147 - Lord Lipsey’s Motion disagreed.
Lord Lipsey
That this House regrets that the £23,500 asset limit proposed in the Care and Support (Deferred Payment) Regulations 2014 is at odds with Her Majesty’s Government’s pledge that no-one will have to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for care. (SI 2014/2671)
Relevant document: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I imagine that the tummies of some noble Lords are starting to rumble, but I must detain the House a little longer. Inevitably, this is a complex matter. Let me start with the history of the deferred payments. I think that my noble friend Lord Joffe, who is beside me, and I were the people who invented them when we were involved in the minority report of the royal commission. We were against the majority view that all social care could be free because it was unaffordable and greatly benefited the rich. We thought it was right that people with means at the end of their life should dip into those means to pay for care.
However, we were very aware that a great deal of political heat had been understandably stirred up by one particular aspect; namely, that people could be forced to sell their homes to pay for care—homes which they hoped that one day their children would be able to live in. The Daily Mail, the Telegraph, and “Panorama” all have reported on this issue. We thought it was necessary to take the heat out of all that before a rational view on the future of care funding could be taken. We therefore recommended a scheme of deferred payments whereby in such circumstances the local authorities would lend people money to pay for their care, taking a charge on their homes which would be repayable on their death. The Labour Government accepted that but, unfortunately, we botched the implementation in 2002. Of the 55,000 self-funders who go into care each year, fewer than 4,000 sign up to the current scheme.
The next stage was the Dilnot commission, which recommended, as part of its package, a new universal deferred payment scheme. The Government immediately accepted this and proudly proclaimed, and continue to proclaim, that, under their scheme implemented by these regulations, no one will have to sell their home to pay for care. They probably meant it at the time, but the rats got at it.
As the Care Bill was going through the House last year, a proposal was smuggled out that meant the payment scheme was not universal in the true sense; namely, that it would be open only to those who had less than £23,250 in non-housing assets. Therefore, 30,000 of the 55,000 people who would otherwise have qualified for the scheme were disqualified by this measure. When this was pointed out to the House—it was headline news in the Telegraph and the Mail—the Government indicated a retreat. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, who alas is not here tonight, said the Government were,
“happy to consider a range of figures”,—[Official Report, 29/10/13; col. 1474.]
for the ceiling and No. 10 emitted similar emollient noises. Encouraged, the House decided not to amend the Bill. The Government by this stage had ratted on their original proposal of universal deferred payments. Now they are re-ratting, this time on their implied pledge that £23,250 would be increased. What is before the House now is, in effect, an extremely limited scheme from which in my opinion, and as we will see in reality, very few people will benefit.
Have the Government and the Prime Minister, who must have authorised the No. 10 briefings, lied? Perhaps I should rally to the best defence I can find. This scheme is universal, just not in the original sense that it was available to everyone. It is universal in that the same scheme—or broadly the same scheme—applies in every local authority. Indeed, no one will be forced to sell their house when this scheme is in place. Take a family of fairly modest means with £75,000 in non-housing assets. The Government expect them to run down those assets until they have got only £23,250 left in the bank. It would pay £500 in interest a year, if they were lucky. It is not enough to cushion them from the uncertainties of life, not enough for presents for the children and so on. Who in this House would ever be happy if they had only £23,250 in their old age to sustain them for the rest of their lives? None of us. Nobody of modest means will take advantage of that scheme and run their savings down to £23,250. The last government proposal I said was batty; I would say that anybody who did that would be pretty well crackers. I have never met an adviser to the elderly who would advise them to do so. They are not forced to sell their house; they can do something completely ridiculous that leaves them in penury for the rest of their days. That was not the intention of the minority of the royal commission or Dilnot and it is not the intention the Government wish to convey to the public at large.
We live in a time of some crisis with the political class, of which I am a long-established member. People out there worry that we use words in a different way to them. We use words that are literally true but, when you examine them under any form of illumination, they turn out to be weasel words designed to hoodwink. That is what the Government have done here. They have used words that are strictly and literally true to hoodwink the public as to what they are proposing. I think the use of clever language to disguise intent is desperately sad and is essentially part of the crisis we are facing in this country. It is for that reason I ask the House to regret that situation this evening.
The Minister will reply in a minute, but let me get my retaliation in first by dealing with two of the arguments she could use. A proper universal deferred payment scheme, she could say, would mean state support for the rich. I empathise with that. I would not want to be handing state money to the rich, but we are not talking about the rich here—we are talking about £23,250. There would have been a perfectly sensible course for the Government to take. Under the new means testing for social care you can be helped if you have up to £118,000 in assets—£23,250 is the present upper capital limit and £118,000 is going to be the new limit. The Government could have set the same limit for this scheme and aligned the two. That would have been perfectly logical and completely right. Instead, today they are saying that somebody who has accumulated £30,000 in savings and a house should be disqualified. How can they say that such a person is rich? That person has worked hard for what they have, has played by the rules and is being betrayed by a Conservative Government who claim that that is the kind of person to whom they want to appeal.
Secondly, the Minister could say that to change this would cost public money—a higher ceiling would mean spending more money. That is simply untrue because the loans would be made at interest—the interest on gilts—so in the long term the Government would get back every penny that they spend. Indeed, they have gone to great lengths to ensure that they do because people will be charged for the administrative costs of taking out one of these. There is no cost to the Government. It is true that there is a cash-flow cost because in year one the loans are paid out and then the repayments come back later—not much later because the average loan lasts only 18 months.
But there are plenty of ways that a similar saving could be made within the current budget for care without slapping middle England in the face. As I proposed earlier, they could have introduced this scheme a year later, boosting the public finances in a tight year next year. They could reduce the £144 to be allowed to individuals before they have to contribute to their care home fees—some six times the amount allowed for personal expenses to people under this scheme than applies to people who are getting means-tested benefits. I look forward to discussing this with my noble friend Lord Joffe, since we were responsible for it, but they could freeze the nursing cost allowance paid to everyone in nursing homes or reduce its amount for new claimants. We could debate the merits and demerits of these alternatives all night, but none of them is half as bad as the scheme that the Government are putting before the House tonight.
As happened when the royal commission was considering these matters—and we two stood shoulder to shoulder against the weight of the majority who came to loathe us for our unwillingness to dip into taxpayers’ pockets for paying for care—again, siren voices are being raised in favour of making personal care free for all. That was the recommendation of the recent Barker report for the King’s Fund. It even sometimes seems as if Andy Burnham, the shadow Health Secretary, has flirted with such an idea, but it is noticeable that it does not appear in the shadow manifesto that the party produced yesterday, and I am glad to hear it. That is one side of what might come out.
On the other side are the sane and sensible proposals of the Dilnot plan, albeit with a higher threshold than Dilnot recommended, of which universal deferred payments were an integral part. Tonight, with these recommendations, the Government are effectively demolishing a keystone of the Dilnot proposed universal scheme.
I am under no illusion that the Government are likely to give way on this tonight, but your Lordships, who so often have been the bulwark against arbitrary and misguided government, should have this chance to debate it and, unless the Minister says something wholly unexpected, if necessary, to vote against it. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank my noble friend for bringing us back to a very important part of our debate during the passage of the then Care Bill some months ago. We need to remind ourselves of the fanfare with which the Government introduced that Bill. As my noble friend said, there was an explicit statement that older people would no longer have to sell their homes to pay for their care. As he has carefully outlined, that is strictly true even within the provisions of the deferred payment regulations. But as he said, it is not in the spirit with which the Government actually announced this policy. Instead of a scheme that would have brought comfort to thousands of people, they have produced a very mean-spirited scheme that will clearly exclude many people who one would have thought should have taken advantage of its provisions.
As these are regulations, we tend to ask technical questions. I have two questions for the noble Baroness, on which she may want to write to me. On the impact of the relevant figure on pensions, how will a pension pot be treated in relation to the calculation of the non-housing asset? Do the Government expect the new flexibility in assessing pension savings contained in the Taxation of Pensions Bill to have any effect on this policy? Will those savings be counted towards the £23,250 cap? I would be very happy for the noble Baroness to write to me on those points.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey came to the crunch of the matter when he said that he did not expect a scheme to be available to the wealthy and the very asset-rich. I endorse that. My noble friend Lord Warner wrote to the right honourable Norman Lamb a year or so ago. My noble friend was a member of the Dilnot commission but is unable to be here tonight. He wrote:
“As a commission we accepted there had to be some eligibility criteria because this was never intended as a scheme that was available to the wealthy and asset rich”.
However, as he said, and as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, being required to spend down to assets of £23,250 seems far too restrictive to deliver a viable scheme or to reflect what the Dilnot commission recommended.
Surely, even at this stage, the Government need to reconsider this scheme. It is very disappointing that the consultation has taken place, we had a very good debate on it and yet the Government have moved not one inch on this policy. If it goes ahead, it will be very disappointing for many thousands of people who had every reason to expect that they would take advantage of the scheme. The noble Baroness may say that we should not worry because local authorities will be able to offer schemes above the threshold of their own volition. However, I very much doubt whether many local authorities will take advantage of that. Therefore, I support my noble friend. I am delighted that he will push this measure to a Division tonight. We are very happy to support him.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I shall also have to take exception to the noble Lord’s second Motion today on the eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria are not, as he has suggested, at odds with the overarching policy intention that people should not be forced to sell their home within their lifetime to pay for their care. Indeed, they ensure that protection and support is available to those who need it.
Noble Lords will recall that in my earlier speech I made reference to the conclusions of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support, chaired by Sir Andrew Dilnot. As I said, the commission supported the extension of deferred payments. More specifically, it recommended:
“Anyone who would be unable to afford care charges without selling their home should be able to take out a deferred payment”.
The deferred payment scheme that each local authority will be required to implement will achieve precisely this—it will provide protection to those at risk of having to sell their home to pay for their care.
It has been suggested that the eligibility threshold, which requires a person to have less than £23,250 in savings and assets on top of the value of their house to qualify for a deferred payment, has been set too low and will not achieve this aim. It has even been suggested that this policy would leave people unable to afford their basic living expenses. So allow me to shed some light on this debate by informing noble Lords that setting the threshold at this level means that 80% of people who develop a residential care need will qualify for either help from their local authority in paying for their care or a deferred payment agreement. This means that only the wealthiest 20% of people entering residential care—those who have savings and assets above £23,250 on top of the value of their property—will be asked to initially meet their own care costs before they receive local authority support. Crucially, anyone in this wealthiest 20% bracket would subsequently qualify for a deferred payment if their savings and non-housing assets fell below the £23,250 threshold. So if a person has a change of circumstances or has to spend down their savings to below £23,250, they would be eligible for the support and protection provided by a deferred payment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, can the Minister clarify this? Taking the case raised by my noble friend of an individual with £30,000 of non-housing assets, under her definition these classify this individual as being in the wealthiest 20%. Is that so?
Baroness Jolly
That is what has been assessed as wealthy. The £23,250 was set as a level below which you would be eligible for assistance.
While we want as many people as possible to benefit from the reforms, the eligibility threshold was set at this level because we wanted to focus the funding available for the scheme on providing protection to those at most risk of losing their homes. If we extended automatic eligibility for deferred payments to the wealthiest 20%, who can afford care without having to sell their home, it would mean having to take funding from elsewhere in the care and support system, where it could surely provide greater benefit. That is why the regulations that were laid before the House do not mandate that a local authority must offer a deferred payment to someone with assets of more than £23,250. This is necessary to ensure value for public money by targeting resources where they are most needed.
We have set these criteria so that people will be entitled to a deferred payment when they would be at risk of being forced to sell their home to pay for care. The criteria are also to ensure good value for public money and minimise the risk of bad debt. I trust that noble Lords agree that it is only right and proper that we should prioritise first, and help and support those most in need. There has also been some suggestion this evening that the Government have not been open about the £23,250 threshold, or that my noble friend Lord Howe, who is not in his place, was somehow disingenuous when he spoke on this matter in your Lordships’ House previously. The £23,250 asset threshold, discussed frequently during the passage of the Care Act, has been the subject of not one but two public consultations. First, it was discussed in the consultation on funding reform in July 2013; secondly, it featured in the draft regulations and statutory guidance published for consultation this summer.
These consultations have involved officials from the Department of Health proactively engaging with people, and travelling the length and breadth of the country to consult the full range of stakeholders, including service users, local authorities, members of the general public and the Care and Support Alliance. The policy has been developed in close consultation with an expert body, called the Paying for Care Transformation Group, whose membership includes a range of charities and third-sector organisations, including Age UK, Carers UK, the Care and Support Alliance, and Sense. Through this group we have ensured that the development of the universal payment scheme has been guided by the expertise and insight of those key organisations. It is hardly fair to say that we did not take a full range of views into account, or that the asset threshold is in any way a surprise.
On a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about whether the pension pot should be included, that is covered in the statutory guidance on charging, but I am more than happy to write to him and place a letter in the Library.
The introduction of the universal deferred payment scheme will extend protection to those most at risk of having to face selling their home to pay for their care and support. The scheme will help provide reassurance and peace of mind to thousands of care recipients and their families who would otherwise be faced with making extremely challenging decisions at a most vulnerable time in their lives.
I hope that I have been able to provide assurance about the great benefits of the deferred payment scheme and how it will work from April next year. I hope that I have also convinced your Lordships’ House that these regulations should be allowed to come into force without further delay or hindrance.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I shall be much milder in winding up than I would have been had the noble Earl been in his place. I recognise the care that the Minister put into those remarks, but I am afraid that she inadvertently displayed her lack of background in the field and I am sorry if she was advised to use some of the words that she did.
The Minister said that this issue had been discussed frequently on the then Care Bill. I will remind noble Lords what happened. There was no mention of the threshold in the Care Bill. The Care Bill went through Second Reading. It went through Committee. When it got to Report, it was only because I did the sort of thing that, as a geek, I do—reading through the 700 pages that the Government had produced to accompany it, and not just the bit on deferred payments but the bit on the draft statutory orders—that I discovered this proposal. I raised it at the last minute on Report. The Government freely admitted that there could then be an amendment at Third Reading, which the House indeed discussed, and it was the assurances that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave that caused us not to take it further. When the noble Baroness says that it was discussed during the passage of the Care Bill, it was, but no thanks to the Government. They had hidden it away in those 700 pages. I am inclined to make the noble Baroness read all 700 tonight—she will sleep better and she will know the true history of this affair when she has done so.
The second substantive point the Minister made was that £23,250 is high enough—it seems reasonable that it should be denied to people with £23,350. I will not dissect the 80% thing at this moment. Does she realise that she is kicking her own Government in the teeth when she says this? Her Government do not think that £23,250 is enough. Following the recommendations of the Dilnot report, they are upping that figure to £118,000 next year. Incidentally, that is a higher figure than Dilnot recommended because they decided that Dilnot was not generous enough. Next year they will happily be giving state support to people up to £118,000, with the exception of one small group of people—those who might use deferred payments—who will be confined to the £23,250 of non-housing assets. So I hope that there will not be any boasting about the coming of the £118,000 in the months to come, because the noble Baroness has told us that she thinks £23,250 is enough.
Anyway, we have debated this long enough. I hope that those who think that £23,250 is rich will vote with the Government and those who think £23,250 is not very rich will vote with me and the Opposition in favour of this Motion.
Childcare Payments Bill
(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure, even at this time of night, to introduce the Childcare Payments Bill, which introduces a new tax-free childcare scheme. The new scheme was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the 2013 Budget. Once it is in place, the Government will meet 20% of eligible working families’ childcare costs up to an annual maximum of £2,000 for each child. That is the equivalent of basic rate tax relief on childcare costs up to £10,000.
I am sure noble Lords will need no persuading that there is a compelling argument for the Government to support working parents with their childcare costs. Survey data from the Department for Education suggest that more than half of mothers currently not in paid work would prefer to be in paid employment if they could arrange reliable, convenient, affordable and good quality childcare. Likewise, around one-quarter of employed mothers say that they would increase their working hours if they could arrange appropriate childcare.
Sadly, it is the case that many parents find themselves in the difficult position of having to make a stark choice between work and family—between, on the one hand, staying at home to care for their children and, on the other, paying for the childcare to allow them to go to work. It is clear that many more parents than are currently able would like to work, provided they can find a successful way to combine work and family life. These are precisely the families that this Bill is designed to help.
To qualify for government support, a parent will simply need to register with HMRC to open an online childcare account. When they pay money into it, the Government will add a further top-up payment. So for every payment of £8 made by a parent, they will receive £2 from the Government, up to a maximum of £500 every quarter. The scheme will provide support for those with children up to the age of 12. This limit will be set out in regulations that the House will have the opportunity to debate after the Bill has received Royal Assent. However, the Government recognise that for parents of disabled children childcare costs can remain high well beyond their 12th birthday. Such parents face a range of additional challenges if they are to have a fulfilling working life alongside the need to care for their child. In recognition of this, the scheme will provide them with support until the September following their child’s 16th birthday.
Noble Lords will be aware that a scheme is already in place under which some parents can receive financial help from the Government with their childcare costs. This is delivered by means of an income tax exemption and a disregard of national insurance contributions provided by the employer-supported childcare scheme. The tax and NICs reliefs will gradually be withdrawn as the new scheme becomes available. The existing scheme has a number of serious shortcomings that mean it is far less effective than it needs to be. For one thing, as its name implies, employer-supported childcare is not available to those who are self-employed. Because it generally works through salary sacrifice arrangements, it is not available to those whose earnings are at or slightly above the level of the national minimum wage.
A further drawback is that whether a parent can receive support from employer-supported childcare is crucially dependent on whether their employer chooses to offer it. The fact is that less than 5% of employers currently offer the scheme. This means that over half of employees are simply unable to access it. Lastly, employer-supported childcare fails to pay any regard to the number of children that parents actually have. It can provide a higher level of support to a family with two adults and one child than it does to a lone parent with multiple children. That is obviously far from satisfactory.
The new scheme has none of the drawbacks of employer-supported childcare. As parents will engage directly with HMRC to open their accounts rather than via their employer, it will be available to anyone who works, provided they meet the relevant eligibility criteria. While around 500,000 parents are currently in receipt of employer-supported childcare, we estimate that up to 1.8 million families will be eligible for support under the new scheme. For the first time, self-employed parents will be able to receive support from the Government with their childcare costs. The Government estimate that around 200,000 self-employed people will directly benefit from the scheme. The level of support available to a parent under the scheme will be determined by the number of children that they have, rather than the number of parents whose employers operate the employer-supported childcare scheme. This will bring an end to the manifest unfairness of the current scheme, particularly to lone-parent families that have more than one child.
As well as being available to far more families than employer-supported childcare, the new scheme will give parents the flexibility that they need to allow them to return to work. They will be able to pay money into their childcare accounts when they want to and spend the top-up payments when they need to, such as over school summer holidays. In addition, other family members, friends and employers will also be able to pay money into the accounts if that is what they wish to do. Parents will also be able to withdraw money from their childcare accounts if they need to do so, with their contributions returned to them, and government top-ups returned to the Government. The scheme has been designed to be as simple and straightforward as possible for parents to operate and to minimise the need for them to engage with HMRC. That is fundamental to the scheme’s design.
A primary means of achieving this is the fact that parents will not be required to report changes in their personal circumstances in real time, as is the case for tax credits. Instead, the scheme will be based on quarterly entitlement periods, such that once a parent is eligible, they will continue to be entitled to support for that quarter, regardless of any changes in circumstances they might experience. This flexibility will be particularly valuable to those on lower incomes, who might meet the criteria for receiving government support for their childcare costs through either tax credits or universal credit. Parents will not, of course, be able to claim double support and will instead need to make a choice of which type of support best suits them. With that in view, alongside wider guidance and information, HMRC will provide an easy-to-use online tool for parents choosing between other means of government support and the new tax-free childcare scheme. Parents will be able to enter details about their personal circumstances quickly to see what support is right for them.
I should add that this scheme should not be considered in isolation but should instead be seen as one part of a far broader range of initiatives aimed at helping those with children that this Government have introduced since 2010. The main ones are: first, additional funding for 15 hours a week of free childcare for all three and four year-olds, saving families an additional £380 a year per child; secondly, additional funding for 15 hours a week of free childcare for all disadvantaged two year-olds, saving those families more than £2,400 a year per child; thirdly, an increase in the child tax credit to £3,295 a year, £450 more a year than at the election; fourthly, an increase, from 2016, in the childcare element of universal credit, from 70% to 85% of total childcare costs, to improve work incentives and ensure that it is worthwhile to work up to full-time hours for low and middle-income parents; and finally, the introduction of shared parental leave and statutory shared parental pay for those with children born after 5 April 2015.
I realise that there are concerns that the effect of these demand-side initiatives might simply be to drive up the costs of childcare. That is why the Government have also taken significant steps to increase the supply of high-quality childcare. The most notable of these are the introduction of childminder agencies to reduce bureaucracy for childcare providers and increase the choices for parents; consulting on proposals to relax planning rules to allow nurseries to expand more easily; and reforming the role of local authorities to improve access to government funding and encourage new entrants to the market.
Noble Lords will also be aware that in his 2014 Autumn Statement last week the Chancellor announced a further government initiative aimed at encouraging the supply of childcare. A further £2 million will be set aside to double the funding available for 2015-16 from the childcare business grant to support the creation of new childcare places. This grant has existed for some 20 months and provides funds to newly registered childcare businesses. To date, it has supported around 4,500 new childminders, who between them have the capacity to offer up to 32,000 new childcare places. I am sure that all noble Lords will welcome this expansion.
The Bill will deliver much needed support for working families. It marks a clear and significant improvement on the existing mechanism for providing such support and is a further tangible demonstration of this Government’s support for parents and their children. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, as treasurer of the parliamentary group for children I warmly welcome the Minister’s presentation of the Bill and, indeed, the contents of the Bill. The subsidy will be an improvement on the existing voucher scheme, and the extra support for parents is very welcome.
The Minister made the case for this change. I was reminded of it recently by listening to Professor Melhuish of Birkbeck College, University of London. He presented strong evidence that high-quality early years care improves the educational outcomes of young people. Even if a child has a poor primary school, if they have had high-quality early years education then they are still likely to be doing well at the age of 11, and there will still be a significant difference in educational outcomes to the age of 16. Such provision is therefore very important.
I also thank the Minister for the investment that the coalition Government have been making in this area. He described in detail what has been achieved. I was grateful to the coalition Government for reconsidering their proposals on the ratios of early years educators to children. The Minister at the time raised the important point that as we invest a great deal in early years care in this country, although it is more costly here than it is in many other nations, how can we ensure that we get best bang for the buck in terms of taxpayers’ money? I hope there will be an opportunity after the election of a thorough strategic review of early years provision to look at why we are where we are.
I welcome what the Minister said about stimulating the supply side, which is so important, and the measures that are being taken, but perhaps more could be done to stimulate it. In particular, it struck me how important nurseries attached to schools are. It is important that there is a lower turnover in staff in nurseries than there is in much other provision. In high-quality provision it is crucial to have staff who can build relationships with children and parents. Of course, the staff in such provision are generally more highly qualified than in other provision. We must address the low pay that dominates this area. It is very disappointing that we invest so much yet many of the people who do this really important work are so poorly paid.
I welcome the Bill. There are a couple of issues on which I would like help from the Minister. I shall try to be as brief as I can so I shall curtail what I might have said. The first issue is that the scheme will not address the additional childcare challenges and costs faced by families with disabled children. The Minister may have made a remark on that and I missed it. The recent independent parliamentary inquiry into childcare for disabled children found that parents with disabled children face significant extra challenges finding and paying for childcare. A survey of parents was undertaken to support the inquiry. More than 1,000 parents with a disabled child responded, and 38% reported paying £11 to £20 an hour for childcare, with a further 5% paying an astonishing £20 an hour. This is in stark contrast to the £3.50 to £4.50 paid by the parents of children who are not disabled. Three-quarters of the parents who responded to the inquiry also said that they had been forced to cut back or give up work entirely because they could not access affordable childcare which was appropriate and met the needs of their child.
Although the tax-free childcare scheme will provide some additional support, the inquiry highlighted the limitations of the scheme for families with disabled children. I understand that the Government are looking at ways in which they can better support parents with disabled children through the scheme by raising the maximum cap for such families above £10,000. This would be helpful for a small number of parents with very high costs, but most of the families affected would not be helped by this step because very few families can afford to spend that amount on childcare.
A better option is to raise the amount of the top-up from 20% for such parents. I am grateful to the Family and Childcare Trust for its briefing in my preparation for this Bill. It has estimated that increasing the top-up to 40% for children who receive disability living allowance would cost just £25 million each year. The Government will spend more than £750 million each year on the new scheme. Surely £25 million is an affordable figure in the light of the help that this step will provide for parents with disabled children. Does the Minister agree?
The inquiry also heard that out-of-school activities were a key means of social inclusion for disabled children and young people. As the tax-free childcare legislation covers costs only for childcare used to enable parents to work, it is regrettable that in its current guise it will not help many families pay for such childcare. In the long term we must create a level playing field in childcare for disabled children. There are a number of schemes run by local authorities that support childcare providers to offer places to children with additional needs through training, specialist support and adaptation, and subsidise the difference between the typical fee and the actual cost of care for a disabled child. It is heartening to hear about parents who have struggled and looked through many areas and finally found a place for their child. However, such cases are rare. Funding constraints mean that such schemes are rare. The most effective way in which the Government can support disabled children to access affordable childcare is to learn from the successful approaches developed by local authorities and scale up those schemes nationally.
The second area to which I would like the Minister to give his attention is the tax-free childcare scheme. This scheme must work alongside the childcare element of tax credits and, for a time, the employer-supported childcare voucher scheme that is being phased out. Families will not be able to claim childcare support under tax credits and tax-free childcare at the same time. Many families will find it difficult to identify which childcare support is best for them and will potentially miss out on much needed financial support. The Minister referred to the sort of support that these families can have in his opening remarks.
The Government estimate that at least one in 10 families claiming the childcare element of tax credits will be better off claiming support under the new scheme. As a result, it is very likely that there will be substantial movement between the two schemes. Many parents, particularly those with fluctuating incomes and uncertain working hours, such as those who are self-employed, work overtime or have a zero-hours contract, will find the sheer complexity of the schemes difficult to navigate, potentially leading to the loss of greatly needed financial support.
The Government need to make sure that families are transferred smoothly between each childcare scheme, with a full information campaign and an online childcare support calculator—which I think the Minister was describing—to help the parents affected make the right choice. From my own experience of joining health visitors in meeting with vulnerable mothers and parents I know just how important reliable and clear guidance can be to these families. I therefore hope that the Government will support professionals working in early years, children’s centres and family information services to play their part in guiding parents through the different options for childcare support, as they are ideally placed to offer advice to families from all walks of life.
Finally, I wonder if I could invite the Minister to join me on a visit to a children’s centre—a nursery in Newham with a very good reputation—that I will be making on the morning of Friday 9 January. I am sure that he would be very welcome to join me if he were able to make the time available. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, from these Benches I warmly welcome the Bill, which will provide much needed assistance towards childcare costs for many middle-income and low-income families. I also welcome the careful expansion of the availability of childcare. However, there are two areas which I shall mention briefly where further attention may be needed.
The first concerns the equity between this provision and the provision for families in receipt of universal credit. The Children’s Society estimates that by the time universal credit is fully implemented, around half of children may be living in families in receipt of universal credit. Some of the parents in the statistics quoted by the Minister who want to return to work will certainly be in this category. The challenge of childcare costs, for those returning to part-time and low-paid work, is significant.
My questions relate to equity in the administration of support rather than the quantity. I warmly welcome the intention to develop an easy-to-use online tool to help parents to determine the best help available. How will the Government ensure that universal credit and tax-free childcare complement each other effectively? Will the Government consider making childcare accounts available for families in receipt of universal credit? Will they consider making childcare payments from universal credit on the basis of costs incurred rather than payments made? Will they ensure that families have at least a month to report their childcare costs under universal credit and so receive their full entitlement, which is so important?
My second area has already been mentioned and relates to families with disabled children, where childcare costs can be higher. I warmly welcome the extension of support to parents of disabled children up to age 16. Will the Government consider making this Bill even more effective by providing a higher rate of support through the tax-free childcare scheme for children with disabilities, reflecting the higher general costs of childcare for such parents? These questions are in the context of a warm welcome for the proposals in this Bill.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I start by applauding Her Majesty’s Government for the commitment that they have shown to helping families through a broad range of measures, which include, but are not limited to, greater flexibility in parental leave and the expansion of assistance with childcare costs. I and many others on these Benches particularly welcome the early steps that have been taken to tackle the biggest family policy challenge that we and many other western countries face, which is our epidemic levels of family breakdown. The wider family policy landscape is highly relevant to the Bill receiving its Second Reading here today, because the financial help with childcare that the Bill provides will be cast as a significant part of the fulfilment of the Prime Minister’s pledge to make this the most family-friendly country in Europe. Certainly, it is taking the lion’s share of the family policy budget.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that the taxpayer is subsidising childcare to the tune of more than £7 billion a year. The rationale for adding to this enormous bill is that doing so will enable parents to play a full part in the labour market. It is concerning, however, that the IFS has concluded that we still lack a proper rationale and evidence base to support the assertion that these subsidies will succeed in getting more women into work. The IFS was particularly sceptical of the cross-party support for significantly greater help with childcare costs, saying that this does not always lead to the best policies. Moreover, the Government announced an increase in support for childcare before the Office for Budget Responsibility could estimate the costs.
Although this is a money Bill, surely it is our role at this end of the corridor, when necessary, to point out the downsides to generosity that could begin to look like profligacy when seen alongside other demands on the public purse, particularly those associated with supporting families. Calls to help dual-earner families with paid, formal childcare costs should not be allowed to drown out pleas for recognition of the considerable financial hardship facing many single-earner families. There are many reasons why one parent—often the father these days—takes some time out of the labour market when children or elderly relatives need more time than even flexible work arrangements will allow.
This Government’s introduction of transferable tax allowances for married couples is a huge achievement in a very difficult financial and political climate, but it is worth only around one 10th of the available support for one childcare place—a little over £200 per family in contrast to £2,000 per child. This is scant compensation for the many people who lost their child benefit or saw it reduced, yet we were assured that this cut to discretionary household spending power was essential to tackle the deficit. Many people who supported the withdrawal of child benefit to higher rate taxpayers have been appalled that a far more generous subsidy per child is being made available to families where each individual earns up to £150,000.
Canada’s Conservative Party has recently been able to make good on its 2011 election pledge to allow married couples to use income splitting to reduce tax bills by a maximum of 2,000 Canadian dollars—a benefit approximately five times the value of our transferrable tax allowance. However, there is a big difference, and that is that the Canadian Government are running a surplus. Canada’s income tax system, which treats families the same as roommates living under the same roof with no financial attachment, was judged by Prime Minister Harper to be unrealistic and unfair.
That assessment applies equally well to this Government’s tax-free childcare plans. I urge them to reconsider thresholds for this and the amount that can be claimed per child. This would allow some rebalancing of help for single-earner families during that period in their life cycle when finances are very tight but both parents working is unrealistic or the least family friendly option they can imagine, given their circumstances.
Polling by the Centre for Social Justice found that 82% of adults and 88% of parents thought more should be done to help parents stay at home in the early years. It has recommended doubling the amount parents with children aged under three can transfer, so that the allowance is worth around £400 per year. This would cost around £500 million.
I conclude by returning to the issue of family breakdown. We are all familiar with the enormous costs incurred by the state when couple relationships, and the families they are founded on, falter. This country is now at the point where almost half of all children are no longer living with both their parents by the time they are 15. We cannot put off the essential task of addressing family breakdown through a wide range of measures, some of which must include support for marriage, which leads to the most stable family form. Recognising marriage in the tax system also takes into account and supports the sacrifices and interdependencies within single-earner families.
However, to a certain extent our hands are tied until the public finances are in better shape. That date is likely to come later rather than sooner if we make our current and future generations of parents dependent on large childcare subsidies and resentful of any reductions to that entitlement at whatever point on the income spectrum the axe may have to fall. Let us obviate the need for the axe by being restrained from the outset.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the House faces considerable difficulties in tackling this Bill. As it is defined as a money Bill, the Minister has to reply not only to the general arguments—and I congratulate all three noble Lords who have spoken thus far on identifying clear issues to which the Minister should respond—but, as far as possible, to issues of detail, because this is our only chance of dealing with this Bill. The Minister will recognise that there are a whole plethora of issues which, had we more time and the opportunity to be in Committee, we would have enjoyed discussing. As it is a money Bill, we are operating under some constraint and therefore the Minister will forgive me if I both seek to cover the general principles but now and again lapse into a degree of detail to which I shall expect him to respond.
The Opposition of course welcome the Bill. There is no way in which we would oppose a Bill that gives additional help to parents with childcare costs, particularly in the circumstances that the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, identified: children have grown up in units that differ a great deal from the standard parental position. We are concerned about children and to whom the support is to be directed. The parents will take responsibility for it, but we are concerned about children as regards the Bill.
The great difficulty is that childcare costs have soared in recent years. There has been very little additional help for parents over these past few years, while costs have gone up so sharply. That is why we in the Labour Party are concerned to put a rather different perspective on how to identify in the Bill support for children and their parents. We very much seek to meet the point that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, identified—he spoke about the need for extra help for the parents and carers of disabled children. We want to increase the age to which they are entitled from the Government’s position of 17 to 18. We think that disabled children involve extra costs. Therefore, the Government should have provided some recognition of such extra costs in the Bill.
We have some real concerns about the Bill. Commentators have indicated that it is regressive in its impact. The majority of support in top-up payments will go to those with above-average incomes. Support for those in very real need will form only a small fraction of the allocation in the Bill. Those who can afford to spend more will get more from this scheme. We do not think that that can be readily justified.
We are also concerned about the scheme’s complexity. We recognise that parental circumstances can change rapidly due to the very volatile state of employment in the economy. We know that a very high percentage of jobs are insecure and have limited hours—certainly no guaranteed hours with zero-hours contracts. This means that parents have real difficulties as regards making judgments on income. There is a big complicating factor in this. The Government intend to bring in broader income support. It is not at all clear whether parents will be in an intelligent position to judge whether they might get better returns from this scheme or under universal credit. The Government have indicated that some help will be given but, given the obvious complexities of the introduction of universal credit—it has been predicated and worked on for long enough, yet we still do not have it in full—the Bill has to be put against that difficult background.
We also consider the Bill to be late. The Government seek to bring in an improvement that will not come into play until 2015, but childcare costs have risen five times faster than pay since 2010. The impact on families of the failure of the Government to act in the past is quite clear. We intend to expand free childcare for three and four year-olds from the 15 hours that the Government have indicated to 25 hours per week for working parents, as well as guaranteed wraparound childcare access through their local school. The supply side measures will be in addition to the support provided for in the Bill, and we intend to increase the levy on banks to ensure that we have the resources for these.
There are quite difficult decisions about this Bill which, had we been in Committee, we would have gone into in some detail. The Government intend that NS&I will provide the childcare accounts. NS&I, of course, subcontracts a great deal of its work to Atos. We are not at all clear that that gives a great deal of security to such an important resource allocation as this involves, given the past record of that company. As I said, the interaction between the two schemes—universal credit, when it is finally rolled out, and this scheme—is far from clear in government thinking. The Government have to realise that what may work for certain families, with full control of modern technology, high levels of education and an ability to respond to the system, does not apply to those very large numbers of parents and carers of children who will need very great guidance to ensure that they get the best deal out of this scheme or universal credit, when it comes in. It means added bureaucracy for parents and a difficult route to follow.
We also are concerned about costs. This, of course, is a demand-led system. It gives extra resources to those who demand the childcare. The Minister spends enough time in the Treasury on the economics to know that if one increases demand for a product, often the consequence is that the price goes up. That certainly happened in the Australian circumstance of a scheme not dissimilar to this one. So what do the Government do about a situation where already severely increased costs over the past five years get a stimulus from being increased again by what is in fact a government subsidy for a demand-led system?
Far from opposing the Bill, we are giving it our full support in its passage. That does not alter the fact that we want to identify these issues clearly on the only occasion we can debate the Bill in this House. The Minister has some very serious issues to confront and to answer, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have stayed to contribute to this debate, which was as thoughtful as one would expect in your Lordships’ House. I will attempt to answer some of the specific points that have been raised.
I absolutely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the importance of early years education. It is probably not as widely understood as it should be that very early high-quality educational intervention is an investment, in that it raises the starting point from which everything else flows through a child’s education and, indeed, life. I absolutely agree with him about the need to have good-quality provision at every stage. I take his point about low pay in early years. We hope, for example, that in dealing with those two issues we will see an increase in the qualifications of staff in the early years—in particular, that more staff will be qualified to graduate level. One objective of the new early years pupil premium, which will cost £50 million next year, is to provide funds to improve the quality of early education to disadvantaged children, including improving qualifications.
The noble Earl asked specifically about disabled children. We have recognised already that disabled children are in a separate category by running on the scheme from the age of 12 to 17. I accept the point that some disabled children require higher costs throughout their childhood, including their teenage years. As he mentioned, the Exchequer Secretary has made a commitment to look at increasing the maximum amount that the families of disabled children can pay into a childcare account and thus increase the amount of government top-up that they can receive. I know that that does not go as far as he would like because he would like the proportion of tax benefit to increase. The challenge here, as with many other potential changes to the scheme, is one of cost. My colleague in another place, the Exchequer Secretary, is looking at that and, hopefully, in respect of raising the potential amount of government support through matched payments as per the current scheme, we might see some progress.
As regards disabled children, the noble Earl asked whether we can learn from the local government scheme. In terms of what is already happening, he will be aware of recent reforms to special educational needs provision. I agree that it will be important to learn from the experience of those on the ground. Without looking at my diary, I am not sure what I will be doing on 9 January. Last Friday, I visited a nursery in Haggesdon but I am sure that the noble Lord will think that that does not really count. I am very happy to look at whether the suggestion would be possible.
The noble Earl and other noble Lords asked about the problem of this scheme working alongside tax credits and universal credit, and how parents will know whether they are eligible for working tax credit and whether they are best to opt for this scheme or for that scheme. That is why we are doing a number of things to help them. The online tool to which we referred, which will be a ready reckoner, is expected to be the main easy way for parents to access very good information.
Sometimes a bit of an assumption is made—far be it from me to suggest this to the noble Lord, Lord Davies—that parents from poorer backgrounds are incapable of managing relatively simple technology. I do not believe that that is the case. It is so common now for everybody of all income levels to use the internet, whether it is for shopping or whatever, that it is not unreasonable to think that a very clear online tool is an appropriate mechanism as the centrepiece of what we are trying to do. Certainly, my children are happier almost to deal with the consumption of words online than they are with the consumption of words on paper. They look to online sources of information in the first place.
The right reverend Prelate asked a number of detailed questions about the way in which the scheme works, how it will interact with universal credit and whether the Government will consider a number of changes to the way we are planning to administer it. In particular, he asked whether the Government might consider allowing help with childcare costs through universal credit to be paid via a childcare account. We have a number of issues with that suggestion. The new scheme is fundamentally different from schemes such as universal credit, with support paid for different purposes in different ways to meet different circumstances. Universal credit is paid as a monthly lump sum to cover a range of costs, including childcare costs. It is not ring-fenced and is intended to support households to focus on budgeting on a monthly income. The objective is to ease the transition into starting or going back to paid work, which is why it is paid in a similar way to a monthly salary. If the Government move to the suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate, we would end up with a much more complicated scheme than we have at the moment. I think universal credit and the benefits system is complicated enough without running any risk of making it more complicated.
The right reverend Prelate asked about the fact that support for childcare in universal credit would be on the basis of payment of childcare made rather than childcare costs incurred, and that this will mean that people will have to find money up front to meet these costs. I can see that this is considered potentially to be an issue, but for parents moving into work we have the flexible support fund that can be used to pay for childcare to enable a claimant to start work. Budgeting advances that will be available to families under universal credit are also designed to help claimants pay for intermittent household expenses, of which this will be one. The money will then be reclaimed over a period. The principle under universal credit that you pay for the childcare costs that you have actually incurred is a very sensible way of approaching matters but having this fund will ease that transition, which is very important.
My noble friend Lady Eaton raised a number of wide issues which we could spend all night debating. For example, she and other noble Lords raised some of the real conundrums in this area about how you spend a limited amount of money to the best effect. I am not sure that any Government are always 100% successful in that, but we are taking funding for a scheme that benefits relatively few people—certainly not the people we necessarily want to benefit, as it is largely by chance the way your employer decides to operate the scheme—and moving it to a scheme that treats everybody in work with children fairly. I think that is a very big gain from this scheme over what we had before. It obviously does not deal with many of the other wider issues she raised, including the extremely interesting debate about the importance of marriage in society and the extent to which that might be reflected in the tax system. I suspect that the political parties will be thinking what more they want to say on that issue as they draw up their manifestos over the next few weeks and months.
One of the key purposes of what the Government have been doing in respect of childcare policy and other policies is to encourage more people, particularly women who wish to do so, to get back into work. Department for Education survey data suggest that more than half of mothers not in paid work would prefer to be in paid employment if they could arrange reliable, convenient, affordable and high-quality childcare. That is one of the attractions of what we are doing with universal credit and, to a certain extent, what we are doing in this scheme.
The relevance of at least one family member—but very often mothers—being in work is the example that that sets to children in terms of how they see their lives developing. One of the statistics in terms of the labour market of which I am most proud is that there are now 390,000 fewer children living in workless households than in 2010. That is 390,000 children who see at least one of their parents going out to work and earning a wage. They see the benefit of that as opposed to many children in the past who saw their parents not going out to work and, sadly, often saw that as being the way that they might spend their own lives. Some of the broader issues that my noble friend Lady Eaton raised may be for another night, or, even better, another day, but I am sure that we will return to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised a number of detailed questions, some of which I think I have covered in answers to other noble Lords. He suggested that the qualifying age for disabled children should be raised from 17 to 18. Having an age limit of 17 for disabled children is in line with the employer-supported childcare scheme and the childcare element of both tax credits and universal credits. It would not be right to increase the age limit in the new scheme while leaving it at 17 in other schemes. It would be inconsistent and confusing for parents. To increase the age up to which the child would be entitled to support across all these schemes would carry a material Exchequer cost, which is something that we have to be concerned about.
The noble Lord raised concern about Atos acting as a contractor to NS&I in respect of this scheme and whether that might be problematical. I believe that Atos acts as a contractor to NS&I in respect of premium bonds and I do not think that anyone is suggesting that there are any problems in the way that they are currently administered.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, made a number of points on issues which would involve greater expenditure on childcare. Again, this Government feel that they have an extremely strong record in this area and the constituent parts of the Government will put forward proposals for childcare in the next Parliament, as will the noble Lord’s party. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will be pleased that the parties are competing to see which can be the more generous in this area.
This is a sensible measure which will benefit many families and will use the resource much more fairly than is currently the case. I am extremely pleased that noble Lords who have spoken agree with the Government that this is a sensible and positive move forward to support families and their children.