House of Commons
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 10 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
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
1. What recent discussions she has had on the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
Keeping people safe and combating the terrorist threat continue to be the Government’s highest priorities. While the threat level remains at severe, excellent co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners has put violent dissident republicans under strain in recent months. There have been a number of significant arrests, charges and convictions, which are helping to suppress the threat.
Tom Greatrex
I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. When did she last discuss with the Home Secretary the issue of the National Crime Agency and its taking up functions in Northern Ireland? What assessment has she made of the effects of the delay on fighting organised crime in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I last discussed that with the Home Secretary on Tuesday morning. There are some very good discussions under way between the Justice Minister, members of the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Home Secretary on these matters. There is some optimism that real progress is being made, and I urge all involved—I urge Labour to work with its sister party, the SDLP—to work on this, because the NCA provides excellent services. At the moment, Northern Ireland is not getting the full benefit of the protection that it can offer.
Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State may have seen some rather surprising reports in the newspapers today. Given that she is talking about serious crime and is talking to parties in Northern Ireland about that, has she talked to Sinn Fein, because apparently the Labour party has been talking to Sinn Fein about a possible link-up after the general election? Did she see that?
Mrs Villiers
I was briefed on those stories in The Sun this morning. I certainly discuss many matters with Sinn Fein and the other Northern Ireland parties. It is crucial that all parties—Sinn Fein, the SDLP and all the parties in the Executive—get behind the introduction of the full powers of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland, because that is a means by which we can ensure that we do more to keep people in Northern Ireland safe, and it helps to relieve pressure on PSNI resources.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
One of the biggest threats to security in the months ahead in Northern Ireland is the continuing impasse over parades in north Belfast. Will the Secretary of State tell us what she plans to do, as this is not a devolved matter? The ball is firmly in her court after her decision at Christmas not to proceed with the north Belfast parading panel. She will know that on this side of the House we are determined not to allow this matter to be forgotten or swept under the carpet. It needs to be addressed, and the festering sore of the denial of human rights to people in north Belfast must be sorted out.
Mrs Villiers
I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we cannot go on as we are—things cannot be left as they are. It is vital that we get a process in place that will help to resolve the dispute, deal with the impasse, and bring the two sides together. I am actively engaged on that, and I hope to meet him and representatives of the loyal orders soon to discuss this. I would urge a wide range of people to get involved. I accept full responsibility for seeking to drive it forward, but contributions by Church leaders have been helpful on this matter in the past. Other parts of Northern Ireland have demonstrated that input from the business community can be helpful in resolving these disputes. We need to develop an inclusive process that brings a range of interest groups together to try to find a way to resolve this dispute.
Mr Dodds
On the issue that was the subject of exchanges a moment ago—I am grateful that the Secretary of State sees the Labour party putting pressure on the SDLP—Sinn Fein is the real impediment, with a veto in the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to the NCA. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that? Is there not a more active role for her to play in resolving this issue, and what confidence can we have in Sinn Fein being prepared to support the NCA when one of its leading members, Gerry Kelly, having promised support and help for a victim’s family, ran around giving letters of comfort to the alleged perpetrator against the innocent family?
Mrs Villiers
I have been very actively involved in these matters for many months, and I raise the issue with Sinn Fein virtually every time I have a conversation with them. It essential that we see movement on this. The reality is that it will be more difficult to seize the assets of criminals without full implementation of the NCA. It will be more difficult to crack down on drug dealing, racketeering and serious organised crime without full powers for the NCA. I will continue to urge Sinn Fein and the SDLP to accept the extension of the NCA’s remit. The reassurances in place ensure that any activity by the NCA will be entirely consistent with the devolved policing and justice settlement.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
What additional measures have been put in place by the UK Border Force to enhance the security of this country to ensure that young British people who go out to Syria or Iraq and become radicalised jihadists there could not easily slip back into the Republic of Ireland, cross the border with Northern Ireland back into the UK and commit the most appalling acts of terrorism? What is being done to improve that situation?
Mrs Villiers
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a range of measures in place on those matters, including the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill which is under discussion in Parliament, which in certain circumstances would enable UK nationals not to be admitted back into the country. The hon. Lady is right to raise the threat from international terrorism, which we must remember is a threat in Northern Ireland as it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I had the opportunity to discuss these matters with senior members of the PSNI last week. They stand ready not only to play their part in Northern Ireland, but to provide assistance and advice to police services in the rest of the country.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
2. What recent steps she has taken to ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has adequate resources to guarantee security for the people of Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Stormont House agreement included an undertaking by the Northern Ireland Executive to protect the PSNI’s budget from significant reductions. I very much welcome the additional £20 million for the police in the Executive’s final budget for 2015-16. This is in addition to security funding of £231 million provided by this Government to help the PSNI tackle the terrorist threat.
Rosie Cooper
The letter bomb sent to the PSNI headquarters earlier this month is a shocking reminder of the great sacrifices made by officers across Northern Ireland. How closely is the Secretary of State monitoring the resource needs of the PSNI?
Mrs Villiers
This is of course something I take a very close interest in. That is one of the reasons why the Government have provided the extra security funding and why we included provision in the Stormont House agreement to link our funding package with a commitment by the Executive on police resources. Clearly, the threats to police officers continue to be real and significant, and I welcome the success that the PSNI and An Garda Siochana have had in significant arrests and disruptions, which I believe have contributed substantially to suppressing the terrorist threat.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
13. How can the PSNI possibly meet its resource requirements to keep the peace when it has to make budgetary savings of over £51 million by the end of this financial year?
Mrs Villiers
As I said, the resource position for the police has been improved with the changes in the draft final budget. The position of the police would be further improved if the NCA were to operate to its full capacity in Northern Ireland, because at present the PSNI is doing work that would otherwise be done by the NCA. The establishment of the Historical Investigations Unit in the coming months will further relieve the PSNI of responsibilities in relation to policing the past, freeing up time and resources for policing the present.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that as well as securing resources for security for the PSNI, we need to focus on rural crime, attacks on our elderly and the drugs issue, all of which are increasing in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
These matters are crucially important. The crime figures in Northern Ireland continue to make it clear that Northern Ireland is one of the safest places in Europe and has some of the lowest levels of crime, but I know that the PSNI takes very seriously the regular crime that is the bane of people’s lives and is working hard to combat it, in addition to its duties in relation to national security.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) referred to the attack on PSNI headquarters in my constituency. In addition to being under threat when in uniform and on duty, officers are often under threat in their own homes. The PSNI needs resources to be able to provide adequate security measures at officers’ homes if it is to retain officers who have been trained. What can the Secretary of State do to allow additional funding for the PSNI to ensure that that happens?
Mrs Villiers
As I said, one way to do that would be to take burdens off the PSNI’s shoulders by implementing the NCA. Continued focus on trying to resolve parading disputes is also important, given their potential impact on police resources. It is crucial that we get the new institutions on the past up and running as soon as possible to provide that relief to PSNI funding, and, as we discussed in the House yesterday, we need to consider whether any of the £150 million for dealing with the past can be deployed prior to the establishment of the HIU to help on these matters for the PSNI.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
The Conservative party seems to want to introduce new protocols to the House, believing everything in The Sun and demanding that the Labour party take responsibility for problems that are clearly the responsibility of the Government.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State was unable to tell us how long it would take the PSNI to review the case of all those covered by the on-the-runs scheme. When will she be able to answer that question? In lieu of the creation of a new architecture to deal with the past, what will the PSNI be doing in the meantime to deal with some of the unresolved murders?
Mrs Villiers
How to deal with such cases, the priority given to them and the length of time it will take are matters for the PSNI, but it has said publicly that it will take some years to progress through the cases under Operation Redfield. As I told the House yesterday, it is important for us to consider whether any of the £150 million that is to be devoted to matters relating to legacy cases can be used to assist the PSNI in its work prior to the establishment of new institutions to look at past cases.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
3. What assessment her Department has made of the role of the voluntary sector in dealing with the legacy of the past.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Voluntary sector organisations provide invaluable support for those whose lives have been changed for ever as a result of Northern Ireland’s troubled past. I have visited some of them and I pay tribute to their work, which I know from my dealings with victims and their families is deeply appreciated by many in Northern Ireland and beyond.
David Mowat
The recent Stormont House agreement acknowledged that victims of the troubles from outside Northern Ireland should also be formally recognised, and the oral history archive that is to be set up is a mechanism for doing that. Will my hon. Friend support a role for the Warrington-based Foundation for Peace in co-ordinating input to the archive for such victims?
Dr Murrison
Yes, and I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend’s contribution to this and his support for the Warrington peace centre and its important work. It is explicit in the Stormont House agreement that the oral history archive will be established for the whole of the United Kingdom, and it will be keen to hear the accounts of the troubles of people in Warrington and throughout the United Kingdom. I look forward to that forming a part of the oral history archive in due course.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Do the Government agree that the provision of a special pension for those severely injured during the troubles who were unable to build up an occupational pension of their own, long argued for by the WAVE trauma centre’s injured campaign group and included in the Stormont House agreement, should be supported by all parties, and that questions around who should be eligible for that pension can be resolved to ensure that those who were severely injured through no fault of their own are not denied the opportunity to have some financial independence as they grow older?
Dr Murrison
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, because he will have read the Stormont agreement, this item was left largely unresolved, although open. I am afraid to say that the problem revolves around the definition of victims, notwithstanding the 2006 order. That is work in hand and it is something that we will have to return to.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
May I join the Minister in paying tribute to all the many charities and voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland, which, as he rightly says, have done so much invaluable work over the years? What recent review has he done of the potential for the Civic Forum for Northern Ireland to contribute to bringing people together in Northern Ireland?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is right to refer to the Civic Forum. It is clear that we need to hear those voices in Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom where politicians are not necessarily all held in high regard, Members of this House excepted. It is important that we look for alternative voices, and I am sure that in the months and years ahead, with the assistance of the Stormont House agreement, that civic voice will be heard more and more.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that we will never deal with the hurt and the poison of the past in Northern Ireland while the past actions of police and Army officers and personnel are subject to extensive investigations, police investigations and court action, while terrorists are given letters that enable them to escape the consequences of their crimes?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman makes his points in his usual robust fashion. It is clearly important that justice is done in Northern Ireland as it is throughout the United Kingdom, and that when there are failings they are properly investigated.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
4. What steps she is taking to safeguard records relevant to the work of the Historical Investigations Unit, the Independent Commission for Information Retrieval, inquests, and other inquiries into the past.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Northern Ireland Office takes responsibility for safeguarding its records very seriously and will continue to follow existing protocols.
Mark Durkan
The Secretary of State gave the commitments on behalf of the British Government in the Stormont House agreement to ensure that whenever the new mechanisms come into place all records will be given to them. What steps is she taking to make sure that all current records will still be available? She knows that there have been many cases where files or their contents have disappeared, to the dissatisfaction of those dealing with them. What steps is she taking to safeguard against that?
Mrs Villiers
The Northern Ireland Office undertook a review of record keeping in the wake of the problems that occurred in relation to the cases involving the RPM—royal prerogative of mercy. We are satisfied that all necessary measures are in place to ensure that records will be available for transfer as appropriate, but we will also take steps to make sure that sensitive material is protected from onward disclosure by the institutions concerned.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
In 1976, 10 innocent Protestant workmen were brutally slaughtered by the side of the road at Kingsmills. The Historical Enquiries Team report now reveals the chilling fact that a large number of the terrorists responsible included neighbours based in the village of Whitecross just over 1 mile from the scene of the atrocity and close to where many of the innocent victims lived. Does the Secretary of State not accept that it is sickening to think that these men were part of that murdering team, when the victims needed neighbours to be faithful most of all?
Mrs Villiers
The Kingsmills tragedy was an appalling terrorist atrocity. I have met the families, and they have my deepest, deepest condolences. Every effort should continue to be made to bring to justice those responsible for this horrific episode in the troubles.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I am sure that the whole House welcomes the new architecture proposed as a result of the Stormont House agreement. Will the Secretary of State give us some indication of the time scale and, crucially, say whether it will require legislation in this House? Frankly, the victims’ families have waited too long—they need answers and they need them now.
Mrs Villiers
I am meeting the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties on Friday to agree an implementation plan on the Stormont House agreement. It is highly likely that we will need at least some legislation both in Westminster and in the Assembly. We will talk to the Northern Ireland Executive about the balance between the two to ensure that we get these institutions up and running as soon as possible, because current systems are not giving the right outcomes for victims, and that needs to change.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
5. What progress she has made on implementation of the Stormont House agreement; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Government are committed to timely implementation of the Stormont House agreement and we are making progress—for example, on corporation tax devolution. We hope to agree an implementation plan for the agreement at our first formal review meeting with the parties on 30 January.
Mr Bain
I welcome the Stormont House agreement as further strengthening devolution across the United Kingdom and offering the Northern Ireland Executive nearly £2 billion in new finance and loans. What process will the Secretary of State propose to deal with the unresolved issues of parades, flags and cultural identity?
Mrs Villiers
The SHA sets out a clear pathway for reaching a resolution of those issues with the commission on flags, which was first proposed by Dr Richard Haass. It is right that we have a broader engagement with the public on the matters relating to identity. The SHA commits the Executive to producing options for a new system of parading that could be devolved, we hope, in future.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Stormont House agreement, with the boost to the economy that should come as a result of the corporation tax decision, the reduction in the size of Government, and the provisions on no rewriting of the past and no expansion of cross-border bodies, means that we now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make significant progress in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s description of the Stormont House agreement. It was balanced and fair, it comes with a significant financial boost for Northern Ireland, and it guards against the dangers of those who would attempt to rewrite history. Corporation tax devolution could be genuinely transformative for Northern Ireland as a place sharing a land border with a low-tax jurisdiction.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Further to the question on corporation tax, will the Secretary of State have immediate discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive to force home the point that that lever should be used to bring about balanced regional development in terms of inward investment locations for projects? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let us make sure we hear the Secretary of State’s answer on the Stormont House agreement.
Mrs Villiers
Both the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are united in our efforts to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy, and we both share the determination to ensure that economic prosperity and the boost that will come with corporation tax devolution are shared throughout all towns, cities and rural areas in Northern Ireland.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
The Stormont House agreement states that corporation tax devolution will not take place until 2017, subject to various conditions, so will the Secretary of State tell the House what tangible benefits the economic pact has so far delivered to Northern Ireland’s economy? When did she last meet the Business Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to talk about how the UK Government can support Invest Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I regularly discuss such matters with my colleagues in Cabinet. We have rolled out a range of measures under the economic pact—devolution of corporation tax is one, and the investment conference following up on the G8 is another. We are seeing real progress on projects such as the Lisanelly shared campus, as well as increased take-up of the Government’s financial schemes to promote lending to business, so the economic pact is already delivering for Northern Ireland in a range of ways.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
6. What steps the Government are taking to tackle youth unemployment in Northern Ireland.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
8. What steps the Government are taking to tackle youth unemployment in Northern Ireland.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
9. What steps the Government are taking to tackle youth unemployment in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The questions are timely because last week’s figures show that youth unemployment in Northern Ireland has fallen by 3.3 percentage points over the year, and is 175,000 lower than in May 2010. The Government’s long-term economic plan is promoting a sustainable economic recovery from the mess we inherited, and it is directly assisting young people into real jobs that have a future.
Pamela Nash
I welcome those youth unemployment figures. However, Northern Ireland’s youth unemployment figures remain significantly higher, at 19.2%, than in the rest of the UK. That has a big impact not only on those young people, but on the security of Northern Ireland. Why have the Government allowed this situation to persist, and what will they do to stop it?
Dr Murrison
The matter to which the hon. Lady refers is of course primarily the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive. I must observe, however, that unemployment among young people in Northern Ireland rose by 35% between May 1997 and May 2010; it has gone down by 3.3 percentage points in this year alone.
Julie Hilling
Last week’s labour market statistics show a worrying growth in female unemployment. What are the Government doing to address that imbalance?
Dr Murrison
Female unemployment is of course a concern right across the United Kingdom, as is unemployment in general. I would observe the number of apprenticeships being created by this Government. It is important that we get young people, male and female, into jobs for the long term, and not indulge in short-term gimmicks.
Alex Cunningham
The chief economist of Ulster Bank has said that under-25s are failing to participate in Northern Ireland’s labour market recovery. Does the Minister agree that we need to address young people’s prospects, and will he welcome the Heenan-Anderson commission, which will examine skills and education?
Dr Murrison
I certainly welcome any comments from any commission that are worth reading. I would add that the commission recently set up by the Labour party to look into problems in Northern Ireland, chaired by Deirdre Heenan, has started somewhat poorly. She said by tweet, within minutes of being appointed, that the
“key issue for Labour is a lack of distinct policies”.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
7. What steps the Government are taking to strengthen the economy of and increase inward investment to Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Government’s long-term economic plan is working for Northern Ireland, as shown by the good news on employment statistics last week. We have introduced a Bill to devolve corporation tax-setting powers, which will act as a significant marketing tool to attract foreign investment to Northern Ireland.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that reducing corporation tax rates would enable greater employment prospects and a brighter future for the people of Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I agree with my hon. Friend. That change has great potential to transform the Northern Ireland economy, which is already starting to recover. Since the election, employment is up by 31,000, private sector employment is up by 51,000 and unemployment is down 6,000, and the claimant count in Northern Ireland has gone down for 24 consecutive months.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that strengthening the economy and increasing investment require multiple factors, not just the reduction of corporation tax. Does she appreciate how critical regional connectivity is, particularly the air links between Belfast and London and Dublin and London that go into Heathrow? Will the Heathrow slots be protected if International Airlines Group takes over Aer Lingus?
Mrs Villiers
It is not for me to speak for IAG, but it is vital that Heathrow maintains its links with Belfast and Dublin. I agree that a corporation tax reduction on its own is not enough for economic recovery; it is crucial that economic reform and investment in infrastructure accompany that change.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
10. What recent representations she has received on use of the Union flag on driving licences in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I understand the strong interest in whether proposals for the Union flag to appear on driving licences in Great Britain should apply in Northern Ireland. However, driver licensing is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland and it is for Executive Ministers to decide whether to adopt the changes that have been announced for the rest of the country.
Kate Hoey
The Minister will know that there is doubt over whether this is a devolved matter. Surely, if we believe in the Union, people in Northern Ireland should have the same right as everyone else in the United Kingdom to have the flag of their country flying on their driving licence. Does he agree?
Dr Murrison
I share the hon. Lady’s sentiments about the importance of the Union flag. However, I emphasise that putting it on driving licences is a devolved matter and therefore a matter for the Executive.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Q1. When he next plans to meet the chairman of the Iraq inquiry; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Field
Given that the current Cabinet Secretary said in 2009 that, in his judgment, the inquiry would take a year and that there will have been two general elections before we see the report, might I ask the Prime Minister to write to the chairman to get a date for when the report will be handed to the Prime Minister and then published?
The Prime Minister
I have written to the inquiry chair and expressed my frustration. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not for this Government to interfere in how the inquiry, which was set up with terms of reference by the last Government, is conducting itself. That would not be right. I first voted for an inquiry back in 2006. Labour Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, voted against it in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Even as late as 2009, they were still voting against an inquiry that would have been here, discussed, debated and finished by now.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Q2. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 January.
The Prime Minister
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Lilian Greenwood
My constituents keep telling me that their No. 1 concern is what is happening to our national health service. In Nottingham and across the country, essential services are at breaking point. Given that our NHS did not even make the Prime Minister’s top six priorities for the election, should not everybody who cares about our NHS vote Labour on 7 May?
The Prime Minister
What people need to know about our NHS is that it is this Government who decided to invest in the NHS, ignoring Labour’s advice to cut it. In Nottingham, compared with 2010, there are 158 more doctors, 646 more nurses and the NHS is doing well. What a contrast with Wales, where Labour is in charge—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like to hear it, but they have cut the NHS by 8% in Wales. Because of Labour, the NHS is doing worse in Wales than in England.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Yesterday marked the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s acceptance of all the recommendations from the Holocaust Commission, which was set up by this Government. Will he in particular make sure that the lasting monument to that terrible tragedy is accessible throughout the United Kingdom and will he safeguard the funding for the Lessons from Auschwitz project, so ably put together by the Holocaust Education Trust?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks on behalf of the whole House and indeed the whole country in wanting to commemorate properly the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, and to ensure that here in Britain we properly commemorate the horrors of Auschwitz for years to come. The Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister and I were privileged to meet so many survivors yesterday with the extraordinary stories that they have to tell, but they cannot go on telling those stories for ever, so it is vital that we record their testimony; that we make sure that education about the holocaust is maintained; that we establish this national monument, for which three places have been identified; and that this work goes ahead, starting now with all-party support.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Let me first associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the Prime Minister. Yesterday was an incredibly moving and emotional day for anyone who was part of the commemoration. I thank the Prime Minister for the work that has been done as part of the Holocaust Commission and I can confirm absolutely that it will be taken forward on a cross-party basis so that we do indeed keep the memory alive.
Before the last election, the Prime Minister said that he would have a “bare-knuckle fight” to save 29 accident and emergency and maternity units, and he published a list. Can he assure the House that in line with his promise all those services have been protected?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the NHS, because before we go any further he needs to clear something up. He has now been asked nine times whether he made the disgraceful remarks about weaponising the NHS. Everyone in the House and, I suspect, everyone in the country knows that he made those remarks, so he should get up to the Dispatch Box and apologise for that appalling remark, and then we can take this debate forward.
Edward Miliband
The only person who should be apologising is the Prime Minister who has broken all his promises on the national health service. He did not give us an answer: he toured the country, standing outside hospitals and promising that services would remain open. Let me tell him about a few of those services. The A and E at Queen Mary’s hospital in Sidcup is now closed. The maternity unit in Ilford is closed. The A and E unit in Welwyn is closed. Why did he break his promises?
The Prime Minister
It is very simple: one of the most respected political journalists in Britain, Nick Robinson, the political editor of the BBC, said—and I shall quote it however long it takes—
“A phrase the Labour leader uses in private is that he wants to—and I quote—‘weaponise’ the NHS for politics.”
That is one of the most respected journalists in our country. Will the right hon. Gentleman now get to the Dispatch Box and apologise for that appalling remark?
Edward Miliband
This is a ridiculous smokescreen from a Prime Minister running from his record on the NHS. The answer—because this is Prime Minister’s questions—is that all those units have closed. Let me give him another one. He stood outside the A and E unit at Chase Farm, with the local MP, saying, “Hands off our hospital. No to cuts, no to closure.” Is the A and E at Chase Farm open or closed?
The Prime Minister
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman my record on the NHS—9,000 more doctors, 6,000 more nurses, hospital-acquired infections right down, investment in our health service up. People rightly want to know what his motives are when it comes to the NHS. If his motives are that he cares about this great national institution, that is fine, but he told the political editor of the BBC that he wanted to weaponise the NHS. I ask him again: get up there and withdraw.
Edward Miliband
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what my motive is: it is to rescue the national health service from this Tory Government. Frankly, this is a man who has got a war on Wales and is using the Welsh NHS to make political propaganda. This is a man who has broken—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. For the avoidance of doubt, however long it takes, the questions from the Leader of the Opposition will be heard and so will the answers from the Prime Minister. That is the situation and the sooner people learn that quite simple lesson, the better.
Edward Miliband
We know the Prime Minister is in a hole on the NHS and this is all he can offer the British people. It is time we had some answers from him. He has broken his promises on waiting times in A and E. He could not defend what he said about maternity and emergency services. Can he explain why this morning new guidance has been issued to some hospitals making it harder for them to declare a major incident?
The Prime Minister
Let me answer that very directly. The NHS in the west midlands, without any instruction from the Department of Health and without any instruction from Ministers, issued a statement about major incidents. The head of NHS England was asked about it this morning and she said this:
“I haven’t been under any political pressure. This document was issued…in the west midlands.”
What a contrast between the operational managers of the NHS and the man who wants to weaponise the NHS.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Wales. He criticised me a moment ago for mentioning Wales. He seems to have forgotten that yesterday he said this to the BBC: “It is right to look at problems in Wales and to compare”. That is what he said yesterday. Now, let us look at what happened today in Wales. The Welsh ambulance service statistics have come out and they are the worst ever on record: just 42% of emergency calls are answered in time, compared with 70% in England. Will he now admit that Labour’s catastrophic cuts and mismanagement in Wales have cost the NHS dear?
Edward Miliband
The last time the right hon. Gentleman was in charge in Wales, people were waiting two years for an operation. That is the comparison—with what was happening. Everyone will have heard that he did not answer the question about what is happening in the NHS in England. This is what the head of operations at one NHS hospital says:
“This is the enhanced criteria that have been introduced by NHS England to…stop trusts from calling a major incident.”
The whistleblower says the hospital’s hands are being tied. The Prime Minister says they are not. Who does he think people will believe?
The Prime Minister
People will believe the head of NHS England, who said this very clearly this morning:
“Local hospitals continue to have responsibility for deciding whether to declare major incidents”.
It is perfectly clear what is happening: the right hon. Gentleman is clasping at straws because he is in a desperate mess on the NHS. He talks about Wales. Here is the record: per head of the population, 10 times more people in Wales on a waiting list for an operation; nearly twice as many ambulances failing to meet those urgent calls; almost twice as many people waiting for more than four hours for A and E. That is what is happening in the NHS in Wales because Labour Ministers cut its budget. But the reason he is in such a mess on the NHS is this: a week ago the shadow Chancellor said that every penny from their new homes tax would go into the NHS. Yesterday, the leader of the Labour party said he had a plan to pay down the deficit with tax changes such as the mansion tax they have announced. There we have it: 99 days to go before the election and they cannot even have a sensible policy on the NHS. What a completely useless Opposition.
Edward Miliband
We have 99 days to kick out a Prime Minister who has broken all his promises on the NHS. Today’s revelation shows once again that, under him, the NHS is in crisis and under strain. It is a crisis of his making and on his watch, which is why nobody will trust him with the NHS ever again.
The Prime Minister
What a contrast—the Government dealing with the unions to stop the action in the NHS, and a Labour party weaponising the NHS. That is what everyone can see. The right hon. Gentleman talks about what has happened this week. We have seen Labour casting around for a coalition with the SNP and a coalition with Sinn Fein—the first time Britain would have people who want to break up Britain and bankrupt Britain. What a useless shower.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Watching that, I am reminded of that famous Stealers Wheel line:
“Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right”.
Eight months ago, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government assured people in Cornwall that the delay over resolving the EU funding programme would be settled. Eight months later, hundreds of millions of pounds of investment and hundreds of jobs are at risk. Will the Prime Minister please sort out this pickle?
The Prime Minister
I have done my best to run a coalition Government, but I occasionally feel stuck in the middle with the Liberal Democrats.
The Government are delivering for the west country: we are sorting out the transport links and the local growth deals; putting money into road and rail connections; and helping with the vital airport and the routes back to London—and we will go on, because we want to close the income gap between the south-west and the rest of our country.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Q3. Care workers deliver the most basic support needed to provide a life of dignity to so many—bathing, cleaning, dressing, feeding—yet 300,000 fewer older people are enjoying that dignity now than four years ago. Is that because they do not need it, or because the Prime Minister has cut care budgets by £3.5 billion, while cutting taxes for millionaires?
The Prime Minister
The Government have put £3.2 billion of health money into social services, and the better care fund will start on 1 April, putting £5.3 billion into social care—something Labour argued should be delayed. However, there is a question that the hon. Lady has to answer. The shadow Chancellor said—he could not have been clearer—that
“there will be no additional funding for local government”,
which includes social services,
“unless we can find money from somewhere else…but we have not been able to do that in the case of local government.”
This is what Labour does. It goes round the country, promising more money for this, more money for that, and in its few moments of honesty, it reveals that it has not got any more money.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that, not long after the liberation of Auschwitz, the British Army liberated another camp, Bergen-Belsen, freeing 60,000 starving inmates, many of whom were saved by British medical services? Does he also recall that our allies at the time, the Russians and the countries of the former Soviet Union, in their struggle to defeat Nazi Germany, lost 40 million civilians and soldiers? Should we not pay them some tribute too?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should pay tribute to all those who helped to defeat the evil of Nazi Germany. It is a good day to pay tribute to the British soldiers who liberated Bergen-Belsen. At the Holocaust memorial event yesterday, a tape of Richard Dimbleby’s incredibly moving testimony of what he and those soldiers found at Belsen was played for everyone to hear, and we should be very proud of the role that British soldiers played in liberating these appalling death camps.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Q4. Last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies revealed that poorer families had lost most under the Prime Minister’s tax and benefit policies. What happened to his promise that this Government would be the most family-friendly ever?
The Prime Minister
The IFS report found that the richest had paid the most to reduce the deficit, so we should be clear about the figures: the richest 20% have paid more to reduce the deficit than the remaining 80%. If the hon. Lady wants to quote the IFS, she might want to remember that it said:
“We’ve had a great big recession. We had the biggest recession we’ve had in 100 years…it will be astonishing if household incomes haven’t fallen and earnings haven’t fallen”.
That is the view of the IFS, and it is right. It also says that the shadow Chancellor’s plans are for an extra £170 billion of borrowing, so if Labour is going to quote the IFS, it should accept its figures for more spending, more borrowing and more debt—all the things that got our country into this mess in the first place.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that Watford GPs were among the first in the country whose practices received money under the Prime Minister’s challenge fund, so that GPs’ surgeries can be open seven days a week from 8 o’clock in the morning till 8 o’clock at night. I would like to commend Dr Mark Semler, who is the mastermind behind this. I hope the Prime Minister agrees that it should be continued and would be absolutely excellent for all GPs’ surgeries in the country.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The challenge fund we have set up has already allowed 4 million people access to a GP surgery seven days a week, from 8 in the morning to 8 in the evening. I am delighted that people are benefiting from this in Watford; I want to see it spread right across the country. It would be an important part of the answer to relieving pressure on our A and E units as well.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Q5. If the Prime Minister will not apologise for the A and E closures, maybe he will have a go at the following subjects. Why is it that we have a record number of people queuing up at food banks? Will he apologise to them? Will he apologise to those who are on payday loans, struggling to pay them back? Will he apologise to those on zero-hours contracts, another record number? The truth is that this Prime Minister has got a longer record than his mate Andy Coulson.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman mentions zero-hours contracts. The Government he supported did nothing about them; we have legislated. He mentions payday lending—an industry that boomed under Labour; regulated properly under this Government. He talks about queues. What about the queue of people who have been getting jobs under this Government—over 1,000 a day?
I have to say, I thought the hon. Gentleman might have taken a different tack today, because if you read the newspapers, you can get quite nostalgic. You’ve got Blairites fighting Brownites; you’ve got Peter Mandelson taking out a great big loan. I thought the hon. Gentleman might get all nostalgic on us; it is just like the old days.
Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)
Q6. Britain’s economic success is making it possible for the northern powerhouse to transform the fortunes of an important part of our country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment in science, such as in the new institute for advanced materials—the Henry Royce institute—supports our top universities and will promote innovation, which will bring back high quality manufacturing jobs to the north of England?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. One of the most important decisions we took while making difficult spending decisions was to maintain the investment into science. We have also improved our universities by making sure they are properly funded. This combination of science and universities is going to be an absolute key to Britain’s future economic success. I am delighted that we have got the £235 million investment into the new Sir Henry Royce Institute for Materials Research and Innovation in Manchester. This is a key part of the northern powerhouse project, which is going to properly rebalance our economy and make sure we see growth and prosperity in every region.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Q7. Absolute poverty up by 300,000, the rise of the working poor and very seriously sick people impoverished while they wait for their benefit—is the Prime Minister proud of this record?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s statistics are simply wrong. I know Labour does not like to hear this, but the fact is that there are 600,000 fewer people in relative poverty than there were at the election and 300,000 fewer children in relative poverty. Inequality is lower than it was at the election and we can now see 1.75 million more of our fellow countrymen and women in work. Behind all those statistics are people who are able to go out, earn a wage, have a pay packet and support their families. I would have thought the Labour party of all parties would want to support that.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Q8. My constituent, Kelly Thomas, has been waiting nearly 15 months for urgent bowel surgery, which, if she lived in England, she could have had in six weeks. NHS Wales refused her treatment on the basis that it is technically available in Wales, although ironically there are no surgeons available to do it. Someone somewhere needs to make a common-sense and humane decision. I hope the Prime Minister can help that happen.
The Prime Minister
I will look at this case. It sounds as if it is a very sad case but, I am afraid, not an isolated case. As the Welsh National Audit Office found, overall, Welsh patients face shorter waits for treatment in England than they do in Wales. That is a fact. What we need is a change of direction in Wales from the Labour Administration: instead of cutting the NHS, they should be investing in the NHS; instead of leaving the bureaucracy in place, they should be taking it out of the NHS. In short, they should be taking a different track, so that we give people a better NHS.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Yesterday, Mr Speaker graciously allowed the all-party parliamentary group on motor neurone disease to use his state apartments for the launch of its report, which demonstrates that people with motor neurone disease are having grave problems accessing the funding available for communication support in England. Some 30% of people with motor neurone disease will die within a year, and 95% will lose their voice. Will the Prime Minister meet the Motor Neurone Disease Association to sort out why these delays are happening in NHS England? Will he agree to fund communication support so that the association can provide it quickly and effectively while the NHS gets its act in order, so that no one dies without being able to communicate their last thoughts to their loved ones?
The Prime Minister
First, let me commend the hon. Lady and others across the House for the work they do on motor neurone disease. Anyone who has known someone who has suffered from that disease—as I have—realises that it is a most appalling, debilitating condition, which is very difficult for families to cope with. I will certainly look at the report the hon. Lady has produced and make sure that the proper meetings are held with the Department of Health, so we do everything we can to support these people and allow them, as she says, to communicate with their families up until the last moment.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Q9. It is now clear that the decision by the last Government to put Hinchingbrooke hospital out to tender, with the last three bids under that Government all being led by the private sector, was deeply flawed and has been a massive failure. Does the Prime Minister accept that this experiment in privatisation has failed and that the future of Hinchingbrooke hospital should be fully within a public NHS?
The Prime Minister
It is important that we make decisions based on what will be best for patients. My view is that there is a role for the independent sector within the NHS, but it has only gone from something like 5% of the total to 6% of the total. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members shouting about privatisation: it was their decision to allow this hospital to be run by the private sector. Frankly, on a day when they are in complete confusion about their health policy, we have the shadow Health Secretary saying he opposes all of this but cannot say what percentage should be in the private sector; we have his deputy saying that they want to see more of the NHS in the private sector; we have the Leader of the Opposition refusing to confirm that his shadow Secretary of State has his full confidence—yet this is meant to be Labour’s great big election-winning idea. What a complete shambles!
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Q10. The Prime Minister, his Chancellor and the entire Conservative party like to talk about their “economic plan”. An independent report published yesterday by a group of academics—[Interruption.] I can wait. The report shows that welfare cuts contributed merely to cutting tax for higher earners and contributed nothing to reducing the deficit. It also shows that families with children under the age of five have been the hardest hit. What future is there for the country with an economic plan that steals from the poor and gives it to the rich?
The Prime Minister
It is the “long-term economic plan”, by the way.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman how things are going in his own constituency. Never mind the academics; let us see what is happening for working people in his constituency. The number of people claiming unemployment benefit is down by 31%, the youth claimant count is down by 34%, and the long-term youth claimant count is down by 57% in the last year alone. If we look across London, we can see 470,000 more people in work, and more than half a million private sector jobs have been created.
What I want to know is this: when did the Labour party become the welfare party? When did that happen? It is Members on this side of the House who are standing up for hard-working people, and who are on the side of work and on the side of enterprise, reforming work and, yes, reforming welfare to make that happen.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
Q15. As part of the Prime Minister’s long-term economic plan to rebalance the British economy, will he continue to support Britain’s coastal communities, such as Fleetwood in Lancashire, to make up for 13 years of neglect by the last Labour Government?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of investing in our coastal communities, and that is what we have done through our coastal communities fund. So far more than 200 projects have benefited, creating or safeguarding more than 16,000 jobs. I know that Fleetwood received a boost from the fund last year, when Wyre council was given a grant to develop new tourist attractions, but I want to see more happen to help my hon. Friend’s constituents and to help our coastal communities, of which Fleetwood is such an important part.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Q11. The Prime Minister will be aware of the remarkable work that is being done on the Clyde and at Rosyth dockyard to build the country’s new aircraft carriers, but, just as our country needs a new generation of aircraft carriers, Scotland needs a new generation of young skilled workers. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that he will use the procurement power of the Ministry of Defence to deliver real apprenticeship opportunities to young Scots?
The Prime Minister
Of course we will do that. Those who visit the aircraft carriers being built on the Clyde will see that an enormous amount is being invested in apprenticeship numbers, and that that investment is of huge benefit. Moreover, the carriers have not just benefited Scottish apprenticeships, because they have been built, in part, all over the United Kingdom. Let me also make this point: we can only afford to make these decisions because we have a long-term economic plan and a strong economy.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Q12. I know that I do not need to remind the House that 453 members of our armed forces lost their lives in Afghanistan, and that many more were wounded, some seriously. Although we have brought home most of our troops, the 400 men and women of 2nd Battalion The Rifles are still serving in Kabul with great distinction in support of Government forces. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that we recognised the efforts of all who served in that war with a commemorative event?
The Prime Minister
I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
All British combat troops had left Afghanistan by the end of last year, fulfilling the commitment that I made nearly five years ago. On Monday my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary welcomed to Parliament the final homecoming parade of our combat troops who had been deployed in Afghanistan, and I am pleased to announce today that on 13 March we will hold a special service of commemoration in St Paul’s cathedral and a military parade to mark the end of combat operations in Afghanistan.
I believe that this is a fitting moment at which to pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution made by our armed forces in Afghanistan over 13 years. During that time, 453 lost their lives, and many more were injured. Their mission has helped to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base from which to launch attacks on us here at home, and they have enabled Afghanistan to begin the task of looking after its own security in the years ahead. The whole House—indeed, the whole country—is right to be incredibly proud of our armed forces, and of all those who served in Afghanistan.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Has the Prime Minister had a chance to place a call to Alexis Tsipras, the new Prime Minister of Greece, in order to congratulate him on winning the election, and also to learn from him why the people of Greece have finally said no to the imposition of the most appalling austerity, the destruction of their public services, high levels of unemployment, and deepening poverty? Will the Prime Minister use his good offices in the European Union to ensure that they are given the debt write-off they are so desperately seeking, so that Greece can be restored to the prosperity it deserves to enjoy?
The Prime Minister
I have had the privilege of speaking to the new Greek Prime Minister; indeed, I asked him what his long-term economic plan was. What I think is absolutely key to recognise is that over the last four years we have seen the British deficit come down, and we have seen jobs created and the economy bigger than it was before the crash, whereas in Greece they have had repeated economic failures, and we can hardly blame them for wanting to take a different approach. I hope good sense will prevail on all sides, and, as I said to the Greek Prime Minister, there are other areas where we can work together, not least because Britain has led the world on tax transparency and making sure companies pay the taxes that they should—something that needs to happen in Greece as well as in the rest of the European Union.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Q13. General practitioner recruitment is a problem nationally but particularly for rural practices. Many GP practices on both sides of the England-Wales border serve patients from both nations. What can the Government in Westminster do, through working constructively with the Welsh Government, to promote training and recruitment of GPs so these practices remain viable and sustainable?
The Prime Minister
One of the things we can do is share ideas with the Welsh Assembly Government. One thing we are pioneering here is making sure newly qualified doctors are offered special payments if they become GPs, and this is part of a £10 million plan we have to recruit even more. In England we have 1,000 more GPs working than we did back in 2010, and I hope the NHS in Wales will, while it is underfunded by the Labour Government in Wales, look at creative ideas like this.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
StepChange has reported today that the average debt of Bolton residents is £11,000. Does this not show that my constituents are suffering because of the Prime Minister’s failure to deal with the cost of living crisis?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady’s constituents are benefiting from the fact that the economy is growing, our deficit is coming down and we are creating jobs, but we are dealing with the debt crisis which her Government put in place in our country. That is what is happening, but every day, the British economy and the British country is getting stronger; every day, the Labour party is getting weaker.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Q14. New figures show that, as a result of the focus on earlier diagnosis, increased access to treatments and the latest medicines, 12,000 more patients every year are now predicted to survive their cancer than just five years ago. Does the Prime Minister agree that while this is very encouraging, there is a long way to go and we have to maintain our focus on fighting cancer?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we see in our country is a 50% increase in cancer referrals, which means we are identifying cancers earlier and treating them better, and we also have the Cancer Drugs Fund, which has helped 60,000 patients. We need to go on with these improvements, but we will only be able to do that if we have a strong economy backing our strong NHS.
NHS Major Incidents
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on what guidance has been issued by NHS England on declaring a major incident.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
As you know, Mr Speaker, I am always happy to come to the House to discuss the NHS, but today we have been brought here to discuss a local operational issue that, regrettably, the Opposition have tried to spin as part of their policy to “weaponise the NHS.”
As I said to the House earlier this month, a major incident is part of the established escalation process for the NHS, and has been since 2005. It enables trusts to deal with significant demands, putting in place a command and control structure to allow them to bring in additional staff and increase capacity. It is a temporary measure taken to ensure that the most urgent and serious cases get the safe, high-quality care they need.
The decision to declare a major incident is taken locally, and there is no national definition. We must trust the managers and clinicians in our local NHS to make these decisions and support them in doing so by ensuring that there is sufficient financial support available to help them to deal with additional pressures. The document that has been questioned this morning by the Opposition Health spokesman was issued by the local NHS in the west midlands. That was done to help its clinical commissioning groups to work with local NHS organisations to deal with the unprecedented pressures they have been facing this winter. The chief operating officer of NHS England, Dame Barbara Hakin, has said this morning that this was a local decision and neither the responsibility of Ministers nor the result of pressure by Ministers.
Let me finish by praising the NHS for coping well with the unprecedented pressures. Performance against the A and E standard improved to 92.4% last week, which is testament to hard-working staff, and this Government will support them, not try to turn their efforts into a political football.
Andy Burnham
In the first week of January, at least 14 trusts across England declared major incidents, including three in the west midlands. Official figures show that pressure continued into the second and third weeks of January, with only seven A and Es out of 140 meeting the Government’s target. There were ambulance diverts, and even an A and E closure, but no further major incidents were declared. On 7 January, when the Health Secretary was called to the House to answer an urgent question, he said:
“The decision to declare a major incident is taken locally—there is no national definition”—[Official Report, 7 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 273.]
He has just repeated that now, and called this a “local operational issue”, but that does not appear to be entirely accurate. Let me quote from the guidance that was sent in the middle of January. It is headed “NHS England” and it states:
“Major incidents should be agreed with…the Director on call for NHS England”.
Will the Secretary of State now withdraw his earlier statement to the House and confirm that this decision is not purely local, in that it has to be approved by NHS England?
Let me turn to the impact that this has had on trusts. There are 17 enhanced criteria set out, including requirements that may cause serious time delays for trusts in an emergency. For instance, there is a requirement on the on-call CCG manager to visit the trust and undertake a review. Let me tell the Secretary of State how those new rules were perceived by senior managers. I shall quote from an e-mail sent by the head of operations at one trust, who said that the requirement had been
“introduced by NHS England to effectively stop trusts from calling a major incident…Our hands will be tied in most cases if they wish to call a major incident for capacity reasons”.
Is the Secretary of State confident that the new enhanced criteria are not unduly burdensome and will not cause unnecessary delays for a trust in an emergency situation? Is he satisfied that this guidance is consistent with good practice at national level and safe to be left in place?
The Secretary of State has used the word “local” many times today, and spoken of the only consideration being relieving pressure on hospitals facing severe demand. However, his claim that this matter is purely local is called into serious question right now by this 86-page document headed “NHS England”—[Interruption.] He says it is from the local team, but this is a regional function of the national body, NHS England. The local claim will not wash, I am afraid.
I will tell the Secretary of State what the guidance tells trusts to take into account. He says that it concerns only operational matters, but section 7.2.3 is headed “Politics”, and subsection (a) asks:
“Is there increasing involvement of senior command and control tiers, political involvement or excessive media coverage?”
Subsection (c) asks:
“Is there a risk of reputational damage?”
Does not this muddy the waters hugely? Will it not distract doctors whose sole focus should be on the emergency situation, and not on media and political considerations that should form no part of their judgment? If the Secretary of State agrees with me on that, will he today instruct NHS England to withdraw this guidance and issue more appropriate instructions to the NHS in the region? The NHS remains under serious pressure, and it needs the clearest of instructions based on what is best for patients. Will he act today, so as to leave the NHS in no doubt that that must be its paramount and only concern at all times?
Mr Hunt
In the right hon. Gentleman’s desperate desire to weaponise the NHS, I am afraid that Labour has sunk to new depths today. He said in the media this morning that the Government had put news management over patient safety. That is ironic coming from him, given that so many officials testified to Francis about the pressure they were put under not to come out with bad news when he was Health Secretary. Even the head of the Care Quality Commission was roasted because she wanted to publish details of the problems that were happening in the NHS under Labour and he did not want that to happen when he was Health Secretary. That news management stopped the moment he walked out the door, and those days are over.
As confirmed by NHS England this morning, this was an operational decision; it was nothing to do with Ministers. This was the local NHS doing its best to get good guidelines out in a tough winter. [Interruption.] It is a local decision. The right hon. Gentleman is the man who talks—he did not deliver this in office—a lot about integration. It is absolutely right that a local hospital should talk to the rest of the local NHS to check about the impact of any decision it makes on major incidents, to make sure that patients are treated safely—is he now saying to this House that local hospitals should not talk to the rest of the NHS? That is what these guidelines say. This was a period when we had 16 major incidents, but that number has gone right down because performance on accident and emergency is significantly—[Interruption.] This is the underlying point, because the reason we have fewer major incidents is that A and E performance has got better. This is the week when we discovered that public satisfaction with the NHS jumped five points last year. This is the week when NHS unions have put patients first by suspending their strike, and Labour focuses not on patients, but on politics. On patients, he did not want to talk about the Welsh ambulance service publishing its worst ever figures, although the Labour leader says that we should be looking at what is going on in Wales.
Let us be clear: where Labour runs the NHS we have double the number of people waiting at A and E; double the number of people waiting too long for ambulances; and 10 times the number of people waiting for their operations. We have seen Labour today in Wales and Labour before covering up around Mid Staffs, ignoring patients and weaponising the NHS for political advantage—has the right hon. Gentleman not proved today that Labour is still not fit to run the NHS?
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Our hard-working NHS staff and, more importantly, patients need to have absolute confidence that the Secretary of State will never lean on operational decision making in these circumstances and will always allow that decision making to take place at the appropriate local level, backed, if necessary, by national guidance.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that. It is why many people in the NHS will be so astonished to hear the shadow Secretary of State, who presided over a culture where precisely that kind of leaning from on high happened, making it difficult for people to make those local operational decisions in the interests of patients, now trying to make a political point. This was a local decision and it was confirmed today that Ministers had no involvement in it, and Labour should stop trying to score political points.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
This Government caused confusion about decision making and accountability because of their reckless and expensive restructuring of the NHS. Now, to achieve what the Secretary of State wants to achieve, he has to resort to the sorts of measures we are discussing. We have had two major incidents declared in local hospitals in Salford in one week recently, and I have great concerns that this sort of guidance means that it is harder for clinicians to take the steps necessary to resolve the A and E crisis. They should not have to think about the issues listed in this document: politics and whether there is a risk of reputational damage. I do not want Salford Royal hospital and the Royal Bolton hospital thinking, “We can’t do this because of reputational damage.” This should be done entirely on the basis of clinicians’ reasoning.
Mr Hunt
That advice was issued in the west midlands, and not in Salford. The hon. Lady talked about the reorganisation. Well, that reorganisation means that we have been able to afford 82 more hospital doctors and 589 more nurses in her area, which is helping her constituents. Salford is one of the best examples of integrated care in the country, which is why any hospital declaring a major incident should think about the impact on the rest of the NHS locally. That is what the guidance says.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State is a very honourable gentleman, but he might live to regret this political football stuff. In north Northamptonshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and I are working together on local decisions about our A and E. Surely that, and not political football, is the way forward.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have spoken to the chief executive of Northamptonshire county council and I have heard about the excellent integration of services that is now starting to happen between the local authority and the local hospital. That is the way forward. The guidance simply says that trusts must pay attention to the impact on the local health economy before they make a local decision. It is time that Labour stopped playing politics with something that they know is a disgrace.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the new guidance with its 17 criteria, to which my right hon. Friend referred, will not have the effect of making it less likely that NHS hospital trusts in the west midlands or in my region declare an emergency plan?
Mr Hunt
Declaring a major incident is the decision of the local hospital trusts, and that is right. But it is important that, before they make that decision, they should take proper account of the impact on the rest of the local health economy. That is what every responsible hospital wants to happen, and that applies to the hon. Gentleman’s area as well as everywhere else.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Following the declaration of a major incident at the accident and emergency unit of Colchester hospital, we now await the Care Quality Commission report into that incident, which will be published very shortly. We want the report to tell the truth, but it is harder to tell the truth in a political atmosphere where there are people who want to gloat over these challenges to get votes.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have spoken to the chief executive of the hospital, and I must say that she and her staff are doing a good job in turning around a very difficult situation. What they want is support. We have issued sensible guidance that tells hospitals that if they declare a major incident, they must take account of the impact on the rest of their local health economy. A responsible Opposition would support such guidance, and not to try to turn it into a political football.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Manor hospital had to declare a major incident due to inordinate pressure from the closure of Stafford A and E. That is not a local issue, but a national one. When will the Secretary of State provide the hospital with the extra money to absorb the closure of Stafford A and E?
Mr Hunt
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have provided a huge amount of extra money to deal with the problems in the wake of what happened at the former Mid Staffs Trust. We are continuing to give every support we can to Walsall and Stoke and other trusts. We have more doctors and more nurses and major changes are happening. The problem in Mid Staffs went on for four long years, and we do not want to wait that time before sorting out the problems.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Clearly, patient safety must be paramount. We must ensure that any guidance supports the ambition that exists on both sides of this House for a more integrated system that takes into account the capacity across the whole service. Does the Secretary of State agree that what we also need is clarity and certainty over how the NHS and social care will be funded over the life of the next Parliament so that we realise the ambition and potential of the Care Act 2014 and we deliver Simon Stevens’s NHS plan?
Mr Hunt
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure, too, that he will agree with me that the best way to give the NHS certainty over funding in the future and the increase in funding that it needs to implement the five-year forward view is a strong economy, and it is only this Government who are able to deliver that.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
According to some statistics, I have more medics per square mile in my constituency than any other MP. I also have the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust on my patch and a lot of people who work across the west midlands and in Birmingham. The Secretary of State’s operational guidance, as he has interpreted it, is not perceived in the way that he thinks it is. A and E consultants tell me that they are not just overworked and overstretched, but unsafe. If he thinks the guidance is purely operational without any political interference, will he follow the call of the shadow Secretary of State and say that he will issue a new set of guidance that makes that clear, because it is not how it is seen on the ground?
Mr Hunt
I have great respect for the hon. Lady, so I hope she will understand this: when people are worried about political influence over operational guidance, I do not then issue some political guidance. The only thing that I, as Health Secretary, say in respect of instructions going out is that patient safety must always be the priority, and that is what I have said time after time. But then the actual decision about whether to declare a major incident must be taken by people locally. Julie Moore, the chief executive of UHB, is fantastic and absolutely able to make those decisions, and those decisions should not be second-guessed by politicians.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is really important to let NHS England’s local teams—in our case the Devon and Cornwall area team—make decisions with local leaders of hospitals? So many people in the north of Cornwall live closer to Derriford in Devon than they do to Treliske in my constituency. It is only right that NHS England staff closest to the clinicians make those decisions.
Mr Hunt
That is absolutely right, but Members on the two sides of the House hold different views. We believe in devolving power locally and we want local decision-making. We accept that that might mean that sometimes services are slightly different in one part of the country compared with another, but the benefit is that we do get that local knowledge. In the past few weeks, I have spoken to South Western ambulance service, which had particular pressures over Christmas, to ask whether there is anything we can do from the centre. What I want to ensure is that the decisions that keep my hon. Friend’s constituents safe are made locally, because they are likely to be better than any that I could make in Whitehall.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is very reassuring when he says that, under him, the NHS is free from political news management. If that is the case, why does he not free it from the constraints of election purdah, and allow these officials to get on with their jobs without having to second-guess the consequences of some of the decisions?
Mr Hunt
We are not in election purdah. The point is that during election purdah we will continue to publish the weekly A and E performances and other figures from the Office for National Statistics, and that has always been the system. But there is a difference between what is happening in the run-up to this election and what happened in the run-up to the previous election. This time, the CQC is free to speak up, without fear or favour, about the quality of care in every single hospital in this country, and it will continue to do so.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State visited the George Eliot hospital on Monday. The Leader of the Opposition praised the hospital for its progress under this Government. If we consider that, and then look at the way the Opposition come to this House and make political point scoring their No. 1 aim, we can see not only that they are hypocritical but that they want to put politics before patients.
Mr Hunt
I commend my hon. Friend for the support he gives to his local hospital. I visited it and did part of a shift in the A and E department. This was a hospital that, under the previous Government, had one of the highest mortality rates in the country. We introduced a new special measures regime and independent inspections. Labour tried to vote them down, but the result is that that hospital has come out of special measures, forged a strong new partnership with UHB and gone from strength to strength. Things are getting better because we are being honest about poor care, and did not sweep it under the carpet.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
The Manor hospital in Walsall was one of the very first in the west midlands to have to declare a major incident—a level 4 incident. I visited the hospital and saw the number of people on trolleys waiting for more than four hours. I want to pay tribute to the dedicated staff at the hospital—medical and non-medical—for all that was done. But the Secretary of State should not minimise the situation that has occurred. He should recognise that it is a matter not of playing politics but of genuine concern for our constituents.
Mr Hunt
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He should be reassured that because of those real pressures, which I would never seek to minimise, we put in an extra £4.5 million of funding to his local area, paying for more doctors, more nurses, more community staff and more beds. As he says, we should congratulate the staff in that hospital on their work, and also recognise that, despite those pressures, they have made real progress in improving the quality of compassionate care for the patients in that hospital. They have been very well led by the chief executive, whom I have also met.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Last week, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) came to Harlow and attempted to weaponise the local NHS and scare local residents. A day later an interview was published in which she said that she supported privatisation in the NHS. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to help the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow deal with major incidents is to do what the Government are doing, with £5 million extra last year for our A and E, and £4 million extra to help the NHS this year?
Mr Hunt
Indeed, across the country we have put in £700 million, which has paid for 6,400 additional beds in the system. All that is possible because we have a strong economy and we can put extra funding into the NHS. What those people in my hon. Friend’s hospital want most of all is support from Members in all parts of the House, and not to see their efforts turned into a political football.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that Calderdale and Huddersfield trust was, until 2010, one of the most successful trusts in the country? I have a letter embargoed, ironically until 1 pm today, telling me of serious financial problems—not a major incident—caused by the reforms that his Government have introduced in the NHS. I remind him that it is my job as a member of the Opposition to weaponise—to use as a weapon—the disgraceful policies that his Government have introduced that are destabilising and destroying the national health service in my town and constituency, and up and down the country. I am a member of the Opposition, I will use this as a political weapon, and I will do so until the election, which we will win.
Mr Hunt
I am afraid that the trouble is that there are just too many people on the Labour side who think exactly like that. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman go and talk to people working in Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust and ask them whether they want him to use the NHS as a political weapon in that way. They have improved their performance over the past few years and are seeing more people within four hours—every year, 4,000 more people within four hours than when Labour was in office—and MRSA cases are down. There are 79 fewer clostridium difficile cases; 525 more people are treated for cancer every year; and there are 6,200 more operations every year. Those are real improvements making a real difference to his constituents. He should celebrate them, not try to run them down.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
East Surrey hospital, which is the A and E department that covers my constituency, not least because Labour closed Crawley hospital’s A and E in 2005, has not had a major incident. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that major incidents have decreased because of the extra investment that he has put into the NHS, in stark contrast to Labour-controlled Wales, which has cut the budget?
Mr Hunt
I have been to East Surrey hospital, which is a good example. It, too, has had its share of problems with care, but it has addressed them head on. Standards in the hospital are getting better, and it is encouraging to see that refreshing openness and honesty. We have put more investment into the NHS. Welsh patients are angry, because they can see that openness and transparency about results, combined with strong financial support, not cuts from central Government, lead to better service. Rather than try to create a political weapon in England, Labour should act where they can do something about it—in Wales.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I was recently told by staff in Aintree hospital on Merseyside that, in the interests of patients and patient safety, executives should have declared a major incident. Although the execs teetered on the brink, they feared the political consequences of making that decision rather than doing the right thing. What genuine help and advice can the Secretary of State give execs who face that situation on the front line and help them to do the right thing for patients?
Mr Hunt
If executives did not declare a major incident because they were worried about the political consequences, they were wrong, but I would have to be persuaded that they would do that, because every NHS executive I speak to wants to put patients first, with patient safety paramount. On the practical things that we are doing, there are 60 more doctors, and 41 more nurses since 2010, and £4.5 million to help them through this winter. We are doing a lot of practical things to help the NHS in the hon. Lady’s area through the winter.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Many major incidents have their roots in things that happened some time ago. Blackburn’s A and E department has been struggling to cope with demand since Burnley’s A and E department was downgraded under Labour in 2007—a decision that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) defended several times in the House, including on 19 November 2009, when he said:
“‘This is saving lives; I will stand by it’”.—[Official Report, 19 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 236.]
On behalf of the residents of Pendle, I urge the Secretary of State to take no lessons from Labour on the management of our NHS.
Mr Hunt
That is it, and that is why it is not working for the Opposition politically when they try to put the NHS centre stage. They can see people who downgraded or closed 12 A and E departments across the country during their time in office now coming to Prime Minister’s questions and trying to criticise this Government when similar things have happened. The answer on all these occasions is to put patients first, do the right thing for patients, be honest about the problems and sort them out, and that is what the Government are doing.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The hard-working and dedicated staff at Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust, at King George hospital in my constituency and Queen’s hospital in Romford, know, because their trust is in special measures, that there has been a lot of reputational damage. On 5 January, elective operations were cancelled—in my personal case, at two hours’ notice; I was not the only constituent who had to go through that—because of A and E pressures in the trust. Can the Secretary of State explain whether hospitals in special measures have a special requirement so that they do not need to declare that they are in the position of hospitals that have made the decision to say that there is a major incident, or is it just coincidental that although operations were cancelled on a large scale on 5 January no major incident was declared at Barking, Havering and Redbridge?
Mr Hunt
I can confirm that there is no difference in any guidelines issued for hospitals in special measures and for hospitals not in special measures. This is a good example of a trust with deep, pronounced problems over many years. There was a terrible tragedy in 2007, I think, when someone gave birth sitting on a toilet seat. This Government have said that we are going to tackle those problems and put the trust into special measures. It has more doctors and nurses: 230 more hospital nurses in the past four years in that trust. We are making a real difference—we have a new management team—and I think that things are beginning to get better in that trust in a way that has not been the case for many years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State called on the Secretary of State to intervene to stop political interference in the NHS. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ignore such siren voices and rely instead on local doctors and local health professionals to make the best choices for our local NHS?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend eloquently points out the great irony in what we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench. We do not want an NHS in which every single operational decision is made from behind the Secretary of State’s desk. We want to trust people on the ground. Why do we want to do that?
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
Do we have sufficient measures, short of declaring a major incident, to help to relieve hospitals such as Medway, where there has been an ongoing problem of excessive waiting times at A and E?
Mr Hunt
Yes, we have other measures in place. At every stage, trusts should do what is right for patients. Sometimes they declare an internal major incident, sometimes it is an external major incident, but what is important is that they take account of the impact on the rest of the local health economy. At Medway hospital, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, things are getting better. It has been through a difficult period. We have been honest about the problems, we have given it a lot of external support, and I hope that the news will continue to get better.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
As we know, one cap does not fit all. That applies to the NHS as much as to anything else. In Dorset the clinical commissioning group is reviewing health services and looking for local solutions to local problems. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the long-term solution for the NHS, rather than politicians sticking their noses in where, frankly, they should not be?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely agree with that. What I will not do is go round the media and say that the problems that the NHS is facing in Dorset, as it faces everywhere, are due to the fact that the area is very rural, which is the excuse that we heard over the weekend from the shadow Health Secretary for the poor performance of the NHS in Wales. We want local solutions and the highest possible standards—what we can do is give guidance and funding from the centre and make sure that patients are always put first.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
In his attempt to gag hospitals over the growing accident and emergency crisis, the Secretary of State has sanctioned guidance that “we must avoid reputational damage”. Whose reputation? His reputation? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that his reputation on the national health service is damaged beyond repair?
Mr Hunt
I will take no lessons in stamping out news stories on poor care because I am worried about the impact on reputation. That is what happened when the shadow Health Secretary was behind my desk, and it was totally unacceptable. That is why we had a clutch of hospitals where poor care was swept under the carpet year in, year out because a Labour Government did not want bad news to come out in the run-up to an election. It was a disgrace and this Government are putting it right.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Two weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State about a comment that had been made to me by a senior clinician in Hull that the trust in Hull at Hull royal infirmary had been on internal major incidents on and off since December. The Secretary of State told me that that was not really an issue and that it was down to the trust, but the documents that have been produced today show that the real reason is that it is politically much more expedient to have an internal incident than to declare one externally and get all the bad publicity and reputational risk mentioned in the document to which my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referred to. That is the case, is it not?
Mr Hunt
Let me make two points to the hon. Lady. When I talk to the House about the number of major incidents, we make no distinction between internal and external incidents. We talk about them all as major incidents. There is no benefit, if one looks at it in that way, to Ministers from it being either an internal or an external incident. What matters is the right thing for patients. Rather than trying to politicise the issue and turning it into a political football, the Opposition should listen to Dame Barbara Hakin, chief operating officer of the NHS, who said clearly today that the decision was nothing to do with Ministers, they did not know about it and it was not taken at the request of Ministers. Labour should concentrate on supporting the NHS where it could do with its help—in Wales today.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State singularly failed to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) when he asked whether it would be more or less likely that a major incident would be declared as a result of the new guidance. Clearly, if it is less likely, that is bound to have an impact on patient safety. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether this issue was raised in his meeting with NHS England on Monday?
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State explain why in the incident response plan from NHS England there is an entire paragraph headed “Politics” under the principles for considering an escalation response? In the House on 7 January he said:
“The decision to declare a major incident is taken locally—there is no national definition”—[Official Report, 7 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 273.]
However, the guidance issued in the middle of January says that major incidents
“should be agreed...with the Director on call for NHS England”.
If it is not political, the Secretary of State owes the House an explanation of NHS England’s involvement and the meaning of that paragraph.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman has quoted selectively; he has not quoted the whole guidance. If he looks at the whole guidance, he will see that it clearly states that a responsible trust, before it declares a major incident, which is its decision, must make sure that there is not going to be a negative impact on the rest of the economy, because patients must always come first. He is also not saying what Dame Barbara Hakin said this morning —that none of this guidance was anything to do with Ministers.
Points of Order
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), visited my constituency. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Health for having the courtesy to inform my office about his visit, in line with parliamentary protocol. However, this is far from the position that the Leader of the Opposition seems to take, as it is his second visit to Nuneaton in this Parliament. On both occasions he has failed to notify the sitting Member of Parliament of his visit. Given the social media response to the Leader of the Opposition’s visit, I would welcome him to my constituency as many times as he can get there between now and 7 May, but—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The nub of the matter is not to make some sort of political point. The nub of the matter is that he is complaining that the protocol has not been observed. If the protocol has not been observed, it should be. If it has been, well and good. That is the end of it.
Clive Efford
(Eltham) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Members have visited my constituency and have not told me they were coming, but I have never been petty enough to bring the matter to the Floor of the House.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly in order for the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) to raise a point of order, but it is much better if Members can resolve these matters among themselves, rather than taking up the valuable time of the House.
Private Rented Sector (Decent Homes Standard)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require private landlords to ensure that any property they let meets the requirements of the Decent Homes Standard; and for connected purposes.
This Bill aims to expect all landlords to comply with the decent homes standard, which we already demand of council-owned and housing association properties. I find it strange that we demand high standards for those properties owned by local authorities and housing associations, yet we do not have the same standards for the homes that families rent from private landlords. Why the difference? We cannot continue distinguishing between tenure, ownership or lobby when setting the standards that we expect of the homes in which our families, our pensioners, our friends and family live.
Why would we discriminate against some tenants merely on the basis of who owns that property, not who lives in that property? The requirements of the decent homes standard are not particularly onerous nor unreasonable. They are standards of decency. Properties must meet the current statutory minimum safety standard for housing. That is not exactly revolutionary. Properties must be in a reasonable state of repair. Is that an unreasonable expectation, particularly when the properties are occupied by families on low income, who lack the ability or finance to do their own repairs?
Properties must have reasonably modern facilities and services. In some of the properties that I go into in my constituency, I am shocked to see that there are no cookers, only microwaves. That captures those families into having to buy expensive food, with a lack of choice and lack of resilience. We should not allow families to have to live with such facilities in private rented properties, when in many cases we, as the community and society, pay those landlords to house those tenants.
Properties must provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort—that is, efficient heating and effective insulation. Why should those who rent privately have any different level of comfort or, more importantly, have to pay double what council tenants pay for the same level of heat? It is a perverse situation that we set up elaborate Government schemes to get better energy efficiency when improvements to the standard of the housing itself would help those in greater fuel poverty. It is not the people who leak energy; it is homes that are badly insulated.
I represent one of the poorest wards in the United Kingdom and I am passionate about housing as it is at the heart of many of the problems faced by my community. In one ward, 84% of accommodation is privately rented, which creates fundamental challenges. There are some good landlords and some bad landlords. Some make 14% return on their investment year on year off the back of housing benefit, and do not reinvest that into the properties. I am sure that many hon. Members have experienced properties where deprivation can be smelled before they get to the door. There is the smell of damp and the common parts show that the properties are not of a standard that we would consider fit to live in. There is a lack of proper ventilation and of care and attention, and they are unsafe for children or the elderly.
Do we not think that everyone deserves a place of security that can be called home, even temporarily? Draughts can be felt driving through flats that are impossible to heat due to rotten windows. There is mould in the kitchens and wallpaper coming off the walls. These are unfit properties and they create a much greater turnover of tenants, undermining community cohesion, disrupting children’s education, breaking links with support services that are so important to many families, and eroding any sense of permanency that would allow families to put down roots.
Furthermore, some of my elderly constituents find some landlords intimidating and will not make a case for repairs or better insulation. I am sure that many hon. Members have made representations on behalf of such people to landlords, if they can be found. Even councils are confused about the standards needed, with some landlords happy to test enforcement standards in court, and often playing what I call legal chicken with the council. Why are we putting up with all this displacement activity to try to establish decent homes for decent people when a clear standard would create a much more transparent and fair set of expectations on all sides?
The housing crisis is a staple part of today’s political lexicon, but it is crucial to remember and to highlight that the housing crisis that we face is, for many, a qualitative one as well as a quantitative one. It is now time to start setting the standard for the tenant rather than on the basis of ownership. Let us look at the quality as well as the quantity of our nation’s housing, because all families, wherever they live, under whatever tenure, deserve decent homes.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Laura Sandys, Dr Julian Huppert, Mr Mark Prisk, Mr Stewart Jackson, Mr Andrew Love, Mark Pawsey, Bob Blackman, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Caroline Lucas and Stephen Gilbert present the Bill.
Laura Sandys accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed (Bill 164).
Opposition Day
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS (Government Spending)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House notes comments from leading doctors and nurses that the NHS is in crisis under this Government, which has wasted £3 billion on a reckless reorganisation; believes an extra £2.5 billion a year should be invested in the health service, including to fund an additional 20,000 nurses and 8,000 GPs, by raising additional revenue from closing tax loopholes, a levy on tobacco companies and a tax on properties worth over £2 million; further notes that the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the Government’s spending plans in the Autumn Statement would return public spending to a share of national income last seen in the late 1930s, before there was an NHS, and a level which is incompatible with the Government’s claims to be able to protect the NHS; recognises that only four OECD countries have total government expenditure at 35 per cent or less of GDP and that all of these countries have significantly higher charging as a share of overall national health spending than in the UK; and calls on the Government to reconsider the plans set out in the Autumn Statement for even deeper spending cuts, which the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said could involve a fundamental reimagining of the role of the state.
We have discussed already today some of the issues facing the NHS, but when will the Government realise that our health service faces such unprecedented pressures that it is in intensive care and in need of urgent attention if we are to avoid reaching the point of no return?
I want at the outset to set the context for this debate, because it is important that we look at this Administration’s record so far. We know that the numbers of people waiting for more than four hours in the accident and emergency departments of our hospitals throughout the country have grown and grown, but in 2014 almost 1.25 million people waited for longer than four hours. It is true that the number of people going to A and E has been increasing: in the last four years of the last Government, it was rising by about 60,000 a year, but in the last four years it has gone up by 600,000 a year. This is a rapid escalation in the level of strain on our NHS infrastructure, which has a series of causes that fall at the Government’s door.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
It gets worse. At University hospital in Coventry, we are now back to the bed-blocking of previous Tory Governments as a result of cuts to local government funding for social workers, which means that people cannot be discharged. That is back to the future, as it were.
Chris Leslie
The accident and emergency situation is a barometer of a series of failures across the health and social care infrastructure. I shall certainly deal with some of those questions, as will my hon. Friends.
Chris Leslie
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. My hon. Friend talked about Coventry; last Friday in my constituency in Nottingham I attended a summit with health chief executives, the local authority and others. At the A and E department at Queen’s medical centre more than one in four patients waited for more than four hours in the first few weeks in January—a totally unacceptable situation. This is not something that affects only my constituency; it affects those of all my hon. Friends, and probably even that of the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I will be happy to give way.
Mr Burns
I read the motion carefully. It is about the NHS and spending on it, as the hon. Gentleman has illustrated in his remarks so far. Will he explain something that puzzles me? I know that the shadow Secretary of State’s interview with Kirsty Wark on “Newsnight” last night was a car crash, but why is he not opening this debate? He has never been reticent in the past in coming forward to try to weaponise the NHS. Is it because his leader has wrapped him up in cotton wool to keep him away from the public gaze?
Chris Leslie
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues there. He has plenty to puzzle over, and he will always be a puzzled individual. The bigger question is where is the Secretary of State for Health when we are talking about these particular issues? [Hon. Members: “There!”] There he is. He is so anonymous he just did not make any impact on me whatever. I am delighted that he has walked in. He is quite unforgettable, isn’t he?
The NHS has experienced problems not just in accident and emergency departments, as has been said, but across a series of services: missed cancer treatment targets for three successive quarters—15,000 people having to wait longer than the recommended 62 days to start their cancer treatment in the past year. It has not always been like this.
Chris Leslie
The Government inherited a situation in which 98% of patients were seen in accident and emergency departments within four hours. While one in four patients is now waiting a week to see their GP, when Labour left office the vast majority were seen within 48 hours. In January, we know that 14 NHS trusts declared major incident status. [Interruption.] The urgent question today did not really provide the opportunity to clarify the exact words in the NHS England document, so I want to take this opportunity to do so on behalf of my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Speaker
Order. Members shouting, and then expecting to intervene, do not display great wisdom. The hon. Gentleman can probably do better, and he should certainly try to do so, within the limits of his capacity.
Chris Leslie
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.
In urgent questions, there is obviously a time limit on our ability to read out quotes from NHS England documents, but there is no such time limit in an Opposition day debate, so let us take the opportunity to spell something out clearly for the record. The Secretary of State is here now. I apologise for not noticing him as he came into the Chamber, but he is here now, and that is good, because I can hold this document up and show it to him—it says “NHS England” on the front. He is nodding; he has accepted that point. I turn to page 21, where in paragraph 7.2.3, under the heading—[Interruption.] Government Members want to shout me down. If the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), is patient I will read out the full quote from the NHS England document. It refers to principles for considering escalation and the responses to be had. Paragraph 7.2.3, under the heading “Politics”, says:
“(a) Is there increasing involvement of senior command and control tiers, political involvement or excessive media coverage?
(b) Is there a requirement to bolster or assure public confidence?
(c) Is there a risk of reputational damage?”
I do not understand why an NHS document contains those exact words. The Secretary of State can probably read them from there, across the Table—he is nodding again. Yet only a few minutes ago he denied that NHS England had such a document. What am I holding up—a mythical piece of paper? We can now at least establish that NHS England has been issuing documents suggesting that reputational damage and politics need to be taken into account when preventing major incidents. We have now at least had the opportunity to read into the record, as Hansard will reflect, the full text of that NHS England document.
This is the set of situations and circumstances that the NHS faces: pressures on A and E departments, pressures on cancer treatment, and pressures on the major incidents as we have seen. Why are things in such a fragile and critical state? The Government took £3 billion out of elderly social care and wasted it on a £3 billion reorganisation of the NHS that nobody voted for and nobody wanted. They are cutting corners and rushing the care that is needed to help the frail elderly to stay out of hospital. What greater example of a false economy could there be?
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Given the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the adult social care budget and the Opposition’s complaints about the money that has been taken from local authorities, will he commit to giving the money that he says has been taken from local authorities back to them in the next Parliament, should we have the misfortune to have a Labour Government?
Chris Leslie
That was a very helpful intervention. I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has only a number of months to go in his current job. We have explained how we can hire a further 5,000 home care workers, a further 3,000 midwives, a further 20,000 nurses and a further 8,000 GPs through the time to care fund—the £2.5 billion a year that is fully costed and fully funded. I will methodically go through the detail of how we pay for that—he need not worry about that.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Let us take this debate back to the people we care about most—the patients, such as the mum who got in touch with me today who had rung her local GP 28 times to try to get through to get an appointment for her daughter, and whose friend had been told, “Don’t risk it—go to A and E because we simply cannot see our doctors.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the fragmentation of the NHS has made it much harder to hold to account our local health care services such as the Royal Free trust?
Chris Leslie
I am glad that my hon. Friend mentions the situation with GP numbers, which is another factor in the NHS infrastructure being under such pressure.
Let us look at what has been happening with GP numbers, which are not keeping up with demand in the rising population. In 2009, there were 62 GPs for every 100,000 people; that has now fallen to 59 and a half GPs per 100,000 people. We have also seen cuts to GP training. It is no wonder that the Government ditched the 48-hour guarantee for people to be able to see a GP.
Chris Leslie
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can explain why the Government dropped the pledge that patients, including his constituents in Dover, should be able to see their GP within 48 hours.
Charlie Elphicke
Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he, rather than the shadow Health Secretary, is leading this debate? Is it because the shadow Health Secretary is reported to be clinging to his job, without any guarantees from the Leader of the Opposition?
Chris Leslie
There you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Government Members are not concerned in any way about the state of the NHS or about GPs, but only about asking questions about procedure and process. I am here today because the shadow Treasury team, like every shadow departmental team on the Labour Front Bench, is committed to supporting our NHS and to making sure that we get the investment that is needed.
Why is the situation so fragile? The Government scrapped NHS Direct and fragmented it into 46 separate, cut-price 111 contracts, which does not ensure that 60% of calls are dealt with by medical staff. That figure is now down to 20%. It is no wonder patients are so quickly being driven back to—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Minister, I heard what you said to your Back Benchers and it is out of order. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) will disregard the advice from the Minister. I will not embarrass the Minister by saying exactly what it was, but I will not hear him say it again.
Chris Leslie
That is rather curious, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be quite interested to know what the Minister was saying. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) heard it. What did the Minister say to him?
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I have to confess that I did not hear it—I do apologise—but it would have been very sound advice.
I am curious. As we have a shadow Treasury Minister here, perhaps this is an opportunity for him to explain to my constituents what he proposes to do to help them. It is important to remember that one of the very first things the Labour Government did when they came to power was to close the A and E department at Kidderminster hospital and downscale that hospital. As a result, Labour policies were so massively hated by my constituents that they voted in an Independent, Dr Richard Taylor. That demonstrated just how unpopular Labour’s NHS policies really are.
Chris Leslie
Labour Members are absolutely committed to saving the national health service from the fate that would befall it should the hon. Gentleman’s party have a further five years in office. We will absolutely not apologise for fighting tooth and nail to do what we can about, for instance, the staffing crisis that the NHS also faces.
Chris Leslie
Before I give way to the hon. Lady, I shall tell her what is happening with staffing in the NHS. The NHS is now spending a further £500 million a year on agency nurses. Six thousand nurses who were trained in the UK have left the country and gone elsewhere, and 4,000 nurses are coming from overseas to try to back-fill some of those places. We are spending a fortune, day after day—far more than we ought to be—on these more expensive agency nursing staff. I know that as Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Lady has a view on agency nursing within the NHS. Is she really content with the situation?
Dr Wollaston
I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point, which is very important, but I wanted to respond to his question to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) about why we dropped Labour’s policy of 48-hour access. I will tell him why, as a former GP who was there at the time: it was because patients could not get advance appointments. It caused enormous distortion of clinical priorities, and it was absolutely right that it was dropped, as called for by the profession. It was a ridiculous policy and it is absolutely right that it has been dropped.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Lady should know that there were provisions for advance appointments in the system that we had. Given that we have these pressures, with GPs being totally overstretched and having more and more people to deal with, and the shrinking number of GPs per head of population, she should not be surprised that we are in this situation. We have to do more to recruit and train more GPs. That is part of the way in which we would save the NHS from the situation that it is facing.
When all these different factors are combined with the high levels of winter flu and the growing population, we have an NHS in crisis—but there is an alternative. Yes, we have to repeal the competition-driven Tory changes, but we also have to deliver a sustained increase in resources and a fund designed urgently to alleviate the pressures. That is why, as shadow Chief Secretary, I want to take the time to talk about our £2.5 billion fund.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am grateful to the shadow Chief Secretary, because I have sat quietly and listened to 16 minutes of his speech trashing the NHS. Will he take the opportunity to congratulate staff at Worthing hospital who, in very difficult circumstances, have met waiting times targets in above 98% of cases? Will he congratulate the staff who have cut hospital-acquired infections by 50% since 2010? Will he congratulate NHS staff who have reduced the number of people in mixed-sex wards from 11,802 in 2010 to 170? May we hear some good news about the staff who are doing a really good job?
Chris Leslie
We will hear this time and again from the Conservatives. They want to gag us when we dare to criticise their record on the NHS. We are not going to be quiet about it. We are going to fight for the future of the NHS. I would tell the hon. Gentleman that we do not have any criticisms of the staff in the NHS, or even of the managers who are trying their best in very difficult circumstances to keep the NHS on an even keel. He should know about the BUPA contracts in his West Sussex hospital—
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman nods. Those contracts have greatly destabilised his local hospital. He voted for that in the then Health and Social Care Bill, which was designed to drive competition all the way through the NHS by stealth, and what a mess it has created in his own patch. I am happy to give way to him if he wants to apologise to patients in West Sussex for the waste and distraction the BUPA contractual arrangement has caused there. Will he apologise?
Tim Loughton
I am delighted to intervene because the shadow Secretary of State, who has now appeared, mentioned that in his car crash interview last night. I do not know if the shadow Chief Secretary has been to Worthing or has looked at the contract, but it made no difference in money terms. As it happens, I opposed the contract, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), because there was no impact study. As a result, we will now get a better service—run by the hospital—that is more seamless for patients. Will the shadow Chief Secretary apologise?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Interventions must be brief. Mr Leslie, get back to your speech.
Chris Leslie
I think we got the gist of the intervention. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) opposed such competition, but I think he voted for it in the Health and Social Care Bill. He has his own demons to worry about on that.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I, too, served on the Health and Social Care Bill Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great problems we face with work force planning, as Government Members have highlighted, is that private sector providers by and large are not training the doctors and the range of staff we need to deliver an integrated health service?
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend is right. That is the crucial difference between those on the two sides of the Chamber: Government Members are not interested in having private or voluntary sector supplements where there is need in the NHS; their agenda is to replace provision across the NHS and to contract out across the board.
Chris Leslie
If my hon. Friends will allow me, I want to make a little progress, but I will certainly give way again in a moment.
As a member of the shadow Treasury team, I want meticulously to explain the alternative course by which we will deal with the requirement for 20,000 additional nurses and 8,000 additional GPs, and the time to care fund of £2.5 billion. First, we would raise £1.2 billion from the levy on ultra-high-value properties—those worth more than £2 million—the so-called mansion tax.
Secondly, we would raise least £1.15 billion by closing three tax loopholes. The first is that hedge funds are avoiding stamp duty by getting tax-exempt investment banks to buy shares for them. At least £500 million is lost through that tax loophole, and we must close it. The second is that many large corporations, including some of the water utilities, are shifting profits out of the UK by borrowing large sums at high interest rates via their owners’ subsidiary companies through offshore stock exchanges. That is known as the quoted eurobond exemption. The third is that many employment agencies sign up workers to umbrella companies almost at random, and exploit tax reliefs on travel and subsistence without passing them on to the work force. Between £300 million and £600 million is lost to the Exchequer in that way. Those three tax loopholes must be closed.
Thirdly, we need to take £150 million a year from a new levy on tobacco company profits. That levy has worked in the United States, and we believe it is now appropriate in this country.
The sum of £2.5 billion is a significant investment that our NHS needs. It will also provide the time to care for the patients who deserve much more than the 15-minute chunks they have been getting recently.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Leaving aside the fact that the previous Government were not much good at closing tax loopholes, I am sorry to hear that the Labour party has lost faith with one of the fundamental principles of the NHS, which is that it should be based on need and funded through general taxation. That is the most stable basis for funding our NHS, and the Labour party is taking a great risk with NHS finances by proposing otherwise.
Chris Leslie
That is rather interesting. The hon. Lady would criticise us if we said that we would do this through general taxation, but when we show where the money will come from—pound for pound—she criticises that as well. I want to hear the Conservatives say where they will get the extra money from for the NHS. I will come to that in a moment, but I will first give way to my hon. Friend.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
A moment ago, my hon. Friend was talking about the risks of privatisation. I know he shares my concerns about health services in Nottingham. What advice does he have for the voters of Nottingham who, as a result of the outsourcing of our hospital’s world-renowned dermatology department, which was then broken up, can no longer access acute dermatology services locally? How should our constituents vote on 7 May? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr Garnier, I am not going to tell you again. You are on a warning now. You make lots of interventions. Members show you respect, and I expect you to show it to others when they make their points.
Chris Leslie
That is so unlike the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and very out of character.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) is a doughty fighter for NHS patients in our city of Nottingham. She knows very well that we have been trying our best, in working with local trusts, to press them to ensure that such services are safeguarded. Ultimately, when our constituents see the Government passing legislation encouraging trusts to move a private income level of 2% to potentially 49%, and when they see the pressure trusts are under, they are not surprised that many such problems are occurring in our area. It is only through making sure that we find resources and channel them towards investment for the care needs in our NHS that we will deal with those pressures.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as ensuring there are finances at national level, we must ensure they are fairly distributed across the country? NHS England has a target funding allocation for Corby, but the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee say that my local health authority is the worst funded in the country. Will shadow Ministers commit to fairness of funding when in government?
Chris Leslie
We know that the Conservative party has tried to distort funding formulas across the country by stealth. In fact, they have not done it stealthily; it has been pretty bleeding obvious. Given how local government funding formulas have been skewed—away from areas of need, and in a gerrymandering fashion—I certainly agree that such a situation must be reviewed.
Chris Leslie
If my hon. Friends will allow me, I will give way in a moment. I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), when she implied that the Conservative party somehow has plans to support additional investment in the NHS. The Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to the fact that the Government might be able to cobble together £2 billion of additional funding. According to page 65 of the Treasury Green Book—“Autumn Statement 2014”— £1.2 billion was supposed to come from reserves or underspends for the NHS, but there is absolutely no commitment for any additional money beyond 2015-16. I will give way to the Minister if he will explain where his party has identified resources to meet that commitment beyond 2015-16. Will he spell that out? [Interruption.] I do not think that he wants to. My hon. Friends will ensure that he explains later, as he has just promised, because the public need to know where the money will come from to meet the pressures we face.
The Conservatives also wanted to switch £750 million out of Public Health England and Health Education England as some kind of sticking plaster for the NHS. However, we must think about the impact switching money away from preventive systems such as inoculations and vaccinations would have. [Interruption.] The Liberal Democrat Minister of State thinks that that is a good idea, but it is not a sustainable way to provide funding for our NHS. He has to do his sums again, make tough decisions and find the additional resources. Of course, the Liberal Democrats have said that growth will somehow magic up the money for the NHS, which shows their lack of credibility.
It is no wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that Labour is the most cautious party in ensuring that it fully funds its pledges. It is no wonder that the Government parties do not want the Office for Budget Responsibility to go anywhere near the costings for the promises of political parties.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when Government Members ask us to congratulate NHS staff, which we do, it seems a bit hollow when they will not even pay nurses a decent wage? Does he further agree that privatisation is fragmenting the NHS, making it much harder to deliver a good service for patients?
Chris Leslie
We have to do far more to create a joined-up health service and social care system. That is very much part of the 10-year plan for the NHS that we announced yesterday. Yes, this is a debate about resources and getting the investment in, but we have to do more than that.
I question why the Conservatives are not putting their plans for funding the NHS on the record. Is it that they do not have any plans to pay for it or, which is more likely, that they are committed to shrinking public service investment in this country? The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have signed off on projections that would shrink public services to just 35% of GDP by the end of the coming Parliament. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) that there was nothing in the charter for budget responsibility about shrinking the state to 35% of GDP. That is his plan. Public services have not been at that level since the late 1930s—before the NHS even existed.
That is the Conservatives’ vision, but what would it mean for the NHS? We are fortunate in this country that charging makes up just 10% of a patient’s out-of-pocket expenses. That includes prescriptions, optical services and dental services. Let us just look at how it works in those countries where public services form just 35% or less of GDP. There are four such countries across the OECD. In Switzerland, where public services make up 32.8% of GDP, more than a quarter of a patient’s income goes towards the cost of treatments. It has an insurance system in which the patient effectively pays an excess: as with a car insurance system, the patient has to pay the first amount and it is deducted from the total bill. Patients in Switzerland typically pay £1,800 out of their own pockets. In Mexico, charging makes up 44% of out-of-pocket expenses, in Chile it is 32% and in Korea it is 36%. Korea has a co-payment system, which means that up to half the hospital costs have to be borne by the patient.
Such things happen in every country where less than 35% of GDP goes towards public services. The Conservatives want to head us in the direction of such pressures. An NHS free at the point of use is not sustainable under the Conservative plans, and the risk that charges will be introduced is great.
The Conservatives have form on this issue, because their 2005 manifesto, which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor authored, encouraged people to go private. They wanted a patient passport that would have introduced charges for people who wanted to jump the queue. I wonder whether my hon. Friends recall that. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor wanted such charges for basic medical treatments. I have another question for the Minister and, again, I will give way to him. Would the Conservative party still introduce those plans in the dreadful event that they won the next general election? I will give way to the Minister if he wants to say that that is categorically not part of his party’s plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can be patient. I will reply to him in a few moments when he finishes his speech.
Chris Leslie
It was quite a simple question. The Minister could have dealt with it there and then, and pushed the matter to one side. I half expected him to do so. But no, that is not the answer he gave. Perhaps we are seeing the return of Michael Howard. The patient passport rears its head again.
What else can we expect from the Conservatives? More privatisation and more market-based changes.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I, too, serve on the Health Committee. Alongside the things that we have heard about today and the concerns expressed by Opposition Members following the Health and Social Care Act 2012, is it not a really worrying development that £1.2 billion of cancer services and end-of-life care services in Staffordshire and Stoke— a wide geographical area—are being tendered out in a 10-year contract? That is a risky thing to do and it has never been done before for a single disease. Will all patients with cancer who are at the end of their lives be able to rely on those services, given that the majority of those tendering are private companies? Is that not the big issue? Will the Minister answer that point?
Chris Leslie
That is the sort of ideological stain that has pervaded the NHS policies of recent years. We must recognise that, should the Conservatives win the general election, we will see more of the same. That is the course the NHS will pursue. Not just that, but the Government breach the NHS constitution time and again on safeguards, waiting times, ambulance responses and cancelled operations. The squeeze on resources will force patients increasingly to pay for private treatment.
It fell to the generation after the second world war to build the NHS. It fell to Labour in 1997, after 18 years of Conservative neglect, to save the NHS. Today, it once more falls to Labour to rescue the NHS and rebuild it for the 21st century. The choice is stark: a tangible and fully funded 10-year plan to boost investment in our NHS with Labour, versus more decline and more of the same from the Tories, as they dismantle the NHS by stealth. It is beyond doubt that the NHS as we know it cannot survive another five years under the Tories, because once the NHS is gone, we will never get it back.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the NHS. In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I reconfirm the Government’s commitment to an NHS free at the point of need and free at the point of delivery. Only with a strong economy can we afford to pay for our NHS.
It would be wrong to open my remarks without commenting on the Labour party’s increasingly regrettable approach of weaponising the NHS. I still work as an NHS hospital doctor. There are a lot of professional politicians on the Opposition Front Bench. In my capacity as a local MP, I have been out on the front line with the East of England ambulance service during night shifts over this busy winter period. Front-line NHS staff do not appreciate the way in which the Labour party is trying to run down our NHS. There are a lot of staff working incredibly hard over this busy winter period and they should be congratulated on the effort and dedication that they put into front-line patient care. I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham East and the Leader of the Opposition will reflect on that.
As this is an economic motion, it is appropriate in my opening remarks to address the economic situation our country was in when we came into government. We inherited the worst economic record of any new Government since the 1930s. Labour’s record of economic incompetence and profligate spending meant that the annual deficit was £134 billion and that we were paying back £367 million each and every day in debt interest alone. I believe that the hon. Member for Nottingham East was a special adviser who advised on that profligacy and incompetence. Labour left Britain with its largest deficit since the second world war. One pound in every four that was spent by the Government came from borrowing. Labour’s outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), summed it up in his note to his successor with the words, “Good luck. There’s no money left.” There we have it—Labour’s record of economic incompetence. Britain was bankrupted by the last Labour Government, but thanks to our long-term economic plan things have changed for the better and Britain is back on track. There are now 2.16 million more private sector jobs since the coalition came to power, and 2 million more people have started an apprenticeship. The Government are giving more young people a chance in life and the opportunity to take home a pay packet.
Grahame M. Morris
May I just point out one of the lessons from history? When the NHS was established after the second world war, the country was tasked with rebuilding and its debt and deficit were considerable. But the Labour politicians of the day had the strength of character and the will to make that investment in the interests of the health of the nation. Should we not do that now?
Dr Poulter
To take the intervention in the spirit in which it was intended, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is committed to our NHS, as are Members on this side of the House. That commitment to and investment in the NHS has been made clear by the fact that we have increased NHS spending by £12.7 billion during this Parliament.
Opposition Members have also incorrectly asserted that our long-term economic plan is taking Britain back to the 1930s, but the latest forecast from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility shows that our plans would reduce total Government spending as a share of GDP from some 40% today to 35.2% by the end of the next Parliament in 2020—the same levels of public spending as were proposed under Labour in 2002, when the right hon. Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) were in the Treasury. If it was appropriate to set public spending at that level under Labour when they were in government, they need to explain why it is somehow wrong for a Conservative-led or coalition Government to plan for a similar level of public expenditure in the future—something that the Labour party has completely failed to do to date.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Minister referred to the goodbye note from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). Would the Minister’s goodbye note say, “Good luck, there’s no NHS”?
Dr Poulter
Such drivel, frankly, is beneath the hon. Lady. We have made considerable additional investment in the NHS. Comparisons between an NHS run by a coalition Government in England and the NHS in Wales bear up very well for the NHS in England.
Caroline Lucas
Just before I came into this debate I met a 10-year-old constituent, Margot, and her mother, who works for the NHS. She works all hours and still struggles to put enough food on the table. Can the Minister explain why the Prime Minister does not care about NHS workers? That is what Margot wants to know and that is what the rest of the country want to know.
Dr Poulter
I am familiar with the hon. Lady’s constituency, having worked as a doctor at a hospital in the area. Her question is very disingenuous when we have increased the number of front-line clinical staff working in our NHS, investing in more staff to treat patients. We have also recently agreed with the unions a pay deal that will see the majority of NHS staff receiving a substantial increase in pay, thanks largely to their increments. Other staff will receive 1%.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
The Opposition appear to struggle with the concept that we can fund public services only if the economy is moving forward. The interest alone on the debts that the previous Government amassed would have been enough to build a hospital ward every 30 minutes.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. On this side of the House we believe that when we spend public money we should do so efficiently and effectively. We have also made Government spending much more efficient—[Interruption.] Rather than heckling, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) might do well to listen to what I am about to say, because efficient public spending should be a priority for any Government, although it certainly was not for the previous Government. Cabinet Office figures, endorsed by the National Audit Office, show that £14.3 billion of savings, relative to 2009-10, have been made across many areas of expenditure, including procurement, work force, major projects and transformation. That is £850 for every working household saved by this Government, and clearly shows that we are spending public money much more efficiently and wisely than Labour ever did when in office.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that money can be spent only once? Labours say it wants to invest £2.5 billion from the mansion tax in the NHS, but it has already promised that to deficit reduction and introducing a 10p tax rate. That is nonsense.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The mansion tax, which is alluded to as a major plank of the Opposition’s funding plans for the NHS, has already been spent three times—that is economic incompetence if nothing else.
Chris Leslie
The Minister claims to be spending NHS resources effectively. Let us put to one side the £3 billion that he wasted on the NHS reorganisation—difficult though that is to do—and address the issue of clinical negligence in the NHS. My understanding is that it was at about 0.8% of NHS expenditure, but it has now gone up to an astonishing 1.1%. More than £20 billion has been set aside for clinical negligence provision because clinicians do not have the time they need to do the job and stop problems occurring. Should not the Minister apologise for that?
Dr Poulter
That is frankly not true and a misrepresentation of the facts. We have a very safe health service, and that was recognised by the Commonwealth Fund. We also know that even in a very safe health service bad things sometimes happen. This is not a controversial point: it is a sensible and important point. In some areas, such as obstetrics, we have very safe care in the main, but sometimes there can be a very high quantum of claims, such as £7 million for a lifetime of care in one case. We have to make sure that in the rare cases when things go wrong we look after people properly. That is uncontroversial.
The projected future trajectory for the litigation bill spend was exactly the same under the previous Government as it is now, and we are looking at dealing with lower value claims to save money on litigation in the future and removing the sometimes adversarial nature of litigation, which is much more beneficial for patients and their families.
Chris Leslie
To focus on the detail and take the politics out of this issue, I think that the Minister said that the clinical negligence bills have not gone up under this Government compared with those under the previous Administration. If he wishes to repeat those words, I am sure that his officials and others will correct him. Does he really think that there are no further clinical negligence liabilities under his watch?
Dr Poulter
The point is that the figures for the expected trajectory of clinical negligence were the same under the previous Government as under this Government. We know that even though the NHS and its front-line staff deliver safe and effective care in the main, the costs of looking after people—who may not previously have survived into adulthood, but do so now because care has improved—are now much greater. As a result, the quantum of settlements is sometimes greater than it used to be because our NHS is doing better at helping people, who previously might have died in childhood, to live longer. That means a greater lifetime of care costs, which the previous Government would have been familiar with when they looked at future litigation spending. We are, rightly, asking where we can save money on NHS litigation and we will announce soon the results of work on reducing the adversarial nature of low quantum claims, which will also benefit NHS finances.
As senior figures in the Labour party made clear this week, if the previous Labour Government had delivered efficiencies on the scale that we have delivered in our NHS, £40 billion more would have been available for front-line patient care. Let us remember that it was under Labour that £10 billion was wasted on a failed NHS IT contract; that hospitals were crippled by eye-watering PFI repayments, which currently total £2 billion a year; and that the pay bill for NHS managers doubled. Indeed, in the last year under the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the number of managers in the NHS went up six times as fast as the number of nurses.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister, because I was going to mention my last year in office. Would he care to inform the House what the bill for management consultancy in the NHS was in 2010 and what it is now?
Dr Poulter
I have just told the right hon. Gentleman very clearly that the cost of NHS managers doubled under the previous Labour Government, a profligate record of spending that has taken money away from front-line patient care.
Stephen Gilbert
The Minister missed one thing from the list. A written parliamentary question revealed to me in 2010 that the Labour party spent £250 million paying private providers to do precisely nothing.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We could stand here all day talking about the inefficiencies and profligacy in running the NHS finances by the previous Labour Government. He is also right to highlight—
Dr Poulter
I am going to make some progress. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later. I have been very generous and I need to make some progress. I remind him that under the previous Labour Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) highlighted quite rightly, NHS providers were paid less than private sector providers. The right hon. Gentleman and the previous Labour Government paid the private sector 11% more than the NHS for performing the same NHS operations—something we have clearly outlawed under our legislation.
If we needed a further reminder of what Labour does when it runs the health service we need only look at Wales today, where almost every indicator of NHS performance shows that the Welsh NHS, run by Labour, is performing poorly when compared with the NHS in England. While we protected and increased our NHS budget in England, Labour in Wales has cut the NHS budget and patients are paying the price. Thanks to Labour in Wales, people have to wait about 100 days longer than patients in England for knee and hip operations. On finances and on care, Labour has let down our hard-working NHS staff and patients in Wales by its lack of investment in front-line services.
Dr Poulter
I will give way one more time, but I do need to make some progress.
Charlie Elphicke
I am sure the Minister would agree that the shadow Health Secretary could have opened this debate, rather than trying to intervene now in a desperate way. Does my hon. Friend also recall the shadow Secretary of State, when he was Health Secretary in 2009, saying that we can
“move beyond the polarising debates of the last decade over private or public sector provision”?
That is what he said then. What does he say these days?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact that the shadow Health Secretary’s colleague, the hon. Member for Nottingham East, opened the debate perhaps shows a lack of confidence. The shadow Health Secretary’s record is very difficult to defend.
Dr Poulter
If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to contribute to the debate in such a meaningful way, why did he not have the courage to stand here and speak in this debate? I have been very generous in giving way. I know he does not like to be reminded of his record in office. Frankly, on NHS finances his record is abysmal, just like the previous Labour Government’s record of running our economy. If he wants to contribute he should speak in the debate. I will give way generously again later, but I want to make some progress.
On the Government Benches, we know that we cannot have a strong NHS without a strong economy. In spite of the profoundly challenging financial position we inherited from Labour, I am proud that this Government have increased NHS funding in each year of this Parliament. As a result of the additional funding announced in the autumn statement for 2015-16, funding will be £16 billion higher in cash terms in 2015-16 than it was in 2010-11. That equates to an increase of £6.8 billion in real terms for our national health service under this Government.
Our NHS is also on track to deliver up to £20 billion of efficiency savings this Parliament, having reported about £15 billion of efficiencies in the first three years. All of that has, or will be, reinvested into front-line patient care. Our commitment to our NHS has meant that, since the last election in 2010, there are now more than 17,200 more professionally qualified clinical staff, including over 9,000 more doctors, enabling 850,000 more people to have operations than in 2010, and over 3,300 more nurses, midwives and health visitors. Fewer patients are waiting to start treatment, and hospital infections have virtually halved. Mixed-sex wards, a great scandal of the previous Government, have largely become a thing of the past. I could, and will, go on in a moment.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
The Minister talks about more nurses. Derriford hospital in Plymouth has had to fill more than 60 vacancies with nurses from overseas. Morale is so low among nurses in the UK—plus we are not training them—it cannot fill those vacancies. He spoke earlier about a substantial pay rise. Would he like to explain to the nurses in my constituency exactly how substantial that pay rise is, because they do not think they have had a substantial pay rise?
Dr Poulter
Through the “Agenda for Change” settlement, many nurses will receive an incremental pay rise worth an average, I think, of between 3.2% and 3.4%. On top of that, we have come to an agreement with the unions to give a 1% rise, particularly to the lower paid NHS staff. That is something I hope the hon. Lady welcomes. It is worth highlighting that one of the biggest things that supports front-line staff is increasing numbers. In Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, the number of hospital doctors since 2010 has increased by 25 and the number of nurses by 62. That shows that the investment we are making at national level is paying dividends at local level in her trust.
Dr Poulter
I am going to make some progress and I am sure I will give way to the hon. Lady later on.
The investment we are making in the NHS also means that our NHS is caring for more patients than it has ever done before. Last year, compared with Labour’s last year in office, there were 1.2 million more episodes of in-patient care, including 850,000 more operations, 6.1 million more out-patient appointments, 3.6 million more diagnostic tests and almost 460,000 more GP referrals seen by a specialist for suspected cancer, meaning that under this Government more patients are receiving early referral for important care. We have also reduced the number of administrators in our NHS by 20,000. That is freeing up more cash to be reinvested in the front line of patient care.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
While we are talking about future resources for the NHS, may I commend the Government for what they have done to move towards parity of esteem in mental health and investment in talking therapies? Is it not important, when we consider future NHS resources, to consider the balance of the £14 billion that we currently spend on mental health services and how we can further invest in mental health services over the next Parliament?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have made considerable progress under this Government in improving the funding in the past year—£302 million more for mental health services—and in making sure that from this year, for the first time, there will be genuine parity between mental and physical health when we introduce access targets. They will ensure that patients are seen in a more timely manner when they suffer from mental illness and need specialist care and referral. Our record in office on mental health is something I think we can be very proud of. We have for the first time in many years reset the debate. There is now becoming a genuine parity of esteem between mental and physical health.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always important to hear the Government talk about parity of esteem. In practice, however, we have seen many examples in the past year where that has not actually applied, whether that is NHS England’s decision to apply a cut to a mental health trust that is 20% higher than for all other trusts, or the figures we saw this year showing that child and adolescent mental health services have been cut by £15 million. Is it not just warm words to talk about parity of esteem, when in reality people have to travel hundreds of miles to access in-patient care or not get any treatment at all?
Dr Poulter
Frankly, the previous Government’s record on investing in mental health was woeful. To reassure the hon. Lady—I think it would perhaps be worth her noting the points I have raised—we have increased the mental health budget this year by £302 million. I will talk a little more about support for children with mental ill health later in my remarks.
We have also put a lot of investment and support into tackling perinatal mental health. By 2017, for the first time, mums will have specially qualified and trained staff in every birthing unit to provide support for perinatal mental health. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says that is not treatment. I am a doctor. I work in maternity. It is absolutely right that we put in place the right support for perinatal mental health. I am sorry, but frankly that is misunderstanding the clinical reality of what it is like to look after patients. It does the hon. Lady—and those on the Opposition Front Bench—a great disservice.
At a time of continued pressure on the public finances, the additional funding announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement further highlights the priority the Government place on our NHS. The extra money we have provided will enable our NHS to continue to meet significant and rapidly rising patient expectations and demands in the short term, while allowing us to make important investment in new models of community-based care in order to realise the vision set out in NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View”.
The Government’s commitment to our NHS is clear. By ensuring a strong economy, we will also ensure that our NHS remains sustainable in the long term as a health service that is free at the point of need and of use—the health service we all believe in.
Dr Poulter
Well, I am a doctor. It is a pity there are so many professional politicians in the Labour party. Had they experience of real life, they might be able to make a more valuable contribution to debates in this place.
In 2015-16, funding for front-line NHS services in England will be £2 billion higher. Of this additional funding, £1.5 billion will go to local NHS services to meet the ever-growing demand for services and to provide better care for the frail elderly and people with long-term medical conditions, such as heart disease and dementia. In addition, £200 million will go towards piloting new care models set out in NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View”; £250 million will provide the first tranche of the new £1 billion fund, spread over the next four years, for investment in new primary and community care facilities; and about £30 million will go to the NHS to develop the best approaches to caring for young people with eating disorders in both in-patient and community settings—which further answers the question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree by confirming this Government’s commitment to providing better care for people with mental illnesses.
Dr Poulter
I will give way one more time, but after that I will not give way for a while, as I want to make some progress.
Barbara Keeley
I thank the Minister for giving way, particularly as he is a doctor. He never took into account my real-life experience in IT when we debated care.data, so he wants to be careful about saying that people do not have real-life experience—several of us have real-life experience in different industries, but he does not take that into account.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr Heaton-Harris, will you allow the intervention to take place? I am sure you will have a chance to join the debate when you catch my eye later. However, I do not want interventions to be overlong either, because we do not have much time left in the debate. Barbara Keeley, will you therefore please be brief?
Barbara Keeley
Will the Minister address the issue of delayed discharges and the impact of cutting community resources? We have touched on social care in general practice, funding for which has really been cut, but the big issue that comes up again and again before the Health Select Committee concerns the loss of thousands of district nurses. I heard yesterday that in the north-west agencies do not even have supply district nurses. Will he address the matter of those community resources? He is talking about community care for the elderly and vulnerable. What will be done about district nurses?
Dr Poulter
As the hon. Lady will be aware, front-line staff use IT and understand the importance of joining it up to benefit patient care while also protecting confidentiality. On the point about district nurses, she is right that we need to transform the model of care, which is why the Government set up the £5.2 billion better care fund—to ensure we join up more effectively what happens between our acute hospitals, the wider NHS and adult social care. This approach will be transformative, delivering better care for the frail elderly and providing more care in people’s homes.
Of course, part of that is about changing work force models and ensuring that staff who have traditionally worked only in hospitals, supporting people with long-term conditions such as multiple sclerosis, can also work in the community. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering away, but I have answered her question in an informed and sensible way, having spoken about how our work force models need to change as part of our investment in integrating and joining up care so that patients looked after now in a purely hospital environment can have access to staff across both community and hospital care, which is important for people with long-term conditions such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and dementia. I hope she can support that.
It is also important to consider some of the equally important funding decisions we have made in maternity care. In 2013-14, we provided £35 million of capital funding for the NHS to improve birthing environments, which represents the single biggest capital investment in maternity care for decades. That has benefited more than 100 maternity units, including through the establishment of nine new midwifery-led birthing centres in eight areas, and transformed many local maternity services across the country. Improvements delivered by our maternity investment fund include: more en-suite bathroom facilities in more than 40 maternity units, providing more dignity and privacy for women; more equipment such as beds and family rooms in almost 50 birthing units, allowing dads and families to stay overnight and support women while in labour or if their baby needs neonatal care; and bereavement rooms and quiet areas at nearly 20 hospitals to support bereaved families after the thankfully rare but always tragic loss of a baby.
Our £35 million maternity investment has made a big difference to the experience mums and families have of NHS maternity services.
Dr Poulter
I have been very generous in giving way, but I must now make some progress.
Dr Poulter
No, on this occasion, the hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me.
Our capital investment in maternity services, which, as I said, is the biggest for decades, is making a big difference to mums, dads and new families. Thanks to our investment in the midwifery work force, we now have the highest ever number of midwives working in our NHS—about 2,000 more than in 2010—providing more personalised care and support for women and new mums. However, we must all recognise the challenges facing our health and care system in the months and years ahead. NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View” argued that we needed to do more to tackle the root causes of ill health through a radical upgrade in prevention and public health; to give patients more control over their own care, including through the option of combining health and social care, and new support for carers and volunteers; to ensure the NHS changes to meet the needs of a population that lives longer; and to develop and deliver new models of care, local flexibility and more investment in our work force, technology and innovation, some of which I have already outlined.
That is why the Government have provided additional funding for NHS front-line services in 2015-16, including £200 million to pilot new care models and £250 million for the first tranche of the new £1 billion fund, spread over the next four years, for investment in new primary and community care facilities to support our GPs and primary and community care work force in the important work they do. In community care, we are committed to undoing the terrible mistake that was Labour’s 2004 GP contract, which left so many people, particularly the frail elderly, without the GP care they needed at evenings and weekends. Our investment will support GPs to provide care for patients seven days a week so that patients will once more be properly supported during evenings and weekends. We are also training an extra 5,000 GPs, in addition to the 5,000 extra we have already seen under this Government, to provide that care.
We are clear, however, that if the NHS is to meet the challenge of increasing patient demand and expectations, it cannot stand still. By 2018, 3 million people in our country will have three or more long-term conditions, so we must continually adapt and change how we deliver care to support patients, families and carers, and deliver more care in people’s homes and communities. For our part, and as part of our plan for our NHS, not only are we delivering a strong economy so that we can protect our NHS budget, but we will continue to be ruthless in delivering greater efficiencies in estate management and procurement and in reducing back-office costs so that we can reinvest that money in front-line patient care. Furthermore, we will continue to back front-line staff with the training, equipment and new technology they need to do their job and provide high-quality patient care, which is why we have already made available an additional £2 billion down payment to deliver NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View” and why the Prime Minister has committed to continuing to protect our NHS and ensuring that it has the additional money it needs to deliver first-class patient care in the months and years ahead.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the dedicated NHS staff working incredibly hard to keep us well looked after and safe in this busy winter period. As a practising doctor—I know Labour does not like it, given its dearth of real-life experience and the number of former special advisers on its Front Bench—I know how hard our NHS staff work and how dedicated they are to delivering the highest-quality patient care. I remind the House that we have been able to increase the money available to our NHS only because we have the growing economy to pay for it; because our long-term economic plan is working; and because, under this Conservative-led Government, there are more people in work than there were under Labour. Anybody who does not have an economic plan for the economy—and Labour has no plan for our economy, as has certainly been clear in today’s debate—does not have a plan for the future of our NHS. Through economic policies and by creating growth and jobs, we have been able to announce additional NHS funding for 2015-16 without having to raise taxes, including on people’s homes, as Labour would like to. This gives our NHS the funding it needs to begin implementing the plan set out in NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View”, so that it can continue to be a world-class, sustainable health service, delivered free at the point of need.
When we came into power, we took two big strategic decisions with our NHS: to increase funding and to cut bureaucracy and waste, and to reinvest that money in more doctors, nurses and front-line staff and to improve front-line patient care. That is exactly what we have done, so the choice on 7 May will be clear: between a Labour party that bankrupted Britain and would do so again, at the same time bankrupting our NHS, and a Conservative Government, committed to securing our NHS by delivering a strong, stable and growing economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind Members that there is a seven-minute speaking limit. We should get everybody in, unless there are interventions, in which case we may have to change it.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Let me begin by thanking the Minister for his contribution today—particularly as he is a doctor. I also thank him for helping those of us with our Tory NHS debate bingo cards to show that he has used all the words we were expecting—“weaponise”, “Wales”, “long-term economic plan”—and for the additional benefit of sharing his understanding of the international banking crash, which is that it was Mr Brown shovelling money out of the back windows at Lehman Brothers that caused the entire world economy to crash.
Let me move on to perhaps a much more important point. How are we going to fund the national health service in the future? What the Minister did not address—which is a grave disappointment—were some of the matters in the motion that we are supposed to be debating. My constituents prioritise the NHS probably over everything else. For them, it is all about our working together as one community and looking after everyone: no one is more important than anyone else; we all stick together; we pay our taxes and support the weakest; and all of us should be able to get world-class health care. We are very proud of the national health service, which has delivered that. However, my constituents are profoundly concerned about what is going to happen in the future. Can the national health service survive another five years of a Tory Government? The answer they come to very rapidly is no.
The question is a simple one. How can the Prime Minister stand up at the Tory party conference and say, “We’re going to make £7 billion worth of tax cuts,” and not tell us where the money is coming from? How can the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that state spending is going to decline to the level it was in the 1930s, when in the 1930s we did not have a national health service? How does that work? How do we square that circle? Without answers to profoundly important questions such as those, the public simply say, “We don’t trust you with the most precious thing we have as part of our British identity. We want to be able to have a national health service that will hold us together.” How can the NHS be safe in the hands of this Government?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Lady will of course be aware that our plans for public spending will only put it back to the level it was in 2002, under the previous Labour Government, which is hardly the bleak picture she paints. At the same time, we will be able to invest money in our NHS.
Emily Thornberry
I still do not understand why, therefore, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that the percentage of state spending will be at the level it was in the 1930s. In the end, although the Minister is a doctor, I would prefer to take the word of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Indeed, I urge the Minister to speak again to his party leader and say to him, “When we come to make manifesto commitments, let’s run them past the Office for Budget Responsibility,” so that the public know whom they can trust on money and particularly on the NHS.
I remember serving on the Health and Social Care Bill Committee for many, many weeks—months, in fact; indeed, I believe it was almost a year of my life. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and I pleading with the Government not to go ahead—not to waste time and money on a top-down reorganisation; not to waste people’s heart and soul on a reorganisation of the national health service in a way that was unnecessary. We said, “All you’re doing is opening the door to privatisation. What you are doing is wrong for the national health service. You must stop. You must think again.” And there was indeed a pause—a pause for an awful lot of spinning—but the Government still forced through a profound reorganisation of the national health service that has allowed the market to come into the NHS and wasted £3 billion.
We also said that if we needed to look again—and we did—at making our national health service appropriate for the 21st century, we should look at how to bring social care and health together. It is difficult, because social care is largely provided by local authorities. Very often it is means-tested and provided locally, with local accountability, whereas the national health service was much more nationally accountable, had much better funds and was not means-tested. However, without those two things moving and working together, we cannot have proper health care in our country, because—and we all know this—most people who use the national health service are elderly. They come to A and E in crisis, and once they are in they are unable to get out again. It is demeaning. It is humiliating. It is something that all of us in the Chamber will face unless something is done.
People must be supported in the community so that they are able to live their lives as healthily as possible—yes, fighting off three or four long-term conditions, but still as healthily as possible. However, while this Government have been cutting the money to local authorities—it is being shovelled out the back door by Eric Pickles—the Health team have been saying, “Oh, it’s all right: we’re giving more money to social care.” But the Government know—and all of us who have friends, relatives or constituents who are using social care know—that there is not enough of it around. Old ladies are getting up and being taken out of bed and are sitting in their chair three hours later than they were before. They are getting visits of 15 minutes. They are not being looked after properly. They have the choice between having a bath and having a meal. In the 21st century, in one of the richest countries in the world, that is a disgrace. How can we really be looking properly at the future of the health service and allowing that to happen? Of course, if people are kept in bed until 11 o’clock in the morning and then being put back to bed at 5 o’clock in the evening, they will become unhealthy. They will end up in A and E in crisis and they will not be able to get out again.
More and more local authorities are cutting back on social care and are giving social care only to those in the most acute need. In the time I have left—I do not have very long, so I am going to rattle through—I want to say what Islington does. Despite having the sixth-worst levels of child poverty in the entire country and one of the worst mental health records in the country, Islington provides social care on a level of which we should be proud. It provides social care at moderate levels. It is working with Whittington Health. The hospital in my constituency is working with the local authority, providing health in the community. The hospital sends people out; we have GPs working in the hospital. It is a model on which I hope the next Government’s—ours—model for proper health and social care will be based: the idea of people working together, looking at the whole person, giving the health service time to care and look after people properly, and giving people the right to die at home with dignity and support.
I want to use the 30 seconds I have left to give due credit to Camden health services for allowing my father-in-law to die at home with true dignity and proper palliative care. It gave him the choice to die in his bed, next to his wife, for which I am profoundly grateful. I know that he was very privileged in being allowed to do that, because up and down the country that is not being allowed. It saved money, gave him what he wanted and gave him pride. Why are we not dealing with problems like that, instead of introducing the private market into our precious national health service?
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry).
It is a little sad, to be honest, to be having this debate today, because we could approach this issue in a much more mature way as politicians. Clearly there are enormous challenges facing our health service and our adult social care services, not only for this Government or the next, but for the two Governments after them. As politicians, we owe it to our constituents to have a mature debate about how we are going to avert the demographic time bomb that is heading our way. Frankly, we all have an interest in that. Just like the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), we are probably going to need those services at some point. I hope I will not find myself in a bed next to him, but we could end up on the same ward.
It is worth saying that every Labour party election leaflet for the last 50 years has said, “You can’t trust the Tories with the NHS.” Yet we have had countless Conservative Governments over that period, and the NHS continues to thrive, to look after people and to offer its services.
Grahame M. Morris
The hon. Gentleman is saying that the NHS is safe in Conservative hands, but let me remind him that in 1997, when Labour came to power, there had been 18 years—a considerable length of time—of under-investment. Expenditure on the NHS was increased 300% by the Labour Government: from £30 billion to over £100 billion. Every accident and emergency unit was rebuilt and many hospitals were rebuilt, too.
Mr Spencer
That is where the hon. Gentleman’s party falls down. Labour Members obsess about cash and forget about clinical operation. That is why we ended up with crises such as that at Mid Staffs hospital, with people dying in their beds because of bureaucracy, target setting and obsession with process rather than the care of patients.
The Opposition also have an obsession with the private sector. My father had to have a new knee, unfortunately. He went to the local hospital, which happens to be the one that the constituents of the hon. Member for Nottingham East attend. Rather than being treated in the NHS Queen’s medical centre, he was sent to a hospital in Sherwood in his constituency, which looked after him very well. It was a private hospital and this was in 2008—under the previous Government. The NHS was making use of private services back then. It was very efficient and well delivered. I do not understand this obsession with the private sector. We need to remember that private companies make the drugs that the NHS uses; private companies make all the crutches and the ambulances; and GPs are, in effect, private companies. It works very well. As long as we can deliver a service that is free at the point of use and run in the most efficient way but with the highest levels of care and consideration, I think that is the right place to be.
Barbara Keeley
Let me return to my earlier point. Would the hon. Gentleman be comfortable if his constituents with cancer or those at the end of their lives had to contend with a totally privatised service? That is what we might have to contend with, because we might be faced with a 10-year contract to privatise all those services. It has never been done before, and it is highly risky—and the oncologists were not even consulted about it. We are not talking about supplementing; we are talking about private services replacing the NHS.
Mr Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. What my constituents who are in the unfortunate position of suffering from cancer care about is whether they are going to get better. Is the service going to deliver a service that makes them better and gets them over the disease? Frankly, if it does not cost constituents any money, and if the level of care and service is the highest, I think that is what really matters to them.
It is easy to stand here and talk. Politicians talk—they will always talk—but we have to look at what politicians do. This Government, to their credit, have in this Parliament put in an extra £12.7 billion. Let us compare that with how politicians have operated in Wales, where the budget has been cut by 8%. I think it says a lot to our constituents about how the NHS is going to be managed in future and how much we genuinely care about and want to support the NHS system.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that central Government have cut the Welsh Government’s money by 10% and that health spending in Wales is now at an all-time high?
Mr Spencer
Of course, I am the first to admit that there is financial pressure within the system. The previous Government borrowed enormous amounts of money and ran up an enormous deficit. Any Government coming in at that time would have had to take difficult decisions, but the simple fact is that spending in England has gone up under this Government, while spending in Wales under the control of the hon. Lady’s party has gone down. There are some 850,000 extra operations a year taking place in our NHS by comparison with 2010.
The issue that upsets me most and has brought me to attend this debate is the state of my own Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. It “benefited” from a PFI deal signed under the previous Government, which now costs the trust £40 million a year out of its budget. That is where we went wrong under the previous Government. Let us spin that out: we were fortunate enough to invest £320 million in a new hospital, but it will cost £2 billion in repayments. I put it to Members that they would get a better interest rate from Wonga than they would out of that PFI deal. If we look at what happened nationally, we find that £11 billion-worth of investment through PFI matches up with £55 billion-worth of repayments. That means £44 billion being taken out of the NHS because of the shocking PFI deals signed by the previous Government.
Labour Members talk about the cost of our reorganisation being £3 billion, but that is frankly nothing by comparison with £44 billion. It is an enormous amount of cash that could be spent on doctors, nurses, cancer patients and putting our NHS services in the right place.
I am very fortunate that the Secretary of State has agreed to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to try to help Sherwood Forest hospital trust out of the hole that the previous Government put it in. Hopefully, we can assist in dealing with the £40 million a year being sucked out of the trust.
I am conscious that other Members want to speak, so I shall end there. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer). Last Saturday, I sat with my constituent Joanna Redfearn, who is a mother of four. Her 11-year-old daughter, Kelsie, has complex medical needs, including epilepsy. Joanna was telling me about the increasing difficulty she experiences in getting an ambulance to come when her child has a fit. She has been subject to waits of between an hour and two hours—clearly, that is totally unacceptable, because it is extremely dangerous for her child.
A recent low point was when a paramedic turned up, who was told that a St John ambulance—not an NHS ambulance—was about to come. The paramedic rang the North East Ambulance Service to say, “Sorry, that will not do. They are not equipped to deal with this child’s needs. We need a proper ambulance.” My constituent is so desperate that she is considering moving house to be nearer to the hospital.
This is part of a pattern in my constituency. When an elderly woman fell out of her wheelchair outdoors last summer, her husband, whose hearing is very bad, rang the ambulance service. The people on the other end of the phone began to challenge him and ask him a series of questions, but he could not answer them because he could not hear them. He could phone up and say, “I need an ambulance now”, but he could not hear well enough to engage in a long conversation with the ambulance service.
After three phone calls a paramedic turned up, who then called a proper ambulance. The old man had to stand, propping his wife up for over an hour while the paramedics gave her the medical support she needed. It was fully two and a half hours before the proper ambulance came to collect her and take her to A and E. The worst case, however, is the one I raised with the Secretary of State a few days ago: that of Violet Alliston. Her partner rang 999 several times, but the ambulance arrived so late that she died.
Everyone knows that the North East Ambulance Service is in crisis. The patients know, the GPs know and the paramedics know. The only people who do not seem to know are the Ministers. It is a shame that the doctor is no longer with us, because he made a number of comments, and it is unfortunate that he will not hear my response to them. He challenged what had been written by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which was set up by the Government to audit their public spending plans. It was the OBR that said that the Government’s plans would reduce spending to 1930s levels, and reduce by 1 million the number of public service jobs. It would be nice if the Minister responding to the debate told us which NHS staff will be included in that 1 million.
Government Members seem to think that this is just a rhetorical device, and that none of us on the Opposition Benches have any such personal experience. That is not true. In the 1930s, my grandmother used to collect for an ambulance friendly society. What happened in the 1930s, under a 1930s system, was that if people did not pay, they did not get an ambulance. No one wants to return to that system.
The problems I have described obviously have knock-on effects in hospital A and E departments. County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust met the four-hour waiting time standard on only 74% of occasions. Furthermore, services are constantly being removed from Bishop Auckland general hospital. The latest service the trust wants to remove is the maternity unit. Again, I am sorry that the doctor is not here to respond to my account of the problems we are experiencing. We have been told that maternity services are not safe because if something goes wrong during labour, the trust cannot guarantee that an ambulance will arrive to transfer the patient, even though the ambulance station is right next to the hospital. Of course the ambulance service is not working.
I said to representatives of the hospital trust, “You are still dealing with home births. Surely the problems involved in collecting people from Bishop Auckland hospital by ambulance are exactly the same as those involved in collecting people if a home birth goes wrong.” They replied, “It is true that home births are risky, but people expect to be safer in a hospital.” In other words, what they are really bothered about is not health outcomes, but the risk of litigation. That is no way to run the health service.
What the health service needs is a proper, well-funded plan, and that is what Labour’s motion sets out. We need to see changes in the culture, in the resources and in the management. Labour’s plan is honest, truthful, transparent and clear, and it is what the British people want.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Let me begin by reminding the House of a few facts. This Government have presided over an additional £12.7 billion of public spending on the NHS, which amounts to a real-terms increase of 4%. That is a singular achievement, given that there have been cuts in every other area of public spending bar two—cuts forced on us by the Labour Government’s appalling management of the public finances.
The public will judge as they find. Anyone who lives anywhere near the Welsh border will know that additional pressures on hospital services have arisen from the exodus of Welsh people in search of decent care. As Government Members have already pointed out, the Labour-run Welsh Assembly Government have cut the NHS in Wales by 8%. That contrasts very unfavourably with this Government’s 4% increase in spending on the English NHS. As I have said, the public will judge as they find.
I want to say a little about our spending on health services in comparison with that of other countries. We are doing quite well at the moment. The European Union average is 8.7% of GDP; the United Kingdom figure is 9.2%, 0.5% higher, and is identical to the Australian figure. We also get a very efficient return on our spending. I applaud the NHS, certainly in my area, for all that it does with that money. Our system is considerably more efficient than the United States’, which is a privatised system based on private insurance. It costs a great deal more to run, and health outcomes are poorer because of the under-treatment of people who are underinsured, and the over-treatment of people who are insured properly. The administrative costs of the American system are also excessive compared with those of the publicly funded NHS.
That is one of the reasons why I am so enraged by Labour’s lies and smears about our position on the NHS. We have no wish to privatise the NHS, even if we thought that was a good idea from an ideological point of view. I am an ex-business person, and if I took over the NHS, the last thing I would want to do is privatise it and create a system that would cost more to run and deliver worse outcomes.
Grahame M. Morris
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady’s flow, but I want to defend the land of my fathers, Wales. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present for the urgent question. We often measure the stress on the system according to the declaration of emergency and major incident plans. There have been 15 in England but, as far as I am aware, none in Wales.
Margot James
I do not want to cast aspersions relating to cover-ups and the like on some of the NHS management in Wales, but I think that some members of the hon. Gentleman’s own party have some salutary tales to tell on that front.
However, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), this is not just about spending; it is about how we control the budget and what we get for the money that we spend. I appeal to those who rate the Labour party on the basis of its health policies to reflect on its record. They should remember how much Labour was borrowing when it was running the NHS, and that it was spending money as though it were going out of fashion.
Under the last Government, the number of managers increased three times as fast as the number of nurses, and managers’ pay increased far faster than nurses’ pay. The management pay bill more than doubled under the last Government, but we have reduced it by nearly a fifth. There was absolutely no integration of health and social care under the last Government, although they had 13 years in which to put that right. Despite severe financial constraints, our record has been so much better than theirs, and that is the position I will put to my electorate when the time comes. We have produced 13,000 more doctors and nurses, and 21,000 fewer administrators and managers. That is what the public want to see. They know that this Government have the right priorities. In my area, that has translated to 353 more nurses and 84 more doctors in my hospital since this Government came to power. I congratulate our health ministerial team on not caving in all the time to producer interests—another facet of the last Government, with their command and control culture.
I want to mention a few of the things I am proud this Government have achieved within severe spending constraints. We have ended the indignity of mixed sex-wards. We have reduced infection rates dramatically. C. difficile infection rates have come down by a staggering 63%. The last Government grappled with this issue for 13 years, leaving a disaster when they left office. They had an appalling record. Another great innovation—one of many; I have not got time to mention them all—is the Cancer Drugs Fund, which has helped many of my constituents to get the treatment they were denied under the last Government, with all their spending largesse. That has also flowed through to the hospital sector—imaging and radiodiagnostic tests have increased by 34%. All these benefits have been achieved with very small real-terms increases in spend. That is what this Government have been able to do: deliver more with less.
James Morris
Under the previous Government, all the in-patient wards in one of my local hospitals, Rowley Regis, were closed, but during the last four and a half years they have reopened, and there has been lots of innovation and new services coming into that hospital.
Margot James
That is a good example, and I know how hard my hon. Friend has worked in his constituency to assist in bringing about that improvement.
The polls clearly show that the public have very little confidence in Labour’s proposals to manage the economy. However, I want to make sure I do everything I can to get the public to cast a weather-eye over the Opposition’s plans for the NHS, and to remember which party introduced privatisation into the NHS, and why. I remember calling on an elderly lady who had been waiting almost two years for a cataract operation on both eyes. That was what the previous Government presided over, and in desperation they called in the private sector to reduce those waiting times. They could not bring about change within the NHS because of their target-driven management culture and their command and control-driven philosophy, so they had to bring in the private sector.
What we are seeing now is a tiny increase: the whole of the private sector accounts for less than 7% of total NHS activity, so we are talking about a small element that the Opposition are blowing up out of all proportion.
Margot James
I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
Labour’s record in government, when the producer interest held sway, stands as a salutary lesson which I hope people will remember.
No wonder there are serious divisions within the Opposition about their health policy, as was reported in the press only today. One Labour Front Bencher was anonymously quoted as saying that it would be a “fatal mistake” to increase the health budget without reforming it. I know there are some people with common sense on the Opposition Benches, but it is a shame they are not in control of health policy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I must now introduce a six-minute time limit on speeches.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I have the real-life experience of having worked for the NHS for 33 years, and I am not a doctor.
I have seen the NHS go through many changes, but I have never seen such industrial unrest and poor staff morale as have developed under this Government. This Government claim to have employed more doctors and more nurses, yet they are not talking about the cuts to other services and other staff, and the redundancies and the outsourcing of work to the private sector.
This Government like to claim that all is wonderful in today’s NHS, but those of us who work, or have worked, within it know that that is not the case. The NHS still operates to a large extent on the good will of the staff. This Government have been withholding a pay review body-recommended rise of just 1% to all NHS staff. Only now that an election is looming has the Secretary of State finally agreed to meet the trade unions, and now that meaningful negotiation appears to have finally commenced and the strike that was planned for tomorrow has been suspended the Government are claiming that as some kind of victory. There is no victory, and this Government need to remember that they have presided over a series of strikes and industrial unrest on their watch and only now that there is an election on the horizon do they see fit to address these issues.
I welcome this motion which proposes to invest £2.5 billion into our NHS. Staff have seen £3 billion being wasted on a costly reorganisation which nobody wanted, which was not necessary and which was in neither the Tory nor the Lib Dem manifestos. NHS departments such as the one I used to work in, pathology, have been making so-called efficiency savings for the last four and a half years, to the extent that if someone resigns from a post a business case has to be made for them to be replaced. In today’s NHS, decisions are being made not on clinical grounds, but on financial ones.
It is an absolute disgrace that this Government’s spending plans will return our public spending as a share of national income to levels last seen in the 1930s, before we had an NHS. The Tories assert that they will protect the NHS yet propose to cut spending on services to levels seen in countries where almost half the health service is privately funded.
The Government even deny that the NHS is being privatised on their watch, yet the evidence is of piecemeal privatisation of services. In my own area of the north-west, ambulance services have been privatised and are now run by Arriva transport, a bus company. This service is a source of constant complaints from my constituents, with patients being left to wait and being unable to get hospital for important medical tests. Medical staff tell me they struggle to get through Arriva’s complicated system of questions and answers—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is no longer present, has already referred—in order to secure patient transport.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a great case and is absolutely right about Arriva and its patient transport service in Manchester. Is she aware that many of the hospital trusts in Greater Manchester are now having to put in their own arrangements, which is costing the public purse even more, because of Arriva’s failure?
Liz McInnes
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and yes I am aware of that shocking fact. This contract needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency. The private sector is not providing the service that was commissioned.
Medical staff have trouble getting the Arriva ambulance service to come out. If medical staff have difficulty getting through the question and answer system, imagine how patients must feel, and how they manage when they try to get patient transport from home to take them to hospital for urgent tests that need to be done in order to secure the treatment they need.
My constituents also complain to me about GP appointments. A lot of them are unable to get GP appointments within a week, and this is supported by the results of the GP patient survey. If this Government are allowed to carry on as they have been, more and more people will end up waiting a week or more to see a GP or even be unable to get to see one at all. Labour will guarantee a GP appointment within 48 hours, and on the same day for those who need it, funded by our time to care fund, as opposed to suggestions made from the Opposition Benches such as “People with chronic illnesses like diabetes and thyroid disorders should be charged for their drugs”, or “Patients should be issued with receipts for the costs of GP and A and E appointments.”
The NHS is not safe under this Government, and most NHS staff are aware of that. Only Labour can reverse the damage currently being done to our NHS.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). I know that she cares passionately about our national health service, as well as having considerable experience of it. I want to start by mentioning some massive positives and some points of agreement with the Opposition. Everyone in this place knows that the NHS at all levels gives their constituents incredible care. Yes, some people occasionally complain when things go slightly wrong, but they are relatively small in number compared with the quantum of folk who come through the NHS’s doors every day.
Yes, I am going to make the points that every Conservative and coalition Member will make about the NHS budget going up by around £12.7 billion in cash terms over the course of this Parliament, about the fact that we have had 850,000 more operations being delivered each year compared with 2010 and about the fact that the number of MRSA bloodstream infections and incidences of clostridium difficile are at an all-time low. I am also going to make the point that more than 1.3 million more people have access to an NHS dentist. When we came into office, that was really difficult for people to do. We all remember the bad old days.
Given our excellent track record, I am surprised that the Opposition want to talk about the NHS quite so much, especially when their plans include extra spending that they simply cannot account for or that they have already spent several times over. I should not be surprised, however, because although I am sure that every individual Labour MP truly does love the NHS, they are complicit in their leader’s bizarre plan to weaponise it. They want to forget about the NHS caring for people and instead use it for political advantage.
Alas, I have seen such weaponisation locally in my county, where Labour has deliberately tried to scare vulnerable people by saying that hospitals or services are going to close. During the Corby by-election campaign—I informed the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) that I was going to mention him and his constituency—Labour ran a petition against the closure of Kettering general hospital. The hospital is not in the Corby constituency, and it was not going to close. During the campaign, I went to the Lakelands hospice in Corby, where I met a lovely elderly lady. She told me how afraid she was that the hospital that she was going to was closing. Just in case hon. Members think I am making this up, that exchange was witnessed by a local BBC television crew. I know that the hon. Member for Corby has learned from that experience and that he is now working with my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) to get better services from Kettering hospital.
The Opposition have even tried to scare people by using that disgusting tactic in my own constituency. Last week, I received an e-mail from a local Labour activist who told me that Danetre hospital would close if my party won the next election. That is a common theme among Labour party members when they talk to the public in my constituency. Danetre hospital is a fantastic NHS resource in the town of Daventry, but it remains under-used by the hospital trust that controls it. However, the trust is looking into using it better, and I have met its chief executive, Dr Sonia Swart, to talk about the plans for the hospital. It has two operating theatres and 28 beds. It also has free parking—a phenomenal thing in our NHS. I have been assured by everyone that Danetre hospital is here to stay, but I knew that anyway. How did I know? Because it has 22 years remaining on an amazingly expensive private finance initiative deal that costs about £3 million a year to fund.
Perhaps now is the time for those on the Opposition Front Bench to apologise for what they are allowing to happen in their name. But they will not, because they are weaponising the NHS, and they have a track record of doing that nationally. I seem to remember a national campaign in March 2012 about there being 24 hours to save the NHS. At 3 pm today, 25,047 hours will have passed since that campaign was launched, yet the NHS is still serving millions of people in our country.
The Opposition criticise the private elements involved in the NHS but they will not tell us how much private sector involvement is acceptable to them. It was introduced on scale by the Labour Government and went up to 4.4% on their watch. It is now nearly 6%. What percentage is acceptable to those on the Opposition Front Bench? Perhaps they would limit the areas in which the private sector could operate. Maybe there would be no more private cancer care—we heard that mentioned earlier. It would be interesting to tell that to someone suffering from cancer who might be getting better treatment at the moment. Perhaps the Opposition would put an end to hip replacements and MRI scans being performed outside the NHS. Which private sector involvement do they think is bad?
Yes, there are issues with NHS finances. Demand is massive; it is higher than ever before, and the NHS is treating more people than ever before. I sit on the Public Accounts Committee, and we have looked at many NHS projects and items. Perhaps an Opposition Member would like to stand up now and say how proud they are of the 2004 GP contracts, of the consultants’ contracts or of the NHS IT contract that cost the NHS and the country £10 billion in waste. Some salaries in the NHS seem very high. The chief clinical commissioning officer for the Vale of Glamorgan CCG is paid £185,000 a year, with pension and benefits, despite the fact that NHS England recommends a pay band of up to £100,000. NHS finances are safe only when our national economy is strong and growing. They are safe only under this party’s leadership.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a great deal of affection for the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), but I have to say to him that the only people who are using that word are those on the Government Benches, because they apparently have nothing to say about the future of the NHS under the stewardship of a Conservative Government—God forbid—or about the real crisis that our accident and emergency services are suffering across the country. I should like to hear a little more from them about what they actually plan to do, rather than hearing this ridiculous nonsense.
We all know that the national health service faces major funding challenges in the years to come. NHS England has set that out clearly, and we have put forward concrete proposals to raise the extra money that our NHS needs. That will involve increased funding and, I have to say, radical reform. The merging of health and social care is a major undertaking that will unlock huge efficiencies and deal with one of the major pinch points of inefficiency that is wasting billions of pounds as well as creating great difficulties in people’s lives. Families simply do not know where to turn at the moment.
That scale of ambition has not been matched by the Government. In fact, at the very moment that they should be encouraging front-line workers to innovate and work together from the bottom up to come up with the new ideas necessary to take the NHS to a new level, they are tying them up with the red tape of compulsory competitive tendering. That is the last thing those people need at a time when a radical new approach to delivering services is needed.
I want to focus on the specific funding situation in the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. It is regrettable that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who is a doctor, refused to take my intervention on the subject of maternity services. He must know, given that we have been talking about my maternity unit and maternity services across the Morecambe Bay area for some years now, that the situation is now critical. It will be the subject of a major report in the next couple of weeks, and there are real funding issues involved.
I shall run briefly through the trust’s recent funding history. In 2011, the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust announced that it was facing a cut of £15 million—around 4% of its annual budget—as a result of the efficiencies and cuts to hospital funding being required by the Government. At that stage, it managed to avoid reductions in front-line staffing and facilities. The required additional spending resulting from the clinical and staffing failures found by the serious Care Quality Commission reports led to the trust’s finances falling into deficit by about £25 million annually. Ministers are still insisting that that must be eliminated.
The Better Care Together reconfiguration plan was submitted to NHS England and Monitor by the trust last July. It set out a scheme that would allow for up to £18 million of annual savings achieved over a five-year period. The trust, NHS England and the Department have been going backwards and forwards on the details of this plan, but it has boiled down to this basic point: innovative changes in approach and some difficult decisions mean that local health care experts are proposing to reduce the trust’s deficit by a full 70%, but—this is the key point—our whole area is clear that the unique combination of geographical isolation, poor transport links and severe health needs in pockets of some of the worst urban deprivation in the country in Barrow make this a unique case, meaning we cannot go further than that 70% proposed reduction without cutting deeply into vital services across our hospitals.
It is a shame that the hon. Members who represent the Royal Lancaster infirmary, which is part of Morecambe Bay’s trust, are again not here to make this case. However, I want to ask the Minister something, and she can rise now or deal with this in her summing up. Will she follow the lead of the shadow Secretary of State, recognise our unique case and pledge to bridge the gap? Until we get that promise I will keep working with anyone in our community across Morecambe Bay who will join us in demanding the funding deal our hospitals desperately need.
The hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) are not here to stand up for their hospital today, so I will be out at the weekend with the people who will replace them as MPs: our brilliant candidates Amina Lone and Cat Smith. We will not stop until our hospitals are secure. The Government are proving themselves to be not up to this job, so they should get out of the way.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
When I was first campaigning in Dover and Deal, I found that the previous Government’s legacy was that they had run down the much-loved Buckland hospital in Dover. Wards had been axed one by one; services had been withdrawn one by one; and the hospital had been decimated for more than a decade. There had been talk of plans to build a new hospital, but they had gone nowhere for the better part of a decade. It was a total disgrace; we did not get a fair share of health care in Dover and Deal.
In addition, an agreement appeared to have been made by the hospital trust in 2006 to take away the out-patient services at Deal’s hospital. There were claims of a consultation with the then MP and the then elected representatives to withdraw those out-patient services. So when I was elected I faced a situation where the hospital trust wanted to axe out-patient services and people were very concerned that Deal’s hospital was so undermined that it would be lost altogether. That was unacceptable.
What did the Conservatives do about it? Thanks to our funding of the NHS—the amount of money we have put in and the increase in spending in real terms—we managed to get a new hospital built and it opens in March. That is a real achievement, ensuring that we will have a fairer share of health care back in Dover. After the years of going backwards, we will go forwards, and people in our community will be able to be seen and cared for in our community. Rather than have Deal’s hospital being run down and closed, as people feared, because Labour left it teetering on the edge, we campaigned hard.
I undertook a large survey across the whole of Deal and I listened to people’s views. Thousands responded and we had hundreds in a meeting in a church to listen to the doctors and put the case for keeping the hospital, and now the clinical commissioning group, using its new funding powers, is ensuring that that hospital is safeguarded for the future. In that way, under the Conservatives, we have safeguarded Deal’s hospital and we are getting a new Dover hospital.
We also had difficult times in our local hospital trust—the East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust had the CQC come in and investigate. In the past there would have been a cover-up and things would all have been swept under the carpet, just as they were in Staffordshire. That was the disgrace under the previous Government; the shadow Health Secretary oversaw that shameful episode. This Government have been open, honest and frank about the situation, and have ensured that special measures are taken and that we will have more nurses, more investment and better health care as a result. That is an important milestone. It shows not only that we have a new Dover hospital and that we have safeguarded Deal’s hospital, but that we have a better trust thanks to the reforms the Government have put in place.
But I think we should go further. I want to see five-star health care in Dover and Deal, so that rather than the cold wards of old, we should have new individual care and recovery suites, which can enable flexibility. People could be there for short-time observation; for step-down care for a week or two, rather than blocking up the acute hospital; for re-ambulation over a two to three-month period; or for much longer-term palliative care or perhaps end-of-life care. I am working with Kent county council, the local CCG and other health stakeholders to examine how we can bring forward that sort of innovative proposal. It will help with NHS funding because it will save money lost through bed-blocking; it will save money because its beds will be less expensive than elsewhere in the NHS; and it will provide a better experience for patients because they will be able to get better and recover within the community.
We need to rethink A and E more generally, by having more local emergency centres. My plan is that at the new Dover Buckland hospital, which opens in March, we should see a local emergency centre being used as an out-of-hours base for the doctors and CCG. It should be beefed up so that it has a much more emergency flavour to it, rather than a minor injuries one, so that more people use it, more people have trust and confidence in it and fewer people will inappropriately admit themselves to A and E down the road in Ashford. In that way, we will be able to get the right kind of cascading, the right level of treatment and the right places, given how our health system works. Such an approach would allow simpler stuff to be carried out more locally in our communities, whereas the more complicated accident and emergency problems would be dealt with in a more centralised A and E unit. That kind of modernisation in how we deal with out-of-hours care and A and E-type care is something I hope we will think about and see more of in future. I do not see this as a left/right issue, just as I do not see community hospitals, which I believe in, as a left/right issue. I see it as being about people who are concerned about localism, and the localisation of health care and bringing it closer to the patient and to the community. That is the way we should be building the future of our NHS. It is a great shame we have seen so much politicisation and weaponisation of this—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I call Grahame M. Morris. You have five minutes.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I wish to make it clear that I have chosen to be here in the Chamber today to participate in this important debate rather than attend the Health Committee, which is also considering important matters, because I feel that we need to set out our view of the direction of the health service.
I was very interested in some of the hon. Gentleman’s views about fair funding. Having experienced NHS funding under the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, I must say that my view is rather different. After the general election in 2010, the funding for a brand-new hospital that would have served my constituency—it was to be funded not through the private finance initiative scheme but by NHS capital—was cancelled by the present Government. It is an absolute disgrace that we still do not have modern facilities to serve my constituents and those of neighbouring constituencies. It prompts us to ask whether fair funding or some kind of gerrymandering is being applied.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about opening urgent treatment centres. That is a revelation to me because the two centres that opened in my constituency under the previous Labour Government are now threatened with closure. We have neither a modern hospital nor modern facilities.
I am proud to say that, although I am not a doctor, I did work in the health service. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), I worked in a pathology laboratory, doing some important diagnostic work. I am proud of the people who deliver that service; I think they deserve enormous credit.
The creation of the NHS is Labour’s proudest achievement. More than anything else—more than football or cricket—it is what binds us together as a nation. The principle of a free national health service, which is free at the point of use, has huge popular support among the general public.
When the Prime Minister said that his priorities could be summarised in three letters—NHS—we might have been forgiven for thinking that the Conservatives had been transformed and had come to cherish the NHS as much as the British people do. But, with fewer than 100 days to the general election, it is apparent that his words were nothing more than a smokescreen. It is clear that the Government knew that they could never go into a general election stating their true intentions. Now, we have been accused of weaponising the NHS.
Grahame M. Morris
I would rather weaponise it than privatise it, which is what I accuse the Government of doing. That would not have been possible without the active support of the Liberal Democrat party—talking of which, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) has just taken his place in the Chamber. I feel bitter about what has happened. The hon. Gentleman and I both served on the Health and Social Care Bill, which has now been enacted. The lead advocates were the right hon. Members for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). That Act was a really dangerous move, because part 3 opened up our national health service to the full force of competition. Conservatives may say that the difference is only marginal, but the truth is that that Act allows hospital trusts to have up to 49% of their income come from private patients.
I know that we are desperately short of time, but I want to set out some political dividing lines. Labour and the Conservatives are making very different offerings for the NHS. Labour’s offering is that it will provide more nurses and GPs, and I think it will find favour. In the next general election—
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 10 years and I have never had so many complaints about the NHS as I have received in recent months. In a recent survey that I carried out, more than 35% of people who responded had had to wait more than a week to see a GP. I have seen many parents who are concerned about the length of time they have waited for their children to receive a diagnosis of autism, or to get an appointment with child and adolescent mental health services. Our four hour-target rate at A and E in Hull stands at about 74.9%, which is one of the lowest in the country. We also have very high levels of cancelled operations.
We now have a new chief executive, who is doing his very best, with a dedicated team of front-line staff, to deal with the pressures on A and E, and I want to pay tribute to them for their work. However, what I really wish to focus on in this short contribution is a report on financial irregularities, which has been published on the front page of my local newspaper today. It concerns the regime that existed under the former chief executive of Hull Royal Infirmary, Phil Morley, who left the hospital very suddenly last April, just before the publication of a very damning report by the Care Quality Commission, which outlined concerns about bullying, staff shortages and the care that was being provided at the hospital. Within a few months of his leaving and the damning report, he turned up as a chief executive at the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, earning—I found out from a freedom of information request—£170,000. The report published this morning is a leaked report, but I want to read this out, because I am sure that all hon. Members will be concerned to learn what has happened to NHS money:
“In a draft report leaked”
to the Hull Daily Mail
“external auditors KPMG, called in to investigate financial concerns, said there was ‘an undeclared conflict of interest’ between Mr Morley and chief operating officer Amanda Pye. The NHS watchdog for hospital trusts was asked to consider calling in a team involved in examining financial irregularities and suspicions of fraud ‘due to the seniority of staff involved and potential conflicts of interest’.”
That included—I am sure that hon. Members will be concerned about this—payment for a sunset cruise on a luxury yacht in 2012 for Mr Morley and senior members of his management team in Florida. It also says:
“Mr Morley amended draft minutes from a committee set up to approve salaries and additional payments to staff”.
This includes a payment made for a relocation allowance, when there was no relocation, and the person ended up having to pay £8,000 back to the trust. As I have said, there was a conflict of interest between Mr Morley and a senior member of his team.
This has all come to light as a result of the investigative journalism by Allison Coggan at the Hull Daily Mail and by Vicky Johnson at the local BBC. I think it is shocking that the chair of the audit committee, when asked on television by Vicky Johnson why she had not challenged what the chief executive was doing, said that she was scared to challenge him. This is NHS money, and we know that every penny counts. I have raised this on the Floor of the House with the Secretary of State. Initially, he said that there was nothing he could do about it, so I wrote to him and received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), saying that there was nothing that could be done. Finally, we had a meeting with the Secretary of State, who has arranged for the Trust Development Authority to investigate what was going on in that trust.
It is of concern to many hon. Members and to me that where there are financial irregularities in the NHS, it seems that chief executives can move from one trust, having made a mess of things, straight into another job. It seems as if they are protected, which it is fundamentally wrong when it is NHS money—public money. My constituents will certainly be worried about the story on the front page of today’s Hull Daily Mail, and the fact that this individual is still in a post paid for by the NHS in another part of the country earning a lot of money. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the TDA will do a thorough and proper investigation into what went on in that trust, because it is not acceptable that this man still holds a chief executive position.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate.
The issues raised in today’s debate about the challenges of providing health care for a population that is ageing and living longer with complex health conditions in a context of fiscal austerity and rising costs are some of the most pressing ones facing us as policy makers. We all acknowledge that it is difficult and there is no easy soundbite solution to the long-term challenges, but I do not believe that those challenges are insurmountable if we are prepared to prioritise health spending and address pressure points in the system.
Lilian Greenwood
It is interesting that the hon. Lady was talking about the costs of an ageing population. Is she aware of Monday’s report by Action on Hearing Loss, which showed that as a result of budget cuts and rising demand two out of five audiology departments offer patients a reduced service? The chief executive of Action on Hearing Loss described that as having a cruel and senseless impact on people with hearing loss. Should the Government not respond to that?
Dr Whiteford
I was not aware of that report, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing it out.
We all know that we do not have one NHS in the UK—we have national health services in each of the home nations that operate independently of one another and are accountable to the devolved institutions—but it is worth noting that in recent years our distinct national health services have gone down divergent policy paths. Those of us who remain committed to comprehensive health care, available free at the point of need, understand that the model is under ideological threat. I have been horrified by the NHS reforms in England that have removed the statutory duty of care, and that, as we speak, are enabling the creeping privatisation of services. For the sake of the peoples of these islands, those reforms need to be reversed, because the reality of devolution is that Westminster still holds the purse strings. The funding formula by which the devolved Governments receive their block grants is directly related to budget decisions made for England in devolved policy areas, so decisions to cut spending in NHS England, or to privatise services, have a direct knock-on effect on the money made available to the Scottish Government.
There has been a 10% cut in Scotland’s fiscal resource budget since 2010, and a 26% real-terms cut in Scotland’s capital budget. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government have increased the health resource budget by 4.6% in real terms, and every penny of additional budget consequentials accruing from health spending has been spent on health. This coming year, health spending in Scotland will break the £12 billion barrier for the first time.
The practical consequences of increased health spending in Scotland can be seen in record staffing levels—up 6.5% overall, with record numbers of consultants, over 1,700 more nurses and a 7% increase in GPs. We have cleaner hospitals—cases of MRSA are down 88%, and C. diff is down 81% in elderly patients since 2007. Our waiting times for in-patients and out-patients have improved dramatically. More than 97% of in-patients were treated within the 12-week target in the last quarter, and 90% of patients are now being seen and treated within 18 weeks of initial referral. Perhaps most telling of all, there has been a drop in the hospital standardised mortality ratios of almost 16% since 2008 and a sizeable reduction in premature deaths in the most deprived areas. And we have honoured our pay commitments to our NHS staff.
The Minister and other Members have today made many comparisons between the NHS in England and the NHS in Wales, but there have been no comparisons with the NHS in Scotland. That is because across a range of indicators the Scottish NHS is outperforming the NHS elsewhere, precisely because we have not gone down the privatisation route.
Just yesterday the brand-new Southern general was handed over to the NHS—an NHS hospital, paid for without the use of discredited private finance initiative or public-private partnership schemes that have been an atrocious waste of public money and are still costing NHS Scotland over £225 million a year. In the north-east, anyone visiting Foresterhill can see all the building work that is going on to improve facilities. Under previous Governments, NHS Grampian was severely short-changed by the funding formula, but the SNP Government have been closing that gap and next year will put in an additional £49 million, a 6% funding increase to bring it into line with other health boards.
We cannot be complacent about the pressures on our NHS. Despite the best efforts and commitment of staff, our NHS is under strain and it does not always get it right. As MPs we often see when things go wrong, but we need to see that against a background of increasing patient satisfaction overall and continuing improvement in patient care, despite enormous pressures. We heard earlier today that some of the pressure on A and E emergency care is a consequence of people having problems accessing primary care. Another area where pressure in one part of the NHS has extensive knock-on impacts is in relation to delayed discharge, which puts tremendous strain on patients, whether they are stuck in hospital desperate to get home, or stuck at home desperate to get into hospital for treatment, because no beds are available.
The Scottish Health Secretary announced an additional £100 million earlier this month to address delayed discharges, but the underlying issues are not just for the NHS. Back in 2010 the report of the Christie commission highlighted, among other things, the need for joined-up services between health boards, local authorities and others, and preventive early interventions to meet the challenges of rising costs and changing demographics in the context of tight public finances. In Scotland, much progress has been made since then, but nobody would pretend that there is not a lot still left to do, or that the process is straightforward. However, we just need to look at how the non-means-tested free personal care has enabled thousands of people to live at home to see the human benefits of what is increasingly being recognised as a cost-effective policy.
It is precisely those efforts to join up health and social care that are threatened by the austerity agenda and the promises of further cuts that both Front-Bench teams seem to have shackled themselves to. Local authority budgets are already under pressure, and further cuts to the public services that they provide, including social care and preventive early intervention work, risk driving up still further the acute pressures on our NHS. Our NHS is precious. Most of us depend upon it. We need to prioritise it and provide the resources that it needs to meet changing demands on it.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to close the debate. There have been some passionate speeches from Members on both sides of the House who are really standing up for care for their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) talked about the excellent joined-up care provided by the Whittington hospital, which I was privileged to visit, and the excellent work of Islington council, which is still funding social care for people with moderate needs and ensuring that all its home care staff are paid the London living wage, including for travel time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) talked about the terrible problems with long ambulance service waits, and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) talked about the difficulties with the Arriva patient transport service, a problem I have in my constituency, where there have been some appalling lapses in the quality of care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) talked about the huge financial problems facing his trust, and made a powerful case for its uniqueness in terms of its geographical position and transport links, such that it needs to be looked at seriously in future. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) expressed concern about financial irregularities in her trust, which I hope we can get to the bottom of. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) did not get much time to speak, but I agree with him that the NHS, perhaps more than football or cricket, is what makes us proud to be British.
Our NHS faces huge challenges: our ageing population; the increase in people living with long-term conditions; drugs and medical technologies advancing at incredible speed; and public expectations changing rapidly too. Meeting these demands, when the NHS faces the tightest financial settlement of its life, requires a Government who are laser focused on ensuring that all our services get the best results for patients and offer the best value for taxpayers’ money.
In practice, we know that this means that some services must be provided in specialist centres, so that patients get expert treatment 24/7. Others must be shifted out of hospital into the community and towards prevention, to help people stay living at home. All services—physical, mental and social, across hospitals and in the community—must be properly joined up and personalised, so that people have the right care, at the right time, in the right place. We also need bold action on public health to prevent long-term illnesses such as diabetes, obesity and heart disease from developing in the first place and to ensure that the NHS is sustainable in future.
In the light of those huge challenges, what did the Government do when they took office in 2010? They focused not on reforming front-line care, but on forcing through the biggest backroom reorganisation in the history of the NHS, wasting three years and £3 billion of taxpayers’ money. Ministers promised that they would cut bureaucracy, but instead they created 440 new organisations—not just NHS England, 221 clinical commissioning groups and 152 health and wellbeing boards, but four regional NHS England teams, 27 local area teams, 19 specialist commissioning units, Public Health England and Health Education England, and that is obviously alongside Monitor and the Care Quality Commission. It is a system so confusing that no one knows who is responsible or accountable for leading the changes that patients want and taxpayers need to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future.
Ministers promised that their reorganisation would save money, but £1.4 billion has been spent on redundancy payments alone, and more than 4,000 people who were made redundant have since been re-hired elsewhere in the system. They promised to cut the costs of management consultancy—indeed, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) specifically promised that those costs would be reduced by 46% by 2014. Instead, these costs have soared as hospitals and CCGs spend good money after bad to try to make sense of the new system. Last month, the British Medical Journal revealed that NHS spending on management consultancy has not been cut by 46%; it has increased by 100% to £640 million. That is enough to run three medium-sized hospitals or employ 20,000 extra nurses.
But the Government’s disastrous reorganisation does not even stop there. It is still going on. Primary care is being reorganised again because NHS England has finally realised that it cannot commission effective local GP services at a national level—just as Labour warned. Specialist commissioning is under review because NHS England has lost grip of the budget and realised that patients need specialist services that are joined up with local care—just as Labour warned. Support for GPs in their commissioning role is being reorganised too, with commissioning support units forced to merge and then—get this!—bid to be on a list of approved organisations, including private companies, that are allowed to sell their services back to the NHS. It is a Kafkaesque nightmare of incompetence and chaos written by the Conservatives and signed by the Liberal Democrats.
As if all this was not bad enough, Ministers have made the pressures on the NHS even worse by cutting the services that help to keep people out of hospital and living at home. They shut one in four walk-in centres, scrapped the 48-hour GP waiting target, and removed Labour’s incentives for evening and weekend surgery appointments, so more people are forced to turn to A and E. They slashed social care budgets by £3.5 billion, so fewer older and disabled people get vital help to stay living at home. They cut over 2,000 district and community nurses, who help elderly people get back home from hospital and prevent people with long-term illnesses from ending up there in the first place.
What is the result? More sick, elderly people in A and E, and more patients stuck in hospital, often for weeks or months at a time, when they could be cared for back at home. Over the past 12 months, delayed discharges from hospitals have cost the NHS £280 million. This could have paid for 6,500 nurses or a year of decent home care for 40,000 people. Where on earth is the sense in that? More patients are stuck in hospital, more people are forced to wait longer for treatment, and more planned operations are being cancelled. Patients are in distress, families are struggling, and staff are under intolerable pressure.
Patients, staff and taxpayers cannot afford another 99 days of this Government, let alone another five years. They need Labour’s long-term plan for investment and reform, with an extra £2.5 billion a year, on top of this Government’s plans, to get the doctors, nurses, midwives and home care workers we need. We will join up physical, mental and social care services from home to hospital, with one team and one point of contact, to get families the support they need. We will introduce a year of care budget to create a powerful incentive for better home and community services, to keep people out of hospital, and to tackle the scandal of 15-minute home care visits. We will give more power and control to patients, with new rights to swifter cancer tests, better GP access, talking therapies and care at home. We will end the zero-hours contracts that exploit social care workers, so that elderly people finally know who is coming through their front door every morning and staff can properly plan their lives.
At the next election there will be a real choice on the NHS. It will be a choice between care going backwards, services fragmented and money wasted under the Conservatives, or Labour’s plans to fully integrate services to get the best results for patients and the best value for taxpayers’ money. It will be a choice between the Conservatives, whose Prime Minister has broken his promise to protect the NHS and thrown the system into chaos, or Labour, who will make the real investment and reforms the NHS needs to meet the challenges of the future. It will be a choice between the Conservatives’ unfunded plans to cut taxes for the wealthiest and make even deeper cuts to social care, or Labour’s fully funded proposals and 10-year plan to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for the future. I commend the motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall). In truth, I think we have heard a great deal more consensus about the future of our health services than the Opposition sometimes like to pretend. It has been obvious that Members in all parts of the House care passionately about their local services. They have spoken up clearly on behalf of local staff who are working so hard through this winter. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
All Members speaking up for their constituencies are doing so because they care about their local health services. They also accept the challenge that the NHS and the whole health service in England is facing but is collectively rising to meet. Hard-working NHS staff do not need to hear the endless politically driven scaremongering that we hear all too often from Opposition Members. That was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and by many colleagues who have come here with scaremongering leaflets from their constituencies saying the very opposite of what is true. Far too much of that is going on. It must be absolutely demoralising for staff who are working hard in the face of winter pressures.
Despite the huge financial pressures we were faced with when we came to office, such as the need to reduce the deficit we inherited, which was, as Members have said, the worst peacetime—
Jane Ellison
I will make some progress; the hon. Gentleman has made a contribution.
Not only has NHS funding in England been protected; it has risen in every year of this Parliament. That is an indisputable fact that flies in the face of the Opposition’s financial scaremongering. As a result of the additional £2 billion funding for 2015-16 the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement, funding in 2015-16 will be £16 billion higher in cash terms than in 2010-11. Those are the facts. That equates to an increase of £6.8 billion in real terms. That additional investment is a down-payment on the NHS’s own plan, which was set out in the “Five Year Forward View”. The chief executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens, has said that the autumn statement gives the NHS what it needs for next year.
Winter is always challenging for the NHS. This year, it comes on top of a significant increase in A and E attendances, which have been higher than in any year since 2010. On average, 3,000 more patients each day are being seen and treated in under four hours than under Labour. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) set out clearly in going back over the past few years, the additional funding the Government have put in emphasises the priority we place on the NHS. That makes utter nonsense of the claim that we are going back to 1930s levels of funding. That is ludicrous, and Opposition Members parroting that because they have been told to insults the intelligence of every Member of the House. It is nonsense.
Helen Goodman
The OBR says that the Government’s plans involve cutting 1 million public service workers. Will the Minister say from the Dispatch Box which 1 million public service jobs are going to be cut?
Jane Ellison
I remind all Opposition Members of their predictions about employment at the beginning of this Parliament. If any of them wants to remind us of those, they can be my guest.
We recognise the significant and continuing pressure on services in the short term and the need to invest in new ways of providing care for the future.
This Government have put more performance data in the public domain and have put an unprecedented emphasis on transparency. Indeed, some of the statistics Members quote in these debates are in the public domain only because the Government have put such an emphasis on transparency. Transparency is one of the key drivers of safety in our system.
As public health Minister, I welcome the focus on prevention in the “Five Year Forward View”. I think this is common ground across the parties. Prevention has to be a key part of the NHS’s plans. When we keep people healthy and out of hospital, it is a win for them and a win for the NHS. Mention has been made of the national diabetes prevention programme. We will be the first country in the world to implement such a programme at scale to help prevent the onset of the disease and reduce demand on the NHS. Investing in the NHS with a focus on prevention is one of the keys to a sustainable footing for the NHS in the long term.
Thanks to the work of NHS staff and the funding protection provided by the Government, the NHS is treating more patients than ever. Again, that flies in the face of all the dire threats about its peril. There are 9,000 more doctors and 3,300 more nurses. The additional funding announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement will enable the NHS to continue to meet the rapidly rising demand in the short term, while making investments in new services and facilities to transform care for patients and ensure that the NHS is sustainable in the long term.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister mentioned an increase in the number of nurses, but there is no increase in the number of district nurses, of whom we have lost thousands. Week in, week out, the Health Committee keeps being told how serious that is for all aspects of care in the community.
Jane Ellison
I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady will welcome the 589 new nurses in her trust.
The more sensible Opposition Front Benchers have made it clear in interviews that the link between reform and investment is important. I want to pay tribute to the NHS, which is well on track to make up to £20 billion of efficiency savings to be reinvested in front-line care. For example, the NHS is securing savings of £2 billion a year as a result of the drive to tackle waste and improve procurement. Tough decisions were taken at the beginning of this Parliament to protect the NHS budget—against the advice of the Labour party—that have allowed us to strengthen family doctoring and reform out-of-hospital care. We all agree that integrating health and social care is important, and that is exactly why the Government have the £5 billion better care fund. It is an area on which—despite what Opposition Members say—there is significant consensus. They should support that fund instead of, as I recall, inviting us to put it on pause.
We have heard about how Labour plans to raise more money for the NHS, but in 2015-16 it would raise nothing. The Government are already consulting on a tobacco levy. The tax on family homes, by the Opposition’s own admission, would not start until 2016-17 and has already been spent three times—paying down the deficit, funding the NHS, getting rid of the 10p rate. As a London MP, I have to say that the chance of the homes tax surviving Labour’s London mayoral candidate race is minimal, given the ire raining down on it from Labour MPs in London. On top of that, Labour plans to spend an extra £5 billion, including more than £2 billion on committing equal resources to physical and mental health and more than £1 billion on GP access—it just does not stack up.
We came to government with a long-term economic plan to reduce the deficit and build a stronger economy, with a commitment to protect and safeguard the NHS. We have kept that important promise on the NHS and we kept our promise on the success of our economic plan. We recognise that the NHS still faces significant challenges, both short and long term, as the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) laid out—rising demand, an ageing population and growing expectations—but it is only through sticking to our long-term economic plan that we are able to put the investment in. We are making a down-payment of £2 billion on the NHS’s five-year forward view and we fully support the long-term vision for the NHS, by the NHS—by the most senior and experienced clinicians in our country. The Government have committed to put more resources in now and in the future to give all our constituents a better service, free at the point of use and fit for the future.
Question put.
Sustainable Development Goals
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that 2015 is an historic year for development as the countries of the world come together to negotiate the binding climate change agreement at the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Sustainable Development Goals; believes it is unacceptable that more than one billion people still live in extreme poverty on less than $1.25 a day; notes that the effects of climate change will be most severe in some of the world’s poorest countries; further recognises that the UK has a leading role to play in these negotiations; regrets that the Government failed to bring forward legislation to enshrine in law the commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on international aid as set out in the Coalition Agreement; further regrets that this Government has failed to support standalone Sustainable Development Goals on health and climate change; and calls on the Government to show global leadership on tackling the causes of poverty inequality and climate change.
This year, 2015, is an historic year for development. The countries of the world will come together at the United Nations in September to agree the sustainable development goals, and in Paris in December we will agree a framework to tackle climate change. These agreements would be priorities for a Labour Government. We have called today’s debate—the first since the debate on Burma in 2008—to set out the differences that we see between this coalition Government and Labour on these vital issues.
Fifteen years ago, a Labour Government led global efforts to tackle extreme poverty, which led to the millennium development goals. These goals have produced fantastic results. Every day, 17,000 fewer children die. Nine out of 10 children in developing regions now attend primary school and we have halved the number of children who die before their fifth birthday. In 2002, just 700,000 people received treatment for HIV. The last Labour Government helped to found the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. Today, 13 million people access life-saving HIV treatment. We cancelled debt, increased aid and outlawed cluster bombs, and when my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the UK became the first country in the world to put into a law a target to reduce carbon emissions. Other countries, such as Finland, Denmark and Brazil, have followed that lead.
But, today, more than 1 billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day, so the new sustainable development goals must go faster to eliminate extreme poverty and, vitally, tackle growing economic inequality.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I appreciate the call that the hon. Lady is making for UK leadership on climate and poverty issues. Does she recognise that her party’s support for things such as maximising oil and gas extraction in the Infrastructure Bill, agreed just a few days ago, is undermining the pledges she is now making to tackle climate change?
Mary Creagh
Not in the slightest. I will set out in detail tomorrow, on a visit to the Institute of Development Studies in Brighton, our plans to expand what we want to do, particularly in the area of universal health coverage. Perhaps I will bump into the hon. Lady on the pier down there.
There are three vital areas that Labour would prioritise to tackle inequality: universal health coverage, human rights and climate change. I will say more on those issues in a moment, but first I would like to look at this Government’s approach. We regret that the Government failed to bring forward legislation to enshrine in law both parties’ manifesto commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international aid. It fell to Labour MPs and the good offices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) to ensure that the landmark Bill that would do so was passed in this House.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, but does she accept that trying to set out the dividing lines between the parties on the subject of international development breaks a consensus that has existed for a long time? I think the outside world looking in would fail to understand that it is this Government, whom she seeks to criticise, who have met the 0.7% target.
Mary Creagh
I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Lady, but she too led an Opposition day debate on trade justice in 2002—I read the report of it in Hansard only last night—so I shall take no lessons on having Opposition day debates on this matter from her.
Mary Creagh
I am going to make some progress.
There is nothing wrong with supporting the private sector and infrastructure investment in poor countries, but we Opposition Members have grave concerns about the lack of transparency over where this funding for private sector development is going. That area will account for £1.8 billion—nearly one fifth of the Secretary of State’s budget next year.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
Just before this debate, the Select Committee was taking evidence from the Secretary of State on precisely the issue of private sector investment, but not a single Labour member of the Committee attended the session.
Mary Creagh
Perhaps my hon. Friends were writing their speeches. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) is planning to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman chairs, and I shall quote extensively from some of his reports, if he will give me the chance.
Mary Creagh
I am going to make my point, and this will interest the right hon. Gentleman because it is a body that he set up. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact has been highly critical of the Secretary of State’s TradeMark Southern Africa programme. It found that an £80,000 illegal payment was made to the Government of Zimbabwe in breach of the Government’s own rules.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
Let me point out that that programme was set up by the hon. Lady’s Government.
Mary Creagh
Shock, horror! The right hon. Lady’s multi-annual review in 2011 talked about that programme and found that it was working well. The payments I refer to were made between July 2011 and May 2013—on her watch. The commission said:
“We are…deeply concerned that…a private company is managing a £30 million DFID programme without any formal contract with…DFID.”
That is a direct quotation from ICAI. It details serious weaknesses in financial management, with 90% of all expenditure undertaken in cash, without securement or contract—for example, a $20,000 cash payment with a hand-written receipt from an off-the-shelf receipt book; a request for a $100,000 petty cash fund; and a request by newly recruited staff to be paid tax free, which is against South African law. As I say, the review of the capital budget that the Department carried out in October 2011 found that most outputs had been achieved, but after three years of the current Secretary of State being in charge, the third annual review found that DFID was not on track to meet its financial forecast—on her watch.
To her credit, the Secretary of State has shut down that programme, but similar problems persist elsewhere. ICAI’s report into DFID private sector spending published eight months ago found that it was
“impossible to identify how much DFID actually spends on private sector development…because it is not captured as a discrete category of expenditure in DFID’s financial system.”
That leads to the question: “If you don’t know where it’s going, how can you measure if it is working?”
The National Audit Office has criticised another private sector project—the Private Infrastructure Development Group. The NAO criticises the right hon. Lady’s Department’s decision to scale up PIDG funding from a total of £49 million in 2010-11 to £258 million in 2012-13. Her Department will allocate £700 million-worth of taxpayers’ money to that fund between 2012 and 2015. The UK now accounts for 88% of all contributions. The NAO criticises the fact that there was no change to PIDG’s governance and that the business cases for projects were not assessed by DFID’s quality assurance unit—despite the risks involved. The NAO concluded that DFID has inadequate financial control and oversight, lacks robust information and was unable to prove value for taxpayers’ money.
I share the NAO’s and ICAI’s concerns about where and how this £1.8 billion is being spent. I have put a series of parliamentary questions to the Secretary of State about where the funding for her strategic framework for economic development is going. I asked the right hon. Lady how the money would be ”targeted on economic development”, and how it would be
“allocated to different activities and countries.”
The Secretary of State did not answer. The public deserve to know if and how much of the money is being paid to the private sector directly. I asked the Secretary of State that question, only to be told:
“This information is not available in the form requested.”
Perhaps that reflected the concerns expressed in the NAO report. I asked how much of the £1.8 billion had already been spent; no answer. I asked what the purpose of the money was; no answer.
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady seems to be unaware that the £1.8 billion budget relates to 2015-16. We are not in that financial year yet.
Mary Creagh
A total of £700 million is being spent in one fund over three years, and the Secretary of State is unable to answer a single question asked by ICAI, by the NAO, or by me about where and how that money is being spent. Presumably—as in the case of the huge increase in the funding of PIDG—that is because she does not know. The Public Accounts Committee has now examined PIDG’s investments. Its report will be published tomorrow, and we await it with great interest.
Mr O’Brien
As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, the amazing, incredible leadership of the United Kingdom, straddling both parties’ times in office, is much admired around the world. I happen to have just come back from speaking at an event in Davos, where our leadership, through a unity of approach across the House, was greatly admired because of our ability to get things done and our amazing achievements in relation to international development. The coalition Government have been no exception, in that we have always ensured that we include the other side. Is the hon. Lady not as saddened and disappointed as I am by the churlish nature of her motion and the tone that she is adopting? Surely we should act together to deliver the greatest possible public good internationally.
Mary Creagh
I make no apology for demanding transparency when it comes to where the taxpayer’s money is being spent. There is nothing wrong with working with the private sector. These are funds that were set up by a Labour Government. However, when funds are scaled up so quickly without changes being made to governance and oversight, the National Audit Office—not me—is concerned about where and how the money is being spent.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that the coalition’s record on delivering the 0.7% of GNI is one of which we should be extremely proud, on behalf of the whole country. If our constituents are to have confidence in that spending, we shall need to see the maximum transparency and value for money. Instead of coming up with a litany of criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who I think has done a fantastic job—will the hon. Lady answer these questions? If she ever becomes Secretary of State, how many countries will she identify as an aid target, and what level of sign-off will she prescribe for her Department? How many DFID-run projects has she already visited, and how many projects does she expect to visit if and when she becomes Secretary of State?
Mary Creagh
That is very kind. Unlike many Government Members who discovered a new-found interest in development as soon as they were appointed to their roles, I have a long-standing interest in the subject. Let us start with my volunteering for Oxfam in Sri Lanka for two months in 1990. Let us move on to my visit to Rwanda and eastern DRC—
Mrs Spelman
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The title of the debate is “Sustainable Development Goals”, and Members have come into the Chamber to discuss sustainable development goals. We have heard from the hon. Lady for 15 minutes, with no discussion of them. A document produced by the Select Committee of which I am a member is tagged to the motion. It is entitled “Agreeing ambitious Sustainable Development Goals in 2015”. Surely, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the hon. Lady had wanted a DFID score card, that is what it should have been called.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I appreciate the right hon. Lady’s frustration, but that was what Mr Speaker would call “not a point of order, but a point of frustration”. The content of the hon. Lady’s speech is not a matter for me, apart from the fact that she must stick to the title of the debate, which, so far, she has done.
Mary Creagh
I am grateful for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the projects that I visited as a Back Bencher. There was the post-genocide work that DFID has been doing in Rwanda. I have visited a Save the Children project in Lubumbashi. I have visited artisanal miners in eastern Congo. I have visited Panzi hospital for the victims of sexual violence—a subject that I know is very close to the heart of the Secretary of State. I visited Burundi—a country that is no longer in receipt of DFID funding—in 2009 to look at the Save the Children hospital there. In 2012, I visited Rumbek in South Sudan to look at the work of the World Food Programme, and last week I was in Geneva talking to the World Health Organisation and the global fund, UNAIDS and UNITAID. So I do not need any lessons about visits.
Mary Creagh
I am going to make some progress.
I want to talk about Labour’s priorities for the sustainable development goals. As I said, health is very important and is the bedrock of all human development. People in rich countries and poor countries alike are affected by disease outbreaks. Strong health systems build resilience. We have seen Ebola in west Africa overwhelm weak health systems, and as the party of the NHS Labour wants others to enjoy the protections we take for granted.
Mary Creagh
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman was listening. As I said, unlike the many Members on the Government Benches who have discovered a passion for these things in their roles on appointment to the job, I do not need to go on a visit to understand. I have been on those visits that I detailed, and I have been in this role for seven weeks so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me some credit for my long-standing interest in this area.
I will now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), if she wants to intervene.
Kerry McCarthy
The moment has slightly passed, but when my hon. Friend was listing the projects she has visited I was going to remind her that we also went together to Pakistan after the dreadful earthquake there and saw the relief efforts and the work DFID was doing.
Mary Creagh
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I certainly remember one of the more hair-raising car rides of my life up to the mountains there and seeing the fantastic work that was being done in those areas.
I want to talk more generally now about our priorities. Universal health coverage would reduce inequality and would stop 100 million people a year falling into poverty. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that, unfortunately, this Government have cut bilateral spending on health in Sierra Leone and Liberia from £26 million in 2010 to £16 million this year. Four months ago the International Development Committee criticised DFID, saying:
“The planned termination of further UK funding to the Liberian health sector is especially unwise.”
Lasting health care systems are about more than the delivery of commodities such as vaccines and bed-nets, vital though they are. Despite the progress made over the last decade, HIV and AIDS continue to blight the lives of millions of people. Between 2008 and 2013, Britain gave £40 million to support the work done by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, yet Ministers have slashed that support to £5 million for 2013-18— a massive 87% cut.
Mary Creagh
Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to explain why that cut was made?
Justine Greening
I really just wanted to ensure that the record was straight. This Government have spent more on health care in Sierra Leone in every year in government than the hon. Lady’s Government did. I will be specific: DFID’s 2009-10 annual report says Labour spent £11 million on health in Sierra Leone. This Government have consistently spent more than that in every year. Does she regret not spending more previously?
Mary Creagh
Well, my question to the Secretary of State is: does she regret cutting, and is she going to reverse her decision to pull out of bilateral spending in Liberia—yes or no? My figures are from the House of Commons Library, and I do not recognise the one that the Secretary of State has used. I have also joined them together; the combined total was £26 million for Sierra Leone—[Interruption.] Here is the answer, if the Secretary of State will listen and stop chuntering. The combined total was £26 million in 2010—[Interruption.] It is hard to listen when you are talking, I find. The combined total was £26 million in 2010, and it is £16 million today. That is a £10 million reduction. Perhaps she would like to write to me to set the record straight. We can have an exchange of letters; I am sure it is pretty dull for people to listen to this.
Ministers have slashed funding for the international AIDS vaccine; there has been a massive 87% cut. That cut is a short-sighted mistake if we are to invest for the long term in tackling those neglected diseases. I note that the Secretary of State neglected to explain why the funding was cut by 90% for that international research programme.
On human rights, we want women and girls to exercise their human rights free from the fear of violence, coercion and intimidation—
Mary Creagh
The Secretary of State will have her chance when she makes her speech.
We want girls to enjoy their education free from the threat of child or forced marriage. However, Tory MEPs voted against the European Parliament’s report on sustainable development goals and on the section on women’s sexual and reproductive rights. We want to tackle the economic conditions and supply chains that tolerate the obscenity of 168 million child workers. We want to ensure that children affected by conflict have the psycho-social services that they need and the right to go to school. We want members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities to be free to love and marry whomever they wish. We want the disabled to participate fully in society, and we want protection for indigenous peoples.
We want workers to enjoy decent work, decent pay and rest breaks, and to have the freedom to join a trade union. We must not have a repeat of the terrible Rana Plaza disaster. We will therefore reverse this Government’s ideological decision to stop funding for the International Labour Organisation.
Mrs Spelman
Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that Members on both sides of the House came together and succeeded in putting into the Modern Slavery Bill—which this Government have enacted—a clause on transparency in supply chains, precisely to deal with the exploitation she describes? Labour Members also supported that measure.
Mary Creagh
Absolutely, and I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House for that. I believe that that was a Labour amendment, but it had cross-party support and we welcomed that.
Eradicating poverty will be possible only if we tackle climate change. If we do not keep temperature rises to below 2º C, millions will fall back into poverty. The Prime Minister says very little about his wind turbine these days. He is a prisoner of his divided party, which is split over whether climate change even exists. For Labour, climate change will be at the centre of our foreign policy and integral to our plan to change Britain.
There is a real opportunity to address climate change this year. The United States, the EU and, most importantly, China, are all showing a willingness to act. At the Paris summit in December, a Labour Government would push for global targets for reducing carbon emissions, with regular reviews towards the long-term goal of what the science now tells us is necessary: zero net global emissions in the latter half of this century. In addition, we must ensure that the sustainable development goals have a specific goal on climate change—something that the Secretary of State has repeatedly failed to back.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
Having stood opposite the hon. Lady at the Dispatch Box, I know that her tone can sometimes be a bit abrasive. I know that she has been in her present role for only seven weeks, but could she not use this opportunity to say that she welcomes some of the things that are going on in relation to international aid, including some of the bilateral arrangements? Does she not welcome the continued spending of 0.7% of gross national income? Does she not agree that there are some good projects? Her tone today has been deeply divisive on an issue on which there has traditionally been great consensus in the House.
Mary Creagh
I am not saying that everything the Department for International Development does is bad; I am trying to point out—[Interruption.] No, that is a wilful misunderstanding of it. On the 0.7%, was the hon. Gentleman one of the Members who stayed here to vote that through? More Labour MPs were in this House for that than Conservatives and Liberals put together, and it would not have passed without Labour votes—and he knows it. The Government have had five years of Government time and Backbench Business Committee business time on a Thursday when nothing has been done.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is entirely fair for my hon. Friend to be scrutinising and questioning Government policy, particularly on climate change and what position is taken into the sustainable development goals summit. Does she feel that a Prime Minister who said that we should “cut the green crap” is the right person to lead this country into crucial negotiations about climate change and the future of poor countries around this world?
Mary Creagh
I am afraid that the climate issue was used by the Prime Minister. Everyone remembers the hug a husky trip in 2006; I do not know whether that is one of those photos the Tory party attempted to delete from the internet, but yesterday I still managed to find a good few pictures of him doing that. He was certainly less enthusiastic about the issue in government.
With the right leadership, ours is the generation that can end extreme poverty, reduce inequality and tackle climate change. We can move to a world beyond aid and enable people to secure justice instead of charity. The year 2015 provides a unique opportunity for the world to think bigger and do better for ourselves, our children and the world’s poorest people. That is a thrilling opportunity and we must not let them down.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
In 2000, the international community agreed a simple and powerful set of objectives: nobody should live in extreme poverty; all children, including girls, should be in school; and the epidemics of HIV/AIDS and malaria must be tackled. Crucially, part of that was about the desire to work in global partnership to achieve goals by working together. I wish to take this opportunity to thank non-governmental organisations, people in the development community and my staff in DFID, of whom I am exceptionally proud, for all the work that they have done, working together, over the past 15 years.
In those 15 years since the millennium development goals were agreed, we have seen the greatest reduction of poverty in history. The MDGs inspired the international community to achieve amazing results: extreme poverty was cut in half by 2010, five years ahead of target; there have been visible improvements across all health targets; more than nine in every 10 children worldwide now have a primary education; and we are well on our way to tackling hunger and malnutrition. Of course the MDGs were to run for 15 years, so, as this House will know, 2015 is one of the most important years for the international community in recent memory.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State rightly mentions the progress that has been made under the MDGs across a range of outcomes, including children’s participation in education. Does she agree that one of the great challenges for the 2015 sustainable development goals is to ensure that disabled children, who are often registered for school but do not attend, fully participate in education? How does she see her Government helping to secure that?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that. If we look at the tranche of children who have still not got into education, we see that they tend to be the children who are disabled or who are in more nomadic tribes and it is harder for them to get into education. We are clear that a core ethos underpinning the next development framework needs to be about leaving nobody behind. My Department is pulling together the first ever DFID strategy on how addressing disability should be part of our development programme. So she is right to raise the issue and I can certainly reassure her that this Government have started to bring that issue into our programming more centrally.
In July, we will convene in Ethiopia to agree a new financing agenda for development. Of course the UK Government have in this Parliament, for the first time ever, finally met their commitment to spend 0.7% of our GNI on international development.
In September, on the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, we will meet in New York to agree the elements of the post-2015 development framework up to 2030. In December, the world will come together in Paris to agree a binding international treaty to tackle the global dangers of climate change. I am proud to be part of a Government who are taking a leading part in all of those negotiations.
Let me briefly discuss the post-2015 agenda. The international community has a duty to produce a set of equally inspiring goals and targets to run up to 2030 that will put us on a sustainable development pathway to eradicate extreme poverty within a generation. The UK has played a leading role in that process, not least demonstrating our commitment to international development by finally meeting the commitment we made to spend 0.7%. Indeed, that is recognised by the fact that the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, personally asked our Prime Minister together with President Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia and the then President Yudhoyono of Indonesia to co-chair the high-level panel of experts who were asked to review these issues and to publish a report about how we should pull together the next sustainable development framework.
Richard Benyon
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that what is important is not just the figure of 0.7%, but how it is spent? What this Government have managed to do is focus the money on where it is most effective. That has required some decisions to be taken. We have had to remove funding from countries that did not need it for those that do.
Justine Greening
We have worked really hard to ensure that we stopped funding programmes in countries such as China and Russia, which no longer require targeted development assistance.
Mary Creagh
The funding to Burundi was also cut. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has visited Burundi, but I have. Does not Burundi need assistance from the Department for International Development?
Justine Greening
Countries such as Burundi do still get support from the UK, but it often takes place through the global funds that we support—funds to support health, education or the work that we do on the humanitarian agenda.
Mr O'Brien
As the Secretary of State knows, I had some involvement in the decision on Burundi. The shadow Minister cites Burundi. She should be aware that there was a specific project on which we were asked to deliver on a bilateral basis. It was a very effective project, because we delivered to the Office Burundais des Recettes—the inland revenue—so that it could start to mobilise some of its resources to support development. In addition, we enhanced our multilateral aid, which we put through a transparency process. Far from criticising what we did, the shadow Minister should understand that not only did President Nkurunziza and the others in Burundi welcome our approach, but they were particularly grateful that we encouraged the Belgians to step up to fill the bilateral gap. I hope that that is useful information.
Justine Greening
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He has huge credibility in the international development arena. He has been a Minister, and his work both then and now is hugely valued not just in this country but worldwide. He is absolutely right to say that there were a number of reasons behind the decision on Burundi. Rather than seeing a fact and then drawing her own conclusions, I urge the hon. Lady to dig a little deeper.
Mary Creagh
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. The point about Burundi and other post-conflict countries is that, having a DFID office—or in this case a combined Rwanda-Burundi office—in that country means that it acts not just as a development partner, but a political one in knocking heads together and in dealing with some of the post-conflict factions that still exist in that country. We are talking about withdrawing from that country and only entering it through multilateral assistance. There is nothing wrong with tax assistance. We did all that in Rwanda, and it is an excellent part of development assistance. The point is that if we do not have someone on the ground in the country, we do not have the early warning systems. What happened in Burundi—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has already made her speech.
Justine Greening
I will make some progress. I will go back to the high-level panel report that the Prime Minister was asked to co-chair by Ban Ki-moon, that was published in May 2013. We all recognise that it played a key role in shaping the broader debate around the sustainable development goals. I am talking about the discussions that it outlined and some of the objectives and challenges that it set out for the new post-2015 framework.
Mrs Spelman
The UK was one of the first countries to identify sustainable development goals as the best idea around for the outcome of the Rio+20 summit. The presence of our Prime Minister on the high-level panel on sustainability and the vision of the UN Secretary-General brought the millennium development goals and the universal sustainable development goals into one entity.
Justine Greening
My right hon. Friend is right, and she speaks from a position of authority. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien), she is well respected, both for her service as a Cabinet Minister and for her tireless work with charities such as Tearfund. She is absolutely right: we were one of the key players that recognised the need to fuse the two agendas, of sustainability and climate change and of tackling poverty, successfully if we were to achieve the goal that my Department works faithfully to achieve of eradicating absolute—
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Government Members say that they want a bipartisan approach and nowhere is that more useful than on the issue of climate change, because we need a long-term strategy. Why does the right hon. Lady resist having separate climate change goals within the sustainable development framework?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is somewhat misinterpreting the Government’s position. If she looks at the report by the high-level panel of experts co-chaired by the Prime Minister, she will see that it includes a range of targets and goals in relation to climate change. I shall come on to that later but, as I have said, no one can deny that the UK has played, continues to play, and will play a leading role in climate change discussions, not least because that flows into the work that we do in international development, for example, setting up the international climate fund and investing nearly £4 billion in projects that can help to tackle development and, in many cases, give a real lead in addressing climate change.
Since the report by the high-level panel, the open working group on sustainable development goals—a group of 70 member states mandated at Rio+20 to deliver a proposal on those goals—the UK has pushed for the highest possible level of ambition. We have been consistent in our drive for member states to agree an inspiring and workable agenda centred on the eradication of extreme poverty, with sustainable development at its core, ensuring, as I said to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), that no one is left behind.
As part of that, we have consistently argued for a strong health goal that focuses on strengthening health systems and on ensuring effective health outcomes for all women, men, girls and boys at all ages. We have clearly stated that the framework must fully integrate environment and climate change, and it must have a strong goal on gender equality focusing on improving prospects for women and girls. I was disappointed that there was no explicit reference to the importance of having a strong gender goal and the mainstreaming of women and girls’ issues in the development framework. I hope that we can continue, as we have done in the past, to have cross-party consensus on those issues to make progress.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I thoroughly endorse what my right hon. Friend has said. I should like to take the opportunity yet again to congratulate her, the Prime Minister and all those involved from all parts of the House in helping to push through the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014—something that that she has emphasised but which—and I say this with some regret—was not sufficiently observed by the Opposition spokesperson.
Justine Greening
I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has worked tirelessly on gender equality issues. I am proud to have been in a Parliament and part of a Government who supported his Bill on international development and gender equality. I hope and expect that by the end of this Parliament we will have passed not just one Bill on international development introduced by a Conservative MP, but a second Bill introduced by a Liberal Democrat—a coalition effort on two Bills that will make a real difference for the long term.
We want to see, and the open working group included, the critical issues that the millennium development goals omitted, including peaceful and inclusive societies, economic growth, which is key if we are to increase people’s prosperity, and good governance. Today I shall reflect on the progress that the international community has made to date on agreeing the post-2015 development framework. The proposed sustainable development goals agreed by the open working group last July reflected a high level of ambition and the UK was instrumental in forging that outcome. Those goals have been welcomed by the NGO community, and, like the high-level panel report, they rightly devote significant attention to climate change and environmental sustainability.
The open working group’s gender goal is excellent, with targets on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. Goal 16 on peaceful and inclusive societies and access to justice is especially welcome.
Mary Creagh
The right hon. Lady might have missed my point on human rights, but there was a point on women and girls and child marriage in my speech. She mentioned sustainable development goal 16. Can she explain why her Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament voted against that goal?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady continues to seek division, which is regrettable.
Those goals have been welcomed by the NGO community, and the UK Government have said that we support the breadth and the balance of the open working group report. We recognise, though, that the post-2015 framework needs to have the universal appeal that made the MDGs so successful. Developing countries were able to take those goals in their entirety and integrate them directly in their national development plans. The deputy Secretary-General of the UN, Jan Eliasson, said clearly to me the last time we met a couple of months ago when he was in London that that was one of the unintended impacts of the MDGs—countries used them as their development strategy because they felt that they could work with them. That is why the UK has been strongly advocating a shorter, more inspiring and more implementable set of goals and targets that resonates with people around the world. We want to keep the breadth and the balance of the open working group’s goals and targets, but we want to ensure that we get a framework that can truly improve the lives of the poorest people in the poorest countries.
We know that, for the poorest people in our world, we cannot allow this discussion, process and debate to be kicked around as a political football. We should be steadily building consensus. In December the UN Secretary-General published his synthesis report “The Road to Dignity by 2030”. He called on member states to strive towards the highest level of ambition and he set out six principles that member states should strive towards: dignity, people, prosperity, planet, justice and partnership—working together. He also called on member states to look at targets and to ensure that these are measurable, implementable and in line with the level of ambition that we want to see. I have spoken to the Secretary-General on a number of occasions about the post-2015 framework and about the need to make sure that, like the MDGs, it is compelling and transformative. He is right that these principles must be taken forward in negotiations.
In his synthesis report the Secretary-General made a clear link between the post-2015 framework and the outcome of the climate change conference in Paris. I agree that the two are fundamentally connected and that 2015 is a unique year and a unique opportunity to bring the two agendas together. As I argued at the UN General Assembly last year, it is the very poorest who will be hit first and hardest by climate change. Our objectives for the Paris meeting are clear and ambitious. We want an outcome that delivers the ultimate goal of the UN framework convention on climate change, which is to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting the global average temperature increase to no more than 2° C above pre-industrial levels. We are one of the few countries arguing for this to be explicit in the SDG framework. The most cost-effective and reliable way to achieve that is through an international, legally binding agreement with mitigation commitments for all.
Our approach to the 2015 framework can support that in two ways. First, it will ensure that climate is truly integrated in, and demonstrably an integral part of, the final framework of goals and targets. Secondly, if we can secure agreement at the September summit, it will help to boost multilateralism ahead of the Paris meeting in December.
Caroline Lucas
I appreciate the tone that the Secretary of State is taking. I want to ask about consistency, because the one thing that I learned when I worked for Oxfam for 10 years was that to have credibility on the global stage, we need to have consistency in our domestic policies. The Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into SDGs found that there is a contradiction in the Government supporting subsidies for fossil fuels while at the same time promoting the climate change agenda. Will she say something about that?
Justine Greening
As the hon. Lady knows, I was happy to give evidence to the Committee, because that is a key part of the SDGs that we need to get right. She will know that within the broader international development agenda we have tightened up our work, including with the World Bank, in terms of the projects that we are prepared to sign off on, so we are not investing in those fossil fuels unless there is no alternative for the poorest countries in the world to be able to get the energy they so desperately need to help them start to move down the road to development.
The UK Government have one of the proudest records of any development aid donor, both in delivering real results for the poorest people in the poorest countries and in shaping the international consensus around what matters most. Let us consider our record for one moment. We are the first country to reach the 0.7% of GNI spent on aid target—something that we promised to do for many years, and done by this Government. Our Prime Minister led the world, hosting the summit in 2011, supporting the global alliance for vaccines and immunisation, saving the lives of millions of children. Just yesterday, the world agreed to commit a further $7.5 billion to continue the important work of GAVI, or the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, from 2016 to 2020. In response to the UK’s pledge of £1 billion, Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said:
“The UK’s generous pledge to Gavi—which will save around 1.4 million children’s lives by 2020—is another example of how Britain invests in development solutions that provide value for money and real impact. The UK has been instrumental in helping to mobilise the international community to give generously to Gavi. The people of Britain should be proud of their huge contribution in creating a world that is healthier, more stable and increasingly prosperous.”
I wonder whether he would be confused by the tone that the shadow Minister has taken.
Mr Andrew Mitchell
Would my right hon. Friend like to reflect on the fact that because of the decisions made by the whole of the House of Commons in respect of the GAVI replenishment in 2011, throughout the five years of this Parliament a child will have been vaccinated every two seconds and a child’s life saved every two minutes from diseases that none of our children, thank goodness, die from in Britain?
Justine Greening
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that in addition, the pledge that we made yesterday has increased our level of support for GAVI even further. The fund is not just able now to deliver vaccination and immunisation for those children; in the case of Ebola it can play a real role in stepping up to help us to combat new emerging diseases and health threats as well, so it has a much broader and more strategic impact on global health security than anyone could possibly have realised when it was being set up. It is also, critically, a model that pulls in the private sector, and allows drugs to get to children in a way that would never have been possible if we had not pulled together those different parties to work for one common goal with countries that have a common strategy on immunisation. It is incredibly important and we will continue to support it.
Our Prime Minister has led global summits in London—in 2012 on family planning and in 2013 on nutrition and combating stunting. In 2014 I was immensely proud to work with him on the Girl summit, where we catalysed a global movement to eradicate female genital mutilation and early and forced child marriage. It was a pleasure to be able to go back to Walworth academy last week to talk to people there about some of the progress that we have made over the past six months since that conference and the key role that they were able to play in ensuring that it was such a success. That focus on girls’ rights came on top of the global summit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), now Leader of the House, organised to prevent sexual violence in conflict.
We will use this proud record and the credibility it brings us on the world stage to argue unashamedly for a post-2015 development agenda that works as a clear strategy for eradicating poverty, leaving no one behind and achieving sustainable development.
Sir William Cash
On FGM, the Serious Crime Bill has some very important stuff in it. It needs to be improved—as my right hon. Friend knows, I am arguing for that at the moment—but it is a huge step forward, is it not?
Justine Greening
It can be a huge step forward. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to see the broader opportunities in that Bill for enabling us to increase our ability to tackle FGM at home. One of the most important elements of the Girl summit was recognising that we have issues to resolve here in the UK, as well as playing our role internationally in helping other countries to tackle theirs.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) accused the Government of failing to support a stand-alone goal on health. She seems a little befuddled on this point, as her claim is inaccurate. We have supported a stand-alone goal throughout this process. Going back to the high-level panel report, if she looks at goal 4 she will see that it explicitly states that it is to “ensure healthy lives”. That is partly why, under this Government, spending on health in relation to international development, just bilaterally, has risen from £750 million a year when we came into government to about £1.25 billion a year now. We absolutely have invested in this area.
I should correct the hon. Lady on another matter where she seems to have got her facts mixed up. In a recent interview, she said that spending by the Department on fragile and conflict states has “reduced under this Government”. I have to update the House by saying that that is incorrect. In fact, investment has risen from £1.8 billion in 2009 to £2.8 billion in 2013. On the issue of poverty, where we are talking about matters of life and death, and how we can lift people out of sometimes miserable day-to-day existences, it does not do those people, or the challenges they face, any justice to be kicked about as a political football. If the hon. Lady must engage in what she calls hand-to-hand combat, I ask her at least to get her facts right.
On a stand-alone goal on climate change, I point to our Prime Minister’s own words:
“Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing our world. And it is not just a threat to the environment. It is also a threat to our national security, to global security, to poverty eradication and to economic prosperity.”
In short, climate change is too complex an issue to belong in just one goal; as we have said repeatedly, it needs to be interwoven or mainstreamed throughout the entire post-2015 framework.
I was only too happy to come to this place to talk about the Government’s record on shaping the sustainable development goals. As I said, I would very much have liked women and girls, and particularly tackling violence against women and girls, to have been mentioned explicitly in the motion.
Justine Greening
I will not give way because I need to make progress.
I know that the hon. Member for Wakefield has still not yet found time to go on any visits to see any international development projects in her role as shadow Secretary of State. As and when she does get a chance to visit some of those DFID projects, I hope she will realise, and agree with me, that putting women and girls at the centre of international development is absolutely the right thing to do.
Finally, we are proud to be the first G7 Government to have achieved the 0.7% target. We are supporting the Bill on the 0.7% target that is currently passing through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned another international development Act, and I hope that it will be the second such Bill to make it through the House. That has largely been achieved by cross-party agreement on international development. Until now, the main parties have very much worked together to ensure that we can support the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.
I regret that, as far as I can make out, cross-party consensus seems to be anathema to the hon. Member for Wakefield. From my experience in my current role, she seems to be doing the exact opposite of what is needed to achieve a successful post-2015 framework. It seems to me that she is picking a fight for the sake of it and, ultimately, putting politics before tackling poverty. I urge her to work constructively with us to build the strongest possible post-2015 development framework.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
All picking such a fight does is give support to Poujadists outside Parliament who want to attack international development as a concept. We in the House should be united on this issue, not trying to pick fake fights, as the Opposition seem to be doing.
Justine Greening
I agree. I believe that the track record of this Government, led by our Prime Minister, shows our absolute commitment to work with all partners so that later this year the UN can agree the most ambitious, inspiring and workable post-2015 framework that will eradicate extreme poverty once and for all, and put the world on a path to sustainable development. The world watches the UK Parliament, and I very much hope that we can now have a constructive debate with the Labour party about how we can work together—as a Government, and as a Parliament—to achieve that aim.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The House will be aware of the enthusiasm for this debate. To accommodate everyone who wishes to be heard in the short time available, I have to impose a time limit on Back Benchers’ speeches of six minutes.
Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I have listened with great interest to the opening speeches. I say to the Secretary of State that the purpose of an Opposition day debate is scrutiny, and that she has been just a trifle petulant in somehow doubting the entitlement of the Opposition to question the Government.
I say that from my experience of working with African Health Ministers, Finance Ministers and non-governmental organisations from around the world. They recognise that a new standard in international development was set by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), during the early stages of the 1997 Labour Government. The previous Government achieved so much progress that they established the consensus from which we must now move forward, but such consensus arises only from having such opportunities for scrutiny and debate.
Dame Tessa Jowell
I have only six minutes. I will use that time to make a specific point. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), dealt very well with the progress that has been made.
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about scrutiny, but will she at least give this Government credit for setting up the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and for the transparency initiative? That initiative ushered in a new era of transparency, which was a first not only for a British Department of State, but for any European country.
Dame Tessa Jowell
I of course accept the importance—particularly in this area—of the discipline of transparency and of creating an expectation of it both within Governments and between them in making progress on the delivery of donor aid. That is one of the successes achieved by the millennium development goals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has shown, progress has clearly been achieved.
This is an important moment to take stock, to recognise the huge challenges that remain and to consider the nature of the advocacy that this Parliament will make in the final stages of the UN process, which will conclude in September.
I will focus, as I said, on one important area that I have pursued with other Members through the auspices of the all-party parliamentary group for conception to age two, which is ensuring that the new sustainable development goals have a focus on early childhood. There is a universal language of childhood. Parents around the world have shared ambitions for their children, but the realisation of those ambitions is impeded by a range of circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), the former shadow Secretary of State for International Development, asked me to undertake a campaign to secure a focus on early childhood in the next round of sustainable development goals, working through the auspices of the all-party group. Using the model of Sure Start for the world, we sought support from countries around the world to make this issue one of the benchmarks against which investments by donor countries in developing countries should be measured.
Why is this issue so important? Nearly 50% of African children will be stunted by the time they are five. That is appalling on humanitarian grounds and morally indefensible. Given that six of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world are in Africa, the prospect of continued economic growth is less likely. There must be global investment in developing countries to ensure that their economic potential is realised. Among other interventions, we must ensure that there is maximum benefit from interventions in early childhood.
I welcome the support of 12,000 people around the world on this issue. I welcome the support of 170 countries, and the support and leadership of UNICEF. I welcome the opportunity we had to present the global petition to Amina Mohammed, Ban Ki-moon’s representative, and to address a representative group of member states at the UN.
Draft target 4.2 states:
“By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education”.
I am confident that that will begin to address the intractable inequality faced by children in the poorest countries of the world.
I sat with mothers in Malawi just over a year ago and listened to them talking about the importance of a pre-school playgroup in a rural hut and the benefits it brought to their children. Any one of us could have heard the same conversation in our constituency.
Let this House acknowledge that progress, and recognise that the sustainable development goals that underline the importance of early intervention will reshape the economies of some of the poorest countries.
Mr Stephen O’Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)
I welcome this debate and am enthusiastic about the opportunity to discuss what should come after the success of the MDGs and SDGs in galvanising the world in this regard. I was naturally saddened by the tone of, and some of the expressions in, the motion, which are unnecessarily divisive. I had not intended to use up any of my six minutes on that point as I do not wish to descend to that level. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) was right to say that it is the duty of the Opposition to question the Government—I was an Opposition Front Bencher for 11 years so I understand that—but it is not the Opposition’s duty to adopt a tone that is both churlish and deeply divisive. That was unfortunate and I hope for some reflection after the debate on that unnecessary move.
The UK carries huge authority because we have delivered practically what people across the House, the nation and indeed internationally have so aspired to for many years. I declare my interests which, as it happens, are all pro bono and go back 35 years since I first started combating malaria. I sit on the board of Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, I am the global advocate for Roll Back Malaria, the UN and World Health Organisation partnership, and I am the Prime Minister’s envoy to the Sahel. I am in no doubt about how it is critically in this country’s interest—across all political views and none, as well as for the whole international community in an increasingly globalised world—for us all to be totally focused on how to build on the success of the MDGs and the SDGs.
I am struck by the success of the coalition Government, which does indeed build on some of the work and successes that went before—I am happy to acknowledge that. The Secretary of State and her team have shown an absolute dedication and commitment, as well as a very real practical application to what makes for good results in international development. That includes the whole spectrum, from humanitarian intervention and rapid response to sustainable, resilient and good economic developments.
As we know, the best way to deliver people out of poverty—the top goal we all want—is to help them have an economic future. They will not have that without good education, with an emphasis on girls. I am proud of the fact that I started the FGM debate in Dakar in 2011, which was then taken forward by my successor. I am glad that has been supported across the House. It was all the more powerful because a bloke was doing it. We should not have divisive debates where one side tries to claim the credit. We were totally united on the issue and it is a deep sadness to me that this debate has been set up in the tone that it has.
I welcome our authority in the area of international development, which comes not just from practical delivery and the 0.7% of GNI. It has been hard won, because it has been coupled with scrutiny and transparency. Ministers set up the Independent Commission for Aid Impact to be a rod to beat ourselves with. It reports directly to the Select Committee and ensured that the shadow Secretary of State had the ammunition she has used today. Its role is not to attack the whole basis of international development, but to make sure that every single pound we spend of taxpayers’ and constituents’ money is well spent and properly targeted. That is why I was happy to put the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) right on her rather superficial approach to Burundi.
The Government, with leadership from the Prime Minister and technical ability and fantastic support, are totally committed to this agenda. We have also had some magnificent successes that give people confidence that the money has been well spent. DFID is technically superb and a world leader, and our thought leadership is also driving into the mainstream of thinking about international development. That is all at the service of the one thing that, post-1945, we have all wanted to support—the UN, which is the greatest peace deliverer on the planet. The UN has set the agenda. The Prime Minister has been part of the leadership and significant goals have been proposed on climate change, as well as the economic and human development indices.
We have had the draft 17 goals from Ban Ki-moon, which will now be debated. It would have been a worth while debate today if we could have decided how—through results and trying to set up real responsibility and accountability—we could narrow the focus of those goals so that they become deliverable and we can get them financed by the international community. That is vital, because at the moment there are too many goals and the effort could be too diffuse. We could end up losing some of the successes of the MDGs. That would have been a worthwhile debate, and Ban Ki-moon and our colleagues at the UN would have been deeply impressed had we been able to offer such help. But no, that was not the tone of this debate, sadly.
Unity of approach has put good governance, security, humanitarian development, resilience and sustainability together as part of a holistic approach, with great NGOs, great technical support from donor nations, finance and an emerging clarity of partnership. That is what I have been doing in the past two and a half years in the Sahel—another pro bono position. As recently as last Tuesday, I was sitting in Niamey in Niger, which is the poorest country in the world. The people there are desperate for food, but what is really important is to make sure we get security right—they are more fearful of Boko Haram coming across the river in the Diffa region. It is therefore much more important to tie security with humanitarian development, good governance and transparency.
While I was in Davos, it became clear that what the UK thinks was considered instructive. As we move from MDGs to SDGs, it is clear that we have leadership and we should be grateful to this Government for delivering it. I hope that unity will now break out.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I welcome the debate and have no difficulty in supporting the motion moved by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I think the House is in danger of being a bit hard on itself. Some very good points have been made already. I have to say, as somebody who has been very interested in international development since I came to the House, I have heard debates that I have found much, much more disturbing than today’s one.
It is right for the Opposition to use the time available to debate these issues. The Government could be encouraged to give more time to them, if only because it would give an airing to the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues—that cannot be a bad thing. I want to see more debates of this kind. I cannot join the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) that, after seven weeks in her role, she has not been abroad. My heavens, it is a difficult enough issue to master! For heaven’s sake, let us give the House a bit more time to focus on the issues before us.
I welcome, in the spirit of the debate, the Government’s achievement of the 0.7% of GNI target. I have said that previously, and I have made no secret of my view that DFID is one of the better Government Departments. However, I believe it is perfectly reasonable for the motion to invite the Government to put before the House a commitment to that target in legislation. That has not happened, and because it has not happened we were able to debate an excellent Bill promoted and guided through Parliament by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore). He knows—I served on the Committee and am one of the Bill’s sponsors—that the Bill had my full support. I also supported the excellent Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is not in his place. I have to say to the Secretary of State—I hope this will not be seen as unduly controversial—that it is not enough to say we have had debates initiated by Back Benchers—through them introducing, rightly, good Bills—without accepting that the Government, too, have a responsibility to introduce transparency on these matters by encouraging debates in the House.
The Bill from the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk was debated in another place last Friday. I read the debate, which I thought was excellent. It was the kind of discussion I would like to see, and have heard, in this House. I pay tribute, in particular, to the speeches of Baroness Royall, Baroness Williams, Lord Judd, who has great experience with Oxfam, and Baroness Chalker. I shadowed Baroness Chalker, although it was a bit difficult because she was in the House of Lords as the Minister in the Department. Our ability to discuss these matters has improved tremendously, but there is still room for improvement, as the need for today’s motion suggests.
I would like to pay tribute to my constituents, who have given me great support on the international development issues I have raised over the years. In particular, I pay tribute to Charles Fawcet, a retired teacher, for his work in Malawi, which I shall visit in a few weeks with him. It would be churlish of me not to thank DFID, particularly its office in East Kilbride, and the Secretary of State for the support they have given to Charles and his team as they have built up relationships between my town of Coatbridge and the people of Malawi. I hope to see some of that work when I am there.
I recognise that not everything I am saying is popular. I received some awful e-mails after the Third Reading of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. One came from a man in Harrogate who challenged me to defend our giving money to India. I urge the Government to take a role in development education. Does this man really believe—it might comfort Conservative Members that he plans to vote for UKIP—that the starving children and the people dying of tuberculosis whom I saw when I last visited India had the slightest input into the decision of their Government to send rockets into space? Of course, they did not, and they should not be punished for their own poverty.
I am proud of the efforts of the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and the Catholic Agency For Overseas Development—I am chair of the all-party parliamentary friends of CAFOD group—but a lot more has to be done, particularly on climate change. It is right that we address this challenge, and I am glad we are doing that in this debate.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who has a long and distinguished record of championing development issues and was the author of important legislation in this field.
I welcome this debate. In a year when momentous decisions have to be taken on international development, it is important to have such a debate. However, I am disappointed by the tone and terms of the motion. I have had the honour to chair the International Development Committee for nearly 10 years, in opposition and government, and during the tenure of four different Secretaries of State. I have never feared our being critical of Governments so long as our criticisms are constructive, evidence based and designed to improve the quality of our aid delivery and to probe how effectively it can be delivered. That is the tone with which we most assuredly deliver the best outcomes.
Many people, including representatives of donor Governments who have not achieved the 0.7% target, ask me how we have managed to do it. I say, “It’s quite simple. The overriding reason has been cross-party consensus”. The suggestion, therefore, that the Labour party might now break that consensus is deeply disappointing, and it should reflect on the implications. The motion criticises the Government for not having legislated on the 0.7% target, but only one country, Belgium, has done so; there is no requirement to do so; and, most importantly, we have actually delivered the target—0.71% in fact. Having said that, I am pleased that the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) is well on the way to completion, with Government support. Yes, of course it could have been done by the Government, and I wish it had been, but that is not a point of substance, because it is happening thanks to cross-party support.
The motion also criticises aspects of the SDGs, which, like the Secretary of State, I do not actually understand. We have 17 draft goals and 169 supporting resolutions, which is clearly unmanageable. It has to be boiled down to something that people can work with and remember. Ban Ki-moon has got his own six essential elements, for which I think he is seeking support. The Secretary of State or the Minister might want to say where the Government stand on that, although I imagine that we will want to be constructive and work with the United Nations. After all, it is the United Nations that to a substantial degree has ownership, although we are all members of the United Nations and Britain is a particularly important member. I think Ban Ki-moon understands, as we do, that having a plethora of goals dilutes them to the point where nobody can remember them.
Those six points—which I am sure will receive support—encapsulate the very essence of what is being criticised in today’s motion. There is a commitment on health and a commitment on climate change—they are central to those six overriding sustainable development goals. What we should be doing is working to get the maximum international consensus for a set of goals that are understandable and transparent and that enable all those commitments to be delivered in terms that will make a difference, which means ending absolute poverty by 2030 and leaving no one behind. Surely we are all agreed about that.
I believe that is where we should go. In addition, I am particularly pleased that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) referred specifically to women and girls and disability, two things that have been particularly championed by the present Government—I am not saying they were not championed by the previous Government, but they have been taken forward. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and her former colleague as Under-Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who took those causes up and championed them with her brand of campaigning enthusiasm.
That has made a difference, not just here and in our policy, but globally and internationally, because the thing I have found in the 10 years that I have had the privilege of doing this job in the House is that the UK gives huge leadership, not just through the volume of what we do, but through the quality of the way we do it. I know that there is an election coming up in May, but there are people outside who want to discredit and destroy our commitment on international development. I would plead with Members to recognise that what will ensure that it is delivered is for us to stay together in our commitments and to ensure that our criticisms are constructive and designed to improve the outcome and make sure that what we do actually makes a difference.
As for the final criticism—of the engagement of the private sector—in reality, unless people can gain livelihoods and employment that will enable them ultimately to pay taxes and fund social services, health care and education, the countries we are supporting will never get out of poverty. The question is: what is the role of the private sector, what is the role of the donors and how do they work together? The questions we have heard are perfectly legitimate—let me be clear about that—but the implication behind them is that, somehow or other, DFID is doing the wrong thing by pursuing that agenda, and I could not agree less.
The Committee has taken evidence from the Secretary of State this afternoon; we will publish a report that will give our view on this issue in due course. We will also publish a report next week on the future of aid, giving real challenges to DFID, but ones that are based on evidence and that I hope all parties in the House will support, so that we can continue to lead the world on the quality of development that we deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid that I have to reduce the time limit for speeches to five minutes.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the International Development Committee, of which I am a member, although I think he made the cheapest political jibe of the day. However, I will not pursue that any further; I will speak to him about it another time. I would rather pay tribute to the work he has done in this place. He will be a huge loss —we will lose his experience, his commitment and his generosity in working with new members of the Committee —but I am sure he will continue to make a contribution in some other way, because it will be too much of a loss otherwise.
I am surprised at the sensitivity about looking at the hard politics that exist—and they do—in aid and development. That does not mean that there are not times when we can work together and agree. People may have problems with tone—I am pleased to say that the present Secretary of State has a very different tone from her predecessor—but we should not be put off talking about the substance and the different choices that we make. In the case of the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien), although it is not a declarable interest, I would like to say that we are both patrons of Malaria No More. I am pleased and honoured to work with him in this area, but that does not mean that we cannot raise questions. Why do we think it is okay to have the Independent Commission for Aid Impact give the Department green, amber or red ratings, but not for us to talk about its performance in this Chamber and have the same open debate? I really do not understand that, so I deeply disagree with the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who is not in place at the moment. I think the public become more sceptical if we do not debate this issue enough and we do not have the open debate we need. There is nothing to fear from that; otherwise, it looks like we are being terribly precious about this issue, and that we think the public could not cope with knowing that there are risks with international development. My goodness, the gains are so much greater; it is worth taking those risks. It is often a dangerous and difficult environment for a Department to work in.
It is right that the Secretary of State has provided great leadership on the issue of women and girls. I pay tribute to her for that, but I would like to see different choices and other areas in which the Department could take a lead. I hope that the next Government—hopefully a Labour Government—will be able to make those decisions. I hope that dealing with malaria will have priority, because for every minute that each speaker is on their feet in this debate, a child dies of malaria. It is an entirely preventable disease that has killed more people in the history of our planet than any other.
Fiona O'Donnell
I am not taking any interventions; I do not want to take time away from other contributors—I am practically a saint, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I would like to see both Front-Bench teams—I am treating them fairly and equally sceptically—making a commitment to at least maintain the investment for dealing with malaria. We know that the minute we take our foot off the gas, as the Americans say, we see a resurgence of the disease. We have seen with Ebola the knock-on effects of people not seeking treatment. That would be desperately sad. As Bill Gates said, when we had the honour of him coming to speak in the Palace of Westminster recently, we are now at the point of developing a toolkit that would allow us to eradicate malaria. That is the language I would like us to start using when we talk about malaria. I would like the UK to take the lead and say that the world’s ambition should be to eradicate malaria. We need to look at the progress made as a great story, with both UK Governments taking a lead in investment and contributing to halving the number of children who die of malaria.
That is the leadership I want to see on malaria because, as Bill Gates said, we have eradicated smallpox and are close to eradicating polio. We need to raise our ambition on malaria. This is not just about health; it is about the well-being of children and access to education. The World Health Organisation recently showed that 198 million people are currently missing out on either education or employment because of malaria. We need to think about the futures of these children. Departments should be pursuing economic growth for all these agendas. That is my plea to both Front-Bench teams today. I am grateful for the House’s attention.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I am proud to serve as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on global tuberculosis, which was established as a cross-party committee in 2005, after a group of Members went to see the problems of dealing with tuberculosis in Kenya and were immensely struck both by the then failure to get on top of a disease that had resurged globally and by the inadequate attention paid to this disease in our national discourse. Since then, our parliamentary group has worked to increase the profile of this terrible disease, which still kills 1.5 million people a year worldwide—entirely unnecessarily when this disease is, in the main, easily treatable and curable.
It is striking to reflect that TB was declared a global emergency two decades ago and that since then 25 million lives have been lost. However important our efforts to tackle Ebola—I fully support them and welcome DFID’s work in that respect and the sacrifice that many are making in doing so—we should note that TB kills as many people every two days as Ebola has so far killed in total. We have to make sure that we have a focus on this disease, while maintaining focus on the need to beat old diseases that pose a new threat today.
Yes, there have been successes. New cases have fallen sufficiently to meet the millennium development goal target, and deaths have nearly halved since 1990, but there are still 9 million new cases of TB globally every year. The number of new cases in central Asia, Africa and eastern Europe is not declining, and that is of particular concern. Moreover, we should note that the decline in new cases globally is only 1.5% a year. At the current rate, it will take us two centuries to beat the disease.
When the west got on top of TB, the annual decline was 10 percentage points a year. That tells us that unless we accelerate efforts to tackle the disease, we shall face a huge loss of life over the next 200 years, and we shall also face the growing costs of dealing with the disease. One of the reasons for that rise in costs is drug resistance. Drug-resistant TB is caused by the fact that we have drugs that are 60 years old. We have old-fashioned antibiotics. Nor do we have a proper vaccine for TB, although many believe that we do. As a consequence, we are seeing the emergence of a lethal form of TB that is 450 times as expensive to treat. It is worrying that less than a quarter of drug-resistant cases of TB are detected, and only half are successfully treated. The Prime Minister’s anti-microbial resistance commission, which was established last July, has warned that a failure to tackle drug resistance could mean 10 million deaths from all diseases by 2050, and that, crucially, that would reduce world GDP by two to three and a half percentage points by 2050. All those facts make the case for more action now.
Pamela Nash
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I agree with what he is saying, but is he as disappointed as I am that the Government have not committed themselves to the widely supported target of ending AIDS, TB and malaria by 2030?
Nick Herbert
No. I was about to say that the Government’s response has been superb. They have just committed £1 billion to replenish the global fund, which is one of the biggest commitments that have been made. Eighty per cent. of all the world’s funding to fight TB is channelled through the fund, and as a result 12.3 million TB sufferers have been tested and treated so far. However, it should be recognised, in the context of the overall programme for tackling TB and the World Health Organisation’s target of ending TB by 2035, that there is a £2 billion annual shortfall. That is not the responsibility of the United Kingdom. There is a global shortfall amounting to a quarter of the resources that we need to beat this disease.
Let me urge two courses of action. First, we need to focus in the sustainable development goals on diseases that we can beat—TB, HIV and malaria—and on an explicit target to beat them. Secondly, we should step up our research and development effort to combat TB. We are at a tipping point: there is an opportunity, and there is a threat. The opportunity is the availability of new technology, which could enable us to beat TB within a generation. The threat is drug resistance, along with inadequate funding and insufficient efforts to combat the disease. That could mean an awful lot of cost and human suffering in future. DFID is the world’s best funder of research and development, and, given its fantastic leadership position, it could convene an international effort to step up research and development to beat TB.
I am proud to have led the formation of a global TB caucus last year, when 170 Members of Parliament from five continents came together to urge stronger action to tackle this disease. The success of our Committee and the caucus has been due to their cross-party nature, and the fact that they have operated on the basis of consensus. That tone was sadly lacking in the ill-judged speech of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh).
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Although there is cross-party agreement on much of the United Kingdom’s aid programme, it is perfectly proper for all of us to ask questions, raise concerns and demand evaluation, in order to ensure that the taxpayer’s money is spent transparently and wisely and we secure the best possible value for money in the outcomes that it produces. Those are genuine concerns that our constituents have raised with us. The more certain DFID can be that money is not going astray—and, moreover, can demonstrate to the British public that that is the case—the better.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) on introducing his Bill, but it was chance that his name came up in the ballot and he chose that topic. It is a shame that it was left to chance, rather than being brought forward by the two Government parties, both of which had promised such a Bill in their manifestos.
Clearly, 2015 is a historic year for international development. It is a time when we will be talking about both the sustainable development goals and climate change, on two very important occasions in September and December of this year, and I want to see the UK really taking a lead, as we have done in the past. I certainly do not want us to be backtracking on anything to do with climate change, which I see as one of the most important issues. It is directly linked to international development. It is blatantly clear to us that while we have enjoyed economic development and have created many of the climate change issues, it is people in developing countries who are suffering the consequences;, and it will be they who suffer drought and flooding if the temperature rises and they who will have the least resilience. It is very important therefore that we help those countries to build the necessary resilience and that we recognise the importance of tackling climate change and raise it at every possible opportunity. We know perfectly well that our tackling it here is not enough; it needs to be done on an international scale.
It is important that we get value for money, so will the Secretary of State tell us exactly what she is going to do to tackle the issues raised in the National Audit Office report on the funding of the Private Infrastructure Development Group? The report said the Department
“lacks sufficiently robust information to demonstrate that investment in PIDG is the best option”,
and its financial control has been lacking. Likewise, please will she tell us what she is going to do about the concern that was raised about TradeMark Southern Africa—about petty cash and so forth—as that is important?
The Ebola crisis is ongoing, and it is too early for us to say what might not have been done as well as it could have been. I want to praise the efforts of all who have been involved and pay tribute to the sacrifice that many of them have made to help people, but concerns were raised in the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee, and in what we saw on our TV screens, with Save the Children suggesting that perhaps there was not sufficient experience there. What can be done in future to identify people who would be able to help in such circumstances—people who would be able to go and help build the infrastructure, because it was a case of starting from zero? Can we make sure that if such people are identified they can be released to help, perhaps in the way that happens with reservist forces?
It also appears that not having direct flights has hindered some of the aid organisations and has increased costs. I would have thought it would be easier to identify planes coming in from Sierra Leone, for example, than having people change planes somewhere else and making it less easy to identify who is coming back from Sierra Leone.
The issue of human rights is fundamental to the SDGs. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on his International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, but we know that rights and empowerment are often hard-won and easily eroded, so we can never be complacent. While there have been strides forward in getting more girls into school and raising the issue of violence against girls and women, there are still huge challenges.
Likewise, we need to do more to safeguard the rights of people in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities and of people who have disabilities. It is also important that we should promote the right to join a trade union, just as we talk about self-sufficiency and sustainability in terms of economic development and good governance. With these rights too, empowerment and training are vital, and it is regrettable that the Government have withdrawn funding for the International Labour Organisation, which I would like restored as soon as possible.
Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). I welcome the fact that the Opposition have brought forward this debate, if not the particular motion. This is an important subject, and I agree with them that it is regrettable that there is not more opportunity in Government time to debate these important matters. However, I really regret the tone in which the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) chose to introduce the debate. She disregarded the consensus that has existed on this subject over a number of years, and I am really surprised that she did so; it was like a hackneyed replay of the playbook that we saw before the last general election.
When the draft Bill to enshrine the spending of 0.7% of our GDP on the United Nations target for official development assistance was introduced, it was clear that it was intended to create a dividing line between the then Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition. I give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for the rather nifty piece of footwork that he employed in committing the Opposition to supporting it. It was easy for me, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, to make that commitment. The Bill therefore had cross-party support.
In the past, I have credited the Labour Government with the fact that they started the debate and set the track for us to follow in getting to the 0.7% target. However, there was no hint today of Labour acknowledging that leadership and welcoming everyone else into the fold; it was Labour, Labour, Labour and nothing else. I think that people outside this place will judge us harshly if this hard-won consensus cannot be seen to hold. They would have gained no impression at all from the hon. Member for Wakefield that we had even reached the 0.7% target under the coalition, on the back of the work that the previous Labour Government did.
I set all that out on Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill and on every subsequent occasion. It was my great good fortune to come second in the ballot and to introduce that piece of legislation. Until today, I also regarded it as my great good fortune to have such clear cross-party support, rather than the point scoring that we have now seen. If Labour had wanted to claim leadership on this, it had the chance in government to bring such legislation forward, but it did not actually do it, so Labour Members should not criticise the coalition for not having done it in Government time.
On the point about Labour MPs delivering on this, I must say that they were here in numbers during the passage of my Bill. I am grateful to every last one of them who was here in the Chamber and who voted on all its different stages. Six people voted against it on Second Reading. Seven voted against the money resolution and five voted against it on Third Reading. Any one of the parties on this side delivered more votes than was required. Labour Members were critical of closure motions, but please let us recognise that the passage of the Bill in this place was a joint enterprise.
Mr Tom Clarke
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I supported his Bill all the way. If I may say so, he seems unusually proactive this afternoon, but perhaps if he calms down he will acknowledge that the fact that some people—albeit a minority—tried to talk out his Bill on Third Reading shows that there is a case for more development education, starting in this House.
Michael Moore
I apologise for surprising the right hon. Gentleman with my tone. I do not want to say that the Opposition started it, but there really is a different kind of tone to the debate today. I thank him for his contribution to the Bill, and for his own track record as a Minister and in piloting the earlier legislation through. He is right to draw attention to the nay-sayers, who I must point out opposed the Bill from both sides of the Chamber—
Michael Moore
None of them is in the Chamber this afternoon; that is the important point.
The point is that we have now, happily, got the Bill into another place, and I want to pay tribute to my great friend the noble Lord Purvis who is piloting it there. There were two speeches against it on Friday—one from a Conservative peer and one from a Labour peer—so let us please put this nonsense behind us. It is entirely legitimate to scrutinise legislation in that way. It is entirely fair of the hon. Member for Wakefield to ask challenging questions of the Secretary of State, and it is entirely fair of the hon. Member for Llanelli to add to that list of questions. Let us have more time to debate and scrutinise, just as the International Development Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), has done, with cross-party support, and just as the Independent Commission for Aid Impact is doing within the Department. All those things matter, because outside this Chamber the consensus is not as wholehearted as we believe it to be. It is therefore important that we can show what aid is for and show that we, as custodians of taxpayers’ money, are looking after that money properly. We have a proud position in the United Kingdom. We can claim international leadership in this regard, but it is a joint endeavour; let us not squander it.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Given some of the comments made in this debate, may I begin by saying that I firmly believe there are sincere individuals on both sides of this House who have track records of commitment and of speaking in this House on these issues? However, it is fair to raise sceptical questions, and some of the glossing over of history we have heard is a little rich coming from Government Members. May I gently mention the comments made by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore)? I strongly welcome his effort in bringing in his Bill, but to say that the last Labour Government put this down as a dividing line is very unfair.
I was an adviser in the Department at the time and was very involved with the drafting of our draft Bill. I can tell him with all sincerity that it was brought forward, first, to show leadership and, secondly, to lock in the commitment that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) later gave. We had reasonable scepticism about what a possible incoming Government might do, given some comments about international development aid that we hear from Members who are not in the Chamber today, and given the record of previous Conservative Governments in slashing DFID’s budget. Every time they had come to office previously, they had merged it back into the Foreign Office, so it was perfectly reasonable for us to set that down.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk introduced his Bill and I welcomed his commitment in opposition, too. I also welcome the Government’s support for his Bill—or at least some Conservative and Liberal MPs came to support it as it went through. But it is a bit rich to gloss over things. The last Government’s leadership took the aid budget to where it was and set up DFID, and it is important to put that on the record.
Michael Moore
I wish the hon. Gentleman would not accuse people of “glossing over” things. I invite him to look back at any of the speeches I made, particularly the one on Second Reading, where I laid out, in terms, the Labour party’s record on this issue. I remind him that half a dozen people opposed the Bill, and he needs to be careful what he is suggesting.
Stephen Doughty
I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman; I was accusing some in this House today of glossing over Labour’s record on these issues. Indeed, I have previously welcomed what he did.
Let me deal with the sustainable development goals, the main subject of the debate. It is important that we get back to the base principles. It is in our fundamental common interest, as well as being a moral imperative, to get the sustainable development goals right and to continue to make the case for development in this House. Fundamentally, it is a moral case that everyone is born the same and deserves the same opportunity. People in this country and the world over, including in my constituency—where I regularly have difficult debates on the doorstep about this—are not insulated from the consequences of poverty, conflict and climate change in other countries. We may see that in shifts in migration—we have all seen the terribly tragic events that are repeatedly happening in the Mediterranean; in poverty-driven conflict creating further zones of instability around the world, which can then lead to the risk of young people, including from my constituency, being dragged into fighting for organisations such as ISIS or al-Shabaab; and in terms of disease, as we have all seen with the tragic circumstances of Ebola in west Africa and the consequences of people then travelling around the world.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
This is about the tragedy of the Mediterranean. I do not blame the Secretary of State for this situation, but tomorrow it is one year to the day since the House of Commons voted to support the Syrian refugee programme, and as of now there are only 90 Syrian refugees in the UK. Is that not shameful? Let us hope the Government will still, even at this stage, reconsider.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for the point he makes. I have met many Syrian refugees in my constituency and they come with some truly harrowing tales of what they left behind.
We need not only to guard against the risks but to consider the opportunities of fairer trade, which would benefit this country and developing countries. I am glad to say that many organisations and individuals in my constituency recognise that fact, and do some incredible campaigning work to raise these issues locally and put the pressure on internationally, too. I am thinking of organisations such as the Penarth and District Lesotho Trust, of which I am proud to be a patron. It has been operating for 10 years, supporting a schools and churches link with Teyateyaneng in Lesotho, and supporting a school, a library and other community work there; there are strong links with the local schools of St Cyres and Stanwell in my constituency. The Penarth fair trade forum has set up a local fair trade business directory, has gained the support of the town council, does fundraising and has held fair trade fashion shows. Indeed, last year it had a fair trade public speaking competition for local schools on the question, “Is fair trade a load of bananas?” That sort of work, bringing in the younger generation, enables the pressure to be built up and the consensus to be developed.
I also wish to pay tribute to the diaspora communities in my constituency, particularly those from Somaliland and Yemen, who do incredible work in fundraising for crucial development projects back in their home countries. I have been to a number of events where such fundraising has taken place. Those communities provide incredible support in terms of their remittances. They are also involved in fundraising for places such as Gaza which are facing humanitarian crises. Incredible work is done locally in raising funds for Islamic Relief.
I also praise the Welsh Labour Government for setting up the Wales for Africa programme, which encourages community links and the mutual understanding that fundamentally changes the simplistic view that we should not be helping people overseas and that charity begins at home. It recognises that we are all interdependent and that what happens overseas matters to our own communities.
Let me turn briefly to a false dichotomy that I often hear in this House. It is the idea that there is clash between supporting development and supporting defence. I am very clear that there can be no development without security and, equally, no security without development. I mentioned Yemen and Somaliland, which provide us with some interesting examples in that regard. Yemen is a country with which we have historical ties. We also have a strong diaspora in this country, including in my own constituency. It is also one of the poorest countries in the middle east, and far too often it has been overlooked and forgotten by the international community. I know that this Government and the previous Labour Government made commitments to Yemen and have taken a strong interest in the country. None the less, I question whether we are doing enough. Yemen is now descending into chaos, with al-Qaeda affiliates and others now in the country. It is a prime example of a country that matters.
The opposite has happened in Somaliland, in which the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) takes a great deal of interest. Investment in development, in increasing democracy and in action to prevent the spread of extremism by groups such as al-Shabab has led to great strides forward for its population. There is the more fundamental question about the recognition of Somaliland. I firmly believe that we need to listen to its citizens in that regard. These examples show why development matters, why we need to continue to consider these issues, and why we need to ensure that they are at the heart of the sustainable development goals.
This is a crucial year. As you said, Mr Speaker, there are a number of anniversaries in 2015. They include the 10th anniversary of the Make Poverty History movement and that incredible march in Edinburgh. I hope that we will all go forward with the same vigour and spirit in trying to achieve success at those summits.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
In 1983, shortly after being elected to this House, I went with an all-party team to Ethiopia to witness a famine of almost biblical proportions. Over the past 30 years, Parliament has moved considerably when it comes to all-party consensus on supporting the need to invest in international development. It is also fair to observe that throughout those 30 years, under Governments of different dispensations—for a time, I was Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for overseas development aid—we always had an aspiration to use 0.7% of our GDP to fund overseas development, but not until this Government has that been achieved. In both 2013 and 2014, we reached that target, and we were one of the few leading economies in the world to do so.
Like other Members, I am disappointed that we have had to have this debate in these terms. It must have been difficult for the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) to take up a Front-Bench brief so near to a general election, and I can understand her wanting to make her mark. However, it would have been perfectly possible for the usual channels and the two Front-Bench teams to have produced a motion for today’s debate on which we could all agree.
As everyone who has taken a close interest in international development issues will know—as indeed you, Mr Speaker, will know, because we served together on the International Development Committee—there are more critics of international development outside the House than inside it. One only has to look at the editorials of some of our national newspapers to see continuing criticism of our spending funds on international development. We should be totally up front about our position. We should explain not only that it is morally indefensible that billions of people in the world are living in grinding poverty on less than $1 a day, but that it is in our national interests that we support international development. We should be proud, collectively and on both sides of the House, of what we have achieved.
With all due respect to the shadow Minister, all those who listened to her speech—and all those who read it in Hansard—will have got the impression that she was slightly spoiling for a fight because she needed to find something to disagree about. When it comes down to it, one report by the National Audit Office does not add up to any policy differences.
We should focus on the sustainable development goals, which the Prime Minister has played a big part in leading—he co-chaired the UN Secretary-General’s high-level panel on post-2015 goals together with the President of Sierra Leone and the former President of Indonesia. It is absolutely right that the basic concept should be of no one being left behind: we must make it clear that no goals or targets are considered achieved unless they are met by all relevant economic and social groups. It is important that the social development goals are clear, concise, relevant and communicable. We should not have too many goals. Sometimes, there are so many goals that people forget what they are and they get lost.
Mr O'Brien
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the proposals from the panel the Prime Minister co-chaired included 12 universal goals and national targets, which have been taken forward in the brief that Ban Ki-Moon issued six months later. My right hon. Friend will be aware, given the point that has been made by the Opposition, that three or four of those goals refer specifically to energy and climate change. As a Minister, I was privileged to support Ban Ki-moon in the conference that he convened on energy support for renewables in the developing market.
Sir Tony Baldry
I would hope that no one in the House believes that tackling climate change is not important. It is important that the sustainable development goals give priority to environmental sustainability to tackle climate change—that is an essential prerequisite of poverty eradication—and go on to deal with issues such as disaster risk reduction, water and food security, and nutrition. All of those are tied up with climate change. The House should not spend time being concerned about climate change deniers—we have moved on from that.
The sustainable development goals highlight aspects of governance that the millennium development goals left out. If we go back to the heady days of 2000, it was a frabjous time when the whole international community came together. There was a feeling that just by announcing millennium development goals they would happen but, as we have seen, there are still issues with transparency, corruption, the rule of law, property rights, peace and security, all of which are important.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and I are both officers of the all-party group for Somaliland and Somalia. Earlier this year, the Foreign Office allowed me to go to Mogadishu for a single day—it was a very long day visit—because security is so bad in Somalia that that was all that I was permitted to do. Two days after I returned, there was a mortar attack on the presidential house in Mogadishu, in which, sadly, a number of people were killed. It is incredibly difficult—how does one manage a country that has been undermined by terrorists and insurgents? Likewise, when I went to Juba last year—how does one run country that is locked in civil war? So it is absolutely right that the sustainable development goals are going to focus on issues such as corruption, transparency and trying to bring security.
Mr Speaker
We got the gist of a speech advanced with eloquence and passion. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I call Joan Walley.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I will be brief. A report by the Environmental Audit Committee is tagged to this debate, and we hope it will inform the discussion and that Members will look at our detailed conclusions.
I welcome today’s debate and agree that we should enshrine in legislation the goal of 0.7%, irrespective of whether or not it has been agreed. The point I want to emphasise is that previously in the millennium development goals, insufficient attention was paid to environmental protection and sustainable development. In this year of opportunity, we must make sure that we in the UK and the European Union show the necessary leadership to get to where we need to be at the Paris negotiations with the climate change targets, and at the New York summit with the sustainable development goals.
Looking back at previous work on sustainability and initiatives such as local agenda 21, I feel that we do not yet have the mechanism across civil society, Parliament, Government and business to make sure that the objectives we all seek are not seen as merely academic, but are translated into policy in both developed and developing countries. The sustainable development goals are important for the UK, so that we do as we say and say as we do, giving us the integrity to lead by example.
Just as the International Development Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee are scrutinising the sustainable development goals, so did the Environmental Audit Committee. I noted with interest the letter that came through on 8 January in response to the European Scrutiny Committee report, which said that it is important to achieve
“a final framework of goals and targets that is simple, inspiring and workable while retaining the breadth and balance of the 17 goals”.
We must not water down those 17 goals. There are risks in watering them down if that means less emphasis on sustainable development. I hope the Minister will address that when he responds.
I note that in the same response the Government speak about the eradication of extreme poverty, but we must give the same amount of policy attention to the need to reduce inequalities. We must deal with sustainable development as well as inequalities internationally on the world stage and in our constituencies. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) said about children and the best start ever. As much as we do internationally, we must do at home. Tomorrow I am hosting a working group with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists so that children in Stoke-on-Trent have the best possible start.
All these issues are important. I hope that in his reply the Minister will tell us a little about the climate change aspects and how we will ensure that that is embedded in all the sustainable development goals. I hope he can tell us how the green thread of environmental sustainability will similarly be embedded in those goals. I hope he will tell us how we will deal with the issues nationally. We have heard a lot about international development, but this is just as much a matter for the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Office and the Office for National Statistics, because we will need to monitor and audit the implementation of the sustainable development goals that we want to see agreed in New York.
Finally, this is about future generations—our children and grandchildren. We must do everything possible to communicate this policy through education for sustainable development, so that graduates are equipped by their training to apply the principles of sustainable development to the outcomes that we want from the sustainable development goals to be agreed in New York this year.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
This has been a long debate. I would not say that the tone of it has been edifying or that the content of some of the speeches has added to the great words in Hansard for generations to come. Perhaps now, as we near the end of the debate, we can get on to some of the positives that four and three quarter years of this Parliament have been about. It has been about reaching the 0.7% goal. That is a huge achievement. It has been about guiding the private Member’s Bill through so that it will be enshrined in law. That is an amazing achievement that has not been done in 13 years or in four years. We are getting there. Those things need to be put on the record and we should be incredibly proud of them.
We must take forward issues such as ensuring that girls can go to school, not just up to the age of 11, but up to the age of 14, or whenever. That is where our ambition should be. This debate should have been so much more about the positive future, about building on the fantastic four and three quarter years of this Parliament and reaching the 0.7% goal, and where we will go in the future. It is unbelievably churlish for people to talk disparagingly about the private sector being involved in these things. Are they really having a pop at Diageo, which has taken over from the Guinness Trust? Is that what this has come down to in this Chamber? Some of the people who have made comments in this Chamber should be ashamed of themselves. I cannot believe that they were proud to stand up and make such comments. It is very sad.
On a more positive note, the important thing is to take forward the next set of goals that this country can agree to, with their great plans for the future. We work with some tremendous charities. Plan UK and RESULTS have been superb in educating and showing parliamentarians what is going on out there in the world: what is going on in Ethiopia with TB, in Tanzania with farming, with Oxfam and other such organisations. That is where the future lies. I hope that we never have another of these debates with this tone. It demeans Parliament and I am really sorry that it happened today. The future is with us and we can explain to all the voters that it is in our country’s best interest for other countries to develop and have a peaceful and safe future. If we can do that with some of our taxpayers’ money, that is the right thing to do.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, referred to the report we have produced on the sustainable development goals. Given the nature of business during the next few months, it will probably not even receive a Government reply and it certainly will not get much time for debate, so I would like to highlight a few of the report’s recommendations, to which the Minister and the shadow Minister might respond.
We strongly took the view that it was important that there were stand-alone climate change goals in the new sustainable development goals. I know they are currently there and I hope that the Government and the Opposition will confirm that they will recognise the importance of maintaining those in the final package.
In terms of specific recommendations, we emphasised the importance of phasing out the subsidies to carbon intensive energy sources in developing countries. There is no point in our having tight emissions targets if we then encourage activities that produce increasing carbon emissions anywhere in the world, and certainly in developing countries. We emphasise the importance of ensuring there are the highest standards of environmental protection in trade deals. Only today, the Committee took evidence on the new Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership proposals and the need to ensure that they do not jeopardise environmental standards, both within the European Union and the United States, and in the consequential effects on developing countries.
We emphasise the importance of the UK leading efforts to improve air quality in cities. We know that in the UK, the numbers dying from poor air quality are much greater than originally realised, and that is even more of an issue in developing countries, with urbanisation continuing to develop in many parts of the world. Once again, I hope that is an issue on which the Government will take a lead.
We emphasise the importance of—the phrase we use may not be the most elegant but nevertheless it highlights what we want to say—decoupling economic growth from an increase in natural resource use. I hasten to add that we are not against economic growth, but we want to get away from the idea that economic growth has to be accompanied by increasing resource use, and increasing climate emissions as well.
We recommended an annual report on the impact of the international climate fund. That is an important initiative, but it has to be done properly to ensure, apart from anything else, that we do not waste the money when it is going to the most effective uses.
It is important to establish marine protected areas in the UK overseas territories. The only marine protected area that has been established so far is in the Indian ocean territories, and that is more to do with the Chagos islanders and other issues than with having a marine protected area in that part of the world.
There is a very important recommendation on engaging young people in the UK with the renewed sustainable development goals and supporting activities that raise awareness about sustainable development. I am concerned about the future of the international citizen service—an initiative initially promoted by the previous Government that has been much promoted by the current Government. I hope the Minister can give a commitment that the UK will continue to support the international citizen service after this year, when it is due to terminate. That is important. We all know from our work in our constituencies that the genuine interest among schoolchildren and other young people underpins the commitment across the Chamber and across the country to supporting our international development goals.
Mr Tom Clarke
Given the discussions about whether there ought to be debates on this, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we have a debate before the Paris conference in order to give strength to our representations?
Mark Lazarowicz
Absolutely. Public debate, engagement and support strengthen the hand of any Government in international negotiations such as those later this year.
Last week, I was fortunate to visit Leith Walk primary school in my constituency, where the students and their teachers had been involved in the important and valuable send my sister to school initiative. I am sure that we all have in our constituencies the same experience of young people being very committed to taking action on these issues. I hope that the Government will continue to support that through the continuation of the international citizen service.
It is important to be non-partisan on this issue, as far as possible, and to ensure that we have the widest consensus among political forces in this Chamber and outside. At the same time, it is also right to criticise and challenge a Government where there are failings. That is why I intervened on one of my colleagues about refugees from Syria and, bluntly, the Government’s failure to live up to what was promised just over a year ago. I know that is not the direct responsibility of the International Development Secretary, but the failure of the Home Secretary and her Ministers to live up to what we promised is a blot on our otherwise good record in supporting refugees and international development. I recognise that the Secretary of State cannot today suddenly reverse the Government’s record to date on supporting Syrian refugees, but I hope that she will have a word with her ministerial colleagues to ensure that we now live up to the Government’s commitments, which I believed at the time were made in good faith and which were supported across the House. I would like a change in our actions to be consistent with the policy that the Government followed just over a year ago.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I refer Members to my entries on international development in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am delighted that we have this opportunity to debate the sustainable development goals, which are incredibly important. Since 2000, the eight millennium development goals have achieved amazing results. My right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien) and my colleague on the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell), spoke about malaria. Since 2000, there has been a fall in the number of malaria deaths per year from over 1 million to about 600,000. That is still far, far too many. Nevertheless, several million people, mainly women and children, are still alive today because of the results of the work that has been done through the MDGs. I congratulate this Government on increasing the amount spent on combating malaria from £150 million a year to approximately £500 million this year, in fulfilment of a commitment made in the Conservative party manifesto. That was a direct result of the millennium development goal. If it had not been there, this would not have happened.
The twin goals of the World Bank are, by 2030, to eliminate absolute poverty and to promote shared prosperity and thereby reduce inequality. Those goals are absolutely vital. This afternoon, the International Development Committee had the honour of questioning the Secretary of State for our report on jobs and livelihoods. In evidence to the Committee, the Department has said that the world must create 600 million new jobs not by 2030, but by 2020, which is the end of the next Parliament should it run for a full five years. For me, that is the major challenge that the world faces, and so many of the sustainable development goals are pertinent to it, which is why I will concentrate on it today.
Without peace and governance—goal 16—there is no prospect of sustainable development or of creating those jobs. Let us remember that Somalia is improving at the moment thanks to the work of the peacekeepers from Uganda and Burundi, each of which has lost hundreds of its soldiers in that effort, and that some of those soldiers have been trained by the United Kingdom. Peace and governance are therefore absolutely critical.
Jobs and livelihoods are referred to in goals 1, 2 and 8, particularly in relation to agriculture, which sustains so many hundreds of millions of people. It is vital to give priority to the work on jobs and livelihoods. I congratulate the Secretary of State and her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), on doing so, and I also congratulate the previous Government, who set out on that course.
Following on from that work must come taxation, which is mentioned in goal 17.1, because only through fair taxation can we provide the revenues to bring about the public goods necessary for sustainable development.
Health systems have quite rightly been mentioned. We have recently published a report on them. It is vital to ensure that the direct work done on malaria, TB, HIV and neglected tropical diseases is reflected in horizontal work across health systems. We must not forget about strengthening health systems while we are tackling diseases.
Kate Green
Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to note the importance of investing in and supporting mental health services in developing economies?
Jeremy Lefroy
That is absolutely critical, and I entirely agree that it must come out in the SDGs.
Goal 4 deals with education, without which people will not be in a position to fill the jobs and create the wealth needed. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), has done sterling work in piloting through his Bill on gender equality. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say in Committee today that it looks as though we are spending roughly 50% of the international development budget on women and girls. It would be great to have that confirmed for the record.
Finally, as many Members have said—including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), whose work in this area I greatly respect—unless we tackle climate change, it will be impossible to live in a sustainable world and to create the jobs and livelihoods that everybody needs.
The motion calls on the Government
“to show global leadership on tackling the causes of poverty inequality and climate change.”
I am afraid that I cannot support the motion, because I believe that the Government are already showing such leadership under the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and with the support of the whole House.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am very pleased that Labour has called this debate to highlight a particularly momentous year for international development, with the launch of the sustainable development goals and the climate change talks in Paris in December. Much was achieved under the previous development framework of the millennium development goals, but much more of course needs to be done. In the time available, I want to concentrate on a few of the goals.
Goal 2, on hunger, has among its targets that the world should ensure that
“food systems are stable, sustainable and produce enough nutritious food for all”,
and that
“all people can access and consume adequate, affordable and nutritious food.”
Given that the sustainable development goals, unlike the MDGs, will apply to developing and developed countries, I am keen not only for such targets to be implemented in the developing world, but for them to be addressed in the UK, where food poverty is very much an issue and there are real concerns about child malnutrition.
There are also concerns about food distribution. The International Development Committee produced an excellent report on food security. We produce more than enough calories to feed a world population of 9 billion, which we are estimated to reach by 2050. There is enough food, but it does not get to the people who need it. We have obesity on the one hand, and starvation and malnutrition on the other. According to the UN, more than a third of the food that is produced—about 1.3 billion tonnes—ends up being wasted. That is a scandal.
The food that is wasted, according to Tristram Stuart’s excellent book of 2009, “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal”, is enough to feed 3 billion people. That would still leave enough surplus for countries to provide their populations with 130% of their nutritional requirements. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that every year the production of food that is wasted generates 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases and uses up to 1.4 billion hectares of land, which is 28% of the world’s agricultural area. Globally, the blue water footprint for the agricultural production of food waste is about 250 km3, which is more than 38 times the blue water footprint of USA households.
That brings me to goal 9, which is that,
“All people enjoy a sustainable, healthy and resilient environment”,
and goal 10, which is that,
“The world is on track to avoid dangerous climate change and is less vulnerable to its impacts”.
The targets that are attached to goal 9 are admirable:
“Reduce ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss… Manage natural resources that are essential for people’s basic needs within their natural limits… Embed sustainable consumption and production in national policies and practice.”
Again, those goals apply not just to developing countries, but to the UK. There is much that we could do and need to do to meet those targets.
Goal 10 is about linking human development with the future of the planet. As has been said, we cannot eradicate poverty unless we tackle climate change. It has an impact in many ways. It affects whether a country can produce enough food to feed its people and whether people can move beyond subsistence farming to being able to make a living from farming. It affects the water supply. For example, we can look at the impact that climate change and glacial melt are having on the mountainous areas of Nepal and Tibet, which are sometimes described as the third pole because they make up the third biggest ice mass after the Arctic and Antarctic. It causes natural disasters that range from droughts to floods and that include typhoons, tropical storms and landslides due to soil degradation.
Yesterday, I met seven of the eight ambassadors and chargés d’affaires from central American countries and last week I met the high commissioner from the Maldives. Those countries see the impact of climate change on their lives on a daily basis. The Maldives might no longer exist if we do not meet the 2° target. That is why what happens in Paris at the end of the year is so important.
I have asked the Secretary of State at International Development questions about the Government’s commitment to a stand-alone climate change goal. I admit that I am still slightly confused. I have heard from other people that we will probably accept all 17 goals. However, in her response to me, the Secretary of State suggested that she would prefer to see sustainability mainstreamed across the post-2015 framework. I agree that it is important that the issue is mainstreamed, as it ought to be across all Departments in the UK, but that does not mean that there is no need for a lead Department on climate change in the UK. In the same way, I believe that a stand-alone sustainable development goal on climate change would help to focus minds, keep the issue firmly on the agenda and ensure that we do not drop the ball on what is a very important issue.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
As we have heard from a number of speakers, 2015 has the potential to be an historic year for international development. The international community will come together in September to agree the sustainable development goals and at the end of the year to agree a framework to tackle climate change. That will happen just in year one of the next Parliament. The next five years must be about not just making the right agreements but, crucially, delivering on them. That will require commitment, energy and, crucially, leadership on the international stage. We will need the ability to set the agenda, to advocate and persuade, to build alliances, and to use our influence to make a difference for some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.
I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), who rightly mentioned how we strove for consensus. Let us remember that the consensus was built by the last Government; it was not there from the beginning. It is also important to recognise that our criticism of the Government is not that they do not act on the international stage on international development—of course they do and we welcome that—but it is the force of their advocacy and leadership. Compare that with the last Labour Government. We created the Department for International Development. We trebled the aid budget. We founded the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We led on cancelling debt. We created the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and we drove the efforts on the millennium development goals.
In contrast, the Government have failed to show leadership at home, never mind abroad. They had a clear manifesto commitment to legislate on 0.7% gross national income in international aid—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) listens, he will find that we are much more in agreement and perhaps he too will be open to transparency, accountability and debate—things that both sides of the House welcome. The 0.7% aim was in the Conservatives’ manifesto and the coalition agreement. Thankfully, the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) delivered a Bill on 0.7% and I pay tribute to him and all the Members who got behind the Bill to make sure that we delivered on our international obligations. I just wish that it had been done in Government time, which would have shown more leadership—
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr David Evennett)
The Government supported it.
Anas Sarwar
Well, we should also highlight the fact that more Labour MPs voted in favour of the Bill than MPs from every other party combined.
With crucial negotiations and agreements coming up, I want the next Government to be drivers, not passengers. The new sustainable development goals must go faster to eliminate extreme poverty and focus on tackling inequality, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley). To add to that, we would prioritise universal health coverage, human rights for all, including women, children and the disabled, and the effects of climate change.
Access to health care should be based on a person’s need, not their ability to pay. It should be a right, not a privilege. That is why, unlike the Government, we will support a stand-alone goal on universal health coverage. Universal health coverage does not just help improve health outcomes, it would help reduce inequality and stop 100 million people a year from falling into poverty. I pay tribute to two Conservative Members who spoke passionately about causes that are dear to them. The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) has shown a tremendous commitment to the fight against tuberculosis and raised the important point of multi-drug resistance. Universal health coverage could be an important element of that fight in the future. I had the privilege of serving on the International Development Committee with the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for almost 18 months, and he spoke of his commitment to the issue of malaria, and the work done by the last Government and this to tackle it. I know first hand, from our conversations and from serving on the Committee, of the good work that he does. I am sure that that will have the support of both sides of the House and, I hope, the next Labour Government.
Negotiations on universal health coverage are also about resilience to humanitarian disasters or outbreaks of disease, and we have already heard about the difference that can make. Nigeria, which has invested strongly in building its health systems, was able to contain and beat the Ebola virus, but Sierra Leone—let us remember that the Government cut support for that country—has struggled to cope, resulting in loss of life and the need for even greater support from the Government and the international community.
On the issue of Ebola, I wish to put on record again, on behalf of both sides of the House, our thanks to and appreciation of Pauline Cafferkey and all those from the United Kingdom who volunteer to go and help in the fight against Ebola. Pauline is an example of a real hero in our community, and I am sure that we all want to send her our best wishes as she recovers from Ebola and returns home to Rutherglen in Scotland.
I echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who rightly paid tribute to our tremendous staff at the Department for International Development. They are heroes in their own right, struggling and fighting to make a difference to people’s lives across the world.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that we had cut aid to Sierra Leone. We have spent more money on health in Sierra Leone in every year of this Parliament than the previous Government. Where is he getting his figures from? It is duff information.
Anas Sarwar
It is good to see the hon. Lady taking part in the debate. She was not here earlier when we were discussing that very important issue. She may want to refer to the House of Commons Library and to a Westminster Hall debate with the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) on this important issue. In that debate, the Minister admitted he did not know how much money the Government were spending in Sierra Leone. He also said he would go away and find out. I am still waiting for an answer.
Another point raised with the Minister in that debate was how we recruit from developing countries to our NHS. The Minister said he would investigate and come back on that. I would be interested to hear the result of that investigation. There is a sad irony in the UK recruiting one in four doctors trained in Sierra Leone into our NHS, when it has an acute need itself. Our NHS—thought of, created and saved by Labour—is the envy of the world. The previous debate is proof enough of this Government’s shoddy commitment to it and its values. That is why only Labour can be trusted to make the case for universal health coverage at home and abroad.
Another priority is to put women and girls at the heart of the sustainable development goals. We would like gender equality, access to education, clamping down and taking action against female genital mutilation, and making sure every child is protected from slavery or abuse to be included.
On private sector development, Labour agrees that a thriving and free private sector is vital to the elimination of poverty, but it cannot be based on the ideology of trickle-down economics. Labour believes the most sustainable and dignified route out of poverty is work. We must ensure that that also means decent pay, fair conditions and the freedom to join a trade union. That is why we will reverse the Government’s decision to slash funding to the International Labour Organisation. DFID’s spending on private sector development in 2011-12 was £549 million. That now sits at £1.8 billion—a fifth of DFID’s budget.
At the same time, we have seen Ministers completely fail to ensure value for money or transparency, a point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). It is very difficult to establish what DFID is spending that money on. It is channelled through private bodies such as the Private Infrastructure Development Group, a multilateral organisation that is considerably less transparent. Government Members may criticise Labour’s approach, but the National Audit Office and the Government’s own Independent Commission for Aid Impact warn that oversight of this funding is inadequate and risks wasting taxpayers’ money. We await the Public Accounts Committee report tomorrow.
It is completely unacceptable that any Government Minister can fail to answer basic questions on how we spend £2 billion of taxpayers’ money. It is not just the Government who have a responsibility, but companies too. It is an absolute scandal that every year three times as much is lost in tax revenues to developing countries than the global aid budget combined. That is why we must make tackling tax avoidance a priority at home and abroad. We must look at supply chains adopting the same principles we apply in this country.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and many other colleagues, raised the issue of climate change. Labour will, unlike this Government, put the fight against climate change front and centre of international agreements. We will use the G8 in Germany to push for climate change to be a permanent standing item at the UN Security Council. It will be on the agenda of every meeting with world leaders here in the UK. Leading on the sustainable development goals; leading on climate change; leading on private sector development; leading on universal health coverage; and leading right around the world. That is the leadership this country needs.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)
This debate has, to a large extent, been wrested from the Opposition Front-Bench team and rescued by the many excellent contributions we have heard. We began with the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), who rightly pointed out the importance of pre-school education, and then my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien) brought the benefit of his expertise in stressing the need for security. I always welcome the experience and wisdom of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who made an excellent point about development education. I hope the project that our schools go through every summer, Send My Friend to School, spreads to parents, because the children’s enthusiasm for the agenda is an example to us all.
I thank the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) for his excellent speech. He hit the nail on the head, as one would expect from a Select Committee Chairman of 10 years, and I shall return to his speech shortly, if time allows, because it was a seminal contribution. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell), who rightly concentrated on malaria, made some important points, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) concentrated on tuberculosis and brought the benefit of his long experience, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who has long been committed to these issues.
The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) concentrated on the importance of our taking a lead and asked several questions about TradeMark Southern Africa. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which we set up specifically to examine what was going on, drew attention to the problems with the project, and, as a result, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cancelled it. The hon. Lady also mentioned the PIDG, which, I recollect, was set up in 2002—perhaps when the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) was in the Department. However, we will attend to the issues raised in the NAO report. I share some of the concerns, but we need to bear in mind the huge leverage of the PIDG in getting private finance into poor countries. In her short, but pithy speech, the hon. Lady also asked about the ILO, as did other hon. Members. We took the decision we did following the multilateral aid review, but we still work closely with the ILO—in Bangladesh, for example.
I thought the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth on fair trade were particularly pithy. He rightly drew attention to the false dichotomy between security and defence, and development; they are intimately connected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) gave us the advantage of his 30 years’ experience, including as a Minister, and rightly drew our attention back to climate change and sustainability. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) highlighted the important report from the Environmental Audit Committee and asked several detailed questions. I offer her a trade. I have every intention of reading her report, but perhaps she will read this report: “A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development”. It is all in here: exactly how every single one of the targets has to be permeated with the key issue of sustainability. We are confident that the goals will be universal and we are ready to play our part: we have a strong cross-Government approach to this agenda, which is crucial to ensuring that all Departments are engaged and that the UK will be well placed to deliver these goals—it says.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) raised our sights and our ambition, pointing the debate back to the millennium goals. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) focused our attention back on the Environmental Audit Committee report, but also made an excellent point about the international citizen service. He is right to praise that excellent initiative, which we are now considering what we can do to expand. I hope I have been able to reassure him on that point.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) brought her long experience and knowledge of nutrition to this debate, but when she went on to climate change there was an element of criticism. I would point out that we were one of the few countries that constantly tried to get a specific reference to the 2° target back into the goals.
This has been a very good debate in many respects—[Interruption.] Yes, there is a “but”. I want to return to the opening of the debate. We have a motion before us that seeks to divide the House. I have sat here and listened to all these excellent speeches and searched for the issue of substance that divides us. What have we got in the motion that seeks to divide us? The 0.7% target? We were all in the same Division Lobby on 0.7%. The only gripe is one of process—what kind of Bill it was.
We are also absolutely united in our approach to the importance of health. I pay tribute to the last Labour Government, who increased the bilateral spend on health. We have continued that; so much so that in the last seven years, bilateral health expenditure has doubled and now represents almost a quarter—23%—of our spend. We have already heard about the £1 billion commitment that has been made to the global fund. That will fund life-saving treatment for an additional 750,000 people with AIDS. There is no issue between us on health. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) asks, “What about the SDGs?” We canvassed hard and we have succeeded in getting specific targets and goals on health care.
When it comes to climate change, there is again no division of substance between us. On equality, there is the principle of no one being left behind before a target can be met. Again, there is absolutely no division of substance between us.
I come back to the speech by the Chairman of the Select Committee. He pointed out that we now have some 17 goals and 169 targets, when it was the ambition of the Secretary-General that we would have something small and understandable—something that we could all get behind and campaign on, something that we could measure and something that we could hold Governments to account on. That is what we should have been talking about tonight: how we get behind that agenda. They wasted the opportunity—
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main question accordingly put.
Business without Debate
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated legislation
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hormone Replacement Therapy Implant
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I am very pleased to have the opportunity this evening to speak on behalf of not only my constituents but many women across the country on the issue of commissioning and funding the hormone replacement therapy implant.
While I appreciate that for the overwhelming majority of women experiencing the menopause alternative HRT treatments are perfectly effective in addressing their symptoms, for a small number this is not the case, and the impact is significant. This issue was first brought to my attention by a group of my constituents who were being treated with the implant from the well woman clinic at Lordswood community healthy living centre in my constituency. In March 2014, after Medway clinical commissioning group announced that it would no longer be providing funding for the insertion of HRT implants, they sent me a copy of a petition signed by 200 women, one of whom has since sadly passed away.
After receiving the petition, I met a number of the individuals concerned to discuss why the alternative treatments were inadequate. They described the effect on their quality of life of no longer having access to the implant, and the problems that they had experienced with other formats of the therapy not addressing their menopausal symptoms.
The purpose of today’s debate is not to advocate access to the implant for all women going through the menopause. I am aware that many women either go through the menopause without any major problems or can sufficiently negate their symptoms with the cheaper licensed alternatives such as patches and gels. However, for a selection of women, the HRT implant provides benefits not addressed by alternative forms of the therapy.
A small percentage of women are severely affected by this issue. They include women with a history of breast cancer in the family. HRT has been thought to increase the risk of breast cancer, especially when used over long periods of time. However, the implant is seen as a preferable option for those seeking HRT treatment as there is a reduced risk, because it is absorbed directly into the blood and bypasses the liver. They also include women who experience some of the more severe symptoms. Symptoms such as joint pain and depression, which cannot be eased by the other licensed formats of the therapy, can also be improved by the implant. These more severe symptoms can have a huge impact on the quality of daily life and on well-being, affecting factors such as employment and mental health, which have cost and health implications of their own, both to the economy and to the individual. The small percentage of women severely affected by this issue also includes women who suffer from early menopause. This means that they are likely to suffer symptoms over a protracted period, and they have also been seen to have much better results from the implant.
The personal experience of my constituent Sarah clearly highlights the reality and severity of the effects involved, as well as the benefits that the implant can provide. Sarah King is suffering early menopause. She is a lovely young married mum with three young boys. For most of her life she had been healthy, active and happy, but in recent years she suffered a number of accumulating health problems. These included joint pain—to the point of hospitalisation—skin problems, depression, headaches and lethargy. After a number of years of various treatments and no real improvement, she was sent for a simple blood test which revealed extremely low hormone levels, indicating that she was suffering an early menopause.
Owing to a family history of breast cancer, Sarah was first offered the opportunity to try the HRT implants. Within a short time, all her poor health issues had gone. When the HRT implant service stopped, she tried the HRT patches and then the gel, but neither gave her the same result that she had experienced with the implants. Her health deteriorated to the point that she had to quit her full-time job as a teaching assistant. She started researching on the internet and discovered that the Chelsea and Westminster hospital in London had a specialist menopause clinic and HRT implant service.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this delicate issue to the House for our consideration. My understanding is that this hormone replacement therapy is available only in certain locations across the United Kingdom. Does she agree that we need consistency of availability, from Aberdeen to London and from Cardiff to Belfast, and that it should be available to everyone?
Tracey Crouch
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The implant is no longer uniformly available nationally. The decisions being taken locally are affecting people who might not be able to travel to London, for example. I shall come to that later in my speech.
Sarah contacted Medway CCG to ask whether it would object to her being referred to the Chelsea and Westminster hospital as an NHS patient. The CCG told her that there was no objection and that the patient’s well-being was its priority. Following that consultation, Sarah had her first appointment at the Chelsea and Westminster on Monday 12 January this year. She was accompanied by her husband, and he was able to tell the medical practitioner who interviewed Sarah what it had been like before she received HRT implants at the Lordswood clinic, what it had been like after she had the implants, and what it had been like to see her health deteriorate again when that treatment was no longer available. He said:
“I just want my happy, healthy Sarah back.”
The medical practitioner that Sarah saw said she was an ideal candidate for the HRT implant and did not hesitate in giving it to her during that first visit. Within a week Sarah says she is already feeling much better, and she has now set up a website dedicated to supporting women suffering severe menopausal symptoms. I am sure that Sarah is just one woman of many who have found themselves in this predicament, but not all have had such positive outcomes.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the constituents of mine, especially Val Weeden, who have tirelessly researched and campaigned on this issue. They have actively searched for solutions and continuously shared their information with me. They have constantly supported each other through what has clearly been a very tough situation for many. It is extremely unlikely that this issue is unique to my constituency; I am sure that many women across the country and beyond who suffer from severe symptoms no longer have access to this potentially life-enhancing treatment because of localised commissioning structures. They may not all come across information for Chelsea and Westminster’s specialised service, and women in the far north or far south of the country who do may struggle to travel to London, at a potentially extortionate cost. Although I appreciate that this is not a cost to be incurred by the health care system, it is one that I would like the Minister to consider today.
After some research into this issue, I identified that on 5 July 2011 MSD, the only licensed provider of the Estradiol implant here in the UK, issued a letter to GPs stating that it was to cease manufacture of the product. It stated:
“the company’s global decision to discontinue the manufacturing of Estradiol was made after consideration of commercial factors and the fact that therapeutic alternatives are available in most countries. The decision is not related to a product quality or safety issue”.
For most women, this issue of cost has no impact on their treatment and well-being, but the 200 women in my constituency, and, I imagine, many others beyond for whom the alternative forms of HRT are not suitable, have been left with a void in their health care. The UK now has no licensed provider for a treatment that enables sufferers to live a normal, high-quality, day-to-day existence.
I recognise that the lack of a licensed provider is not necessarily a problem, as GPs are able to prescribe unlicensed medicines if they feel there is a special need and an unlicensed provider of the product exists in the UK. However, in my constituency this process has not adequately represented the women for whom this treatment is so important, because when our CCG made the announcement in March 2014 that it would no longer be providing funding, the justification was that 200 women was far too great a number to be treated with an unlicensed medicine when licensed alternatives were available.
Although I disagree with the idea that an increased demand for treatment somehow de-legitimises its suitability, I am aware of the potential concerns about licensing. However, just because a product is unlicensed, it does not necessarily mean that it is unsafe, as has been highlighted in MSD’s notice of cessation. In fact, in this case the unlicensed treatments being provided have been widely used across the country and the world. The only reason they are currently unlicensed is that the license holder deemed its provision economically unviable.
That brings me to my conclusion. My constituents found the Chelsea and Westminster clinic through independent research on the internet. That is not a good enough procedure to ensure that women have access to the vital services they need in our health care system. I, for one, recognise the positive changes that this Government have made to our health care system—namely the emphasis on the importance of well-being. I also believe that, for the most part, our doctors are best placed to commission our local services, but this case is an example of where the economics of devolved commissioning are perhaps having a negative impact on specialist services.
The Chelsea and Westminster clinic is proof that there is clearly a recognised medical need for the HRT implant to be made available, as a uniquely successful treatment, to a significant minority of women. I therefore ask the Minister to commit to take steps to ensure that our shared vision of our health care system is a reality for all who use it, including these women. I urge the Minister to take steps to make sure that this specialised service is available to all women who may need it, in an appropriate location, and that appropriate referrals take place. To follow any actions that he may take on this issue, will he make a commitment to publish new guidance or write to GPs to inform them about best practice for their patients in this position.
Looking forward, we also need to understand early menopause better and how it may be affecting women from an earlier age. I urge the Minister to engage with national organisations such as the Daisy Network, which was set up for this age group to see how best we can do that. We also need more research into severe menopausal symptoms and treatment for them. Will the Minister commit to look at this whole area of concern?
Finally, I thank Val, Sarah and the rest of my constituents who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue. Their support has enabled me to raise this issue in the House not just for them but for many, many women across the nation in similar circumstances.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on securing this debate on the funding of hormone replacement therapy implants. She gives me the opportunity to discuss the issues she has raised on behalf of her constituent, Sarah, and others more generally.
Hormone replacement therapy is effective for treating women who are entering the menopause and experiencing hot flushes and night sweats as well as sleep and mood disturbances. There are a number of different types of hormone replacement therapies available, including an oral tablet taken daily, or a transdermal patch applied once or twice weekly.
We should acknowledge that there are risks for those who are prescribed hormone replacement therapy, and the guidance of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence suggests that, among other risks, there is a small increased risk of breast cancer, stroke and gallbladder disease.
Turning to the issues raised today concerning hormone replacement therapy implants, I have been advised by the Health and Social Care Information Centre that the number of items prescribed and dispensed for hormone replacement therapy implants has been declining since 1996, from around 36,700 prescription items per year to around 5,300 in 2010, the year prior to the licence being withdrawn. HRT implant prescriptions are now down to negligible levels.
HRT implants are no longer routinely offered as a treatment for menopausal symptoms, as my hon. Friend said, and that has been the case since 2011 when the manufacturer of the licensed product, the pharmaceutical company MSD, stopped making the implants. The decision to cease manufacture was based on two main factors. First, therapeutic alternatives are available in the UK, including tablets taken by mouth, patches and gels. Secondly, cost-effective manufacturing processes are unsustainable because few countries use the implant formulation.
GPs and prescribers were advised in 2011 that treatment should be continued until a discussion could take place between the patient and their prescriber. I understand that most GPs and prescribers reviewed their patients at that time and agreed suitable alternative treatments to switch to. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency advises me that the only HRT implant preparations now available are not licensed for use in England, as my hon. Friend pointed out.
There has been a change in the prescribing culture surrounding HRT implants. In the past, they were popular as they gave a steady amount of oestrogen over a period of time and women did not experience fluctuating hormone levels. However, the insertion of HRT implants requires a small surgical procedure, and that can only be done by certain clinicians. Some women increased their tolerance to HRT as a result of having an implant, and returned for higher and higher doses at reducing intervals.
Newer hormone replacement therapy patches now provide steady amounts of oestrogen hormone without the disadvantages of the implant, and this phenomenon of HRT tolerance occurs less frequently.
Tracey Crouch
I understand what the Minister is saying, but does he recognise that some women have allergic reactions to the patches? Certainly, my constituents who came to see me found that neither the patches nor the gel offered a suitable alternative to the implant, not least because the patches often fall off or there is some kind of reaction to them.
Dr Poulter
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I shall make some reassuring comments in that regard in a moment. It is possible to have a reaction to a device or implant, and one would hope that if people have an allergy or reaction to any product, that would be taken into account before it is used. If it causes discomfort, irritation or any adverse reaction, its use should be discontinued and alternative therapies considered.
Clinical commissioning groups are responsible at local level for commissioning the majority of NHS services, and decisions about those services should be made, we would all agree, as close to patients as possible by those who are best placed to work with the patients and the public to understand their needs. Local NHS commissioners now have the freedom and autonomy to take responsibility for meeting the needs of patients in their area, and other health care professionals can work with the CCG, including in secondary care, to help to integrate and join up services more effectively. While clinical commissioning groups are led by primary care professionals, they are also guided by the expertise of other local clinicians.
I understand that my hon. Friend’s local CCG—Medway CCG—released new guidance on HRT implants in 2014. The guidance states that from April 2014, patients will no longer be able routinely to receive hormone replacement therapy implants from their GP. Medway CCG has advised me that the guidance was developed for HRT treatment following clinical input and review through a clear governance process. Because HRT implants are no longer licensed and more suitable alternatives are generally available, the CCG decided that it would no longer pay GPs for inserting such implants from 1 April 2014. The CCG’s policy is in accordance with General Medical Council guidance on prescribing unlicensed medicines, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that medical professionals and doctors have to have regard to those requirements under the licence that they hold, and because they are regulated by the GMC. The CCG has assured me that it does not prevent doctors from inserting an HRT implant if they think it is clinically necessary for an individual patient, having assessed their needs and tried alternatives, and providing that they have sufficient evidence to demonstrate the treatment’s safety and effectiveness.
In exceptional circumstances, where a licensed medicine is considered unsuitable or ineffective for an individual, I would expect those patients to be referred for expert opinion. I am pleased that that is exactly what happened in Sarah’s case, and that Chelsea and Westminster hospital provided her with excellent care and support. We would expect a similar process to be in place in other CCGs. If someone needs more expert support and care, perhaps because they are suffering from the menopause and their GP finds their symptoms and presentation complicated, there should always be a facility for referral to specialist care and support. What happened in Sarah’s case—thankfully, it has resulted in a positive outcome for her—is available at other centres of excellence. Expert care and advice is there, and available for patients.
Medway CCG has written to GPs locally to issue information that they can share with all patients who are still using HRT implants, and to ask them to discuss alternative forms of HRT with them at their next routine appointment.
The CCG advises me that patients should be referred to a gynaecologist for expert opinion if the GP and their patient consider that there is no suitable alternative to the HRT implant. I hope that that is reassuring to my hon. Friend. At a local level the CCG has taken the issue seriously and has written to local GPs and reminded them of the importance of reviewing the current treatment plan for women who have the implant, but if they need more specialist support and advice, to make sure that a referral is made to a specialist centre of care. That process should be available to patients throughout the country. Where specialist support is required, CCGs should routinely refer those patients on. That is part and parcel of good medical practice.
Most of the time, HRT therapy and the expertise of GPs in supporting patients through menopause is enough for the majority of patients, as my hon. Friend outlined, but sometimes there is a need for more specialist support. Centres of excellence such as the Chelsea and Westminster can provide that and consider alternative treatments and therapies where they may be appropriate.
I hope my hon. Friend finds that reassuring. I thank her once again for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance to her on the issues she raised regarding support for women in Medway who need HRT therapy and potentially implants, and more generally on the process that is in place to ensure that women who need specialist care and support can receive it, and that all CCGs and all doctors would always be mindful to take the right action for the patients they look after.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 10 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
Tamil People in Sri Lanka
(9 years, 10 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 Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. May I ask everyone’s forgiveness as, perhaps to a lot of people’s delight, I am losing my voice, so I might not speak for as long as I would normally?
The timing of the debate is opportune, because the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), is in Sri Lanka as we speak. He arrived this morning and is staying until Friday. Perhaps some of what we discuss will be relayed to the new Sri Lankan Government.
On behalf of everyone, whatever our political party, we should offer an apology to the Tamil community of Sri Lanka for what has happened over the years. Many people, including Government and Opposition Members, said that atrocities were taking place. Sadly, however well meaning people were and however much they wanted to act, those words were not listened to, and many thousands of innocent lives were lost, which should never have happened. The House of Commons as a whole—although I can speak only for myself, not the whole House—should say sorry for that, although we cannot replace the lives that have been lost.
Following the recent elections in Sri Lanka, we have seen a change from President Rajapaksa to President Sirisena. I am concerned, however, that the new Government of Sri Lanka have stated that they will not change the policy towards the Tamil community in Sri Lanka or demilitarise the areas in which Tamil people live.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point because the new President was a member of the previous Government. We have not yet seen any indications of what the new President intends to do, or whether he intends to end harassment and torture. Will the hon. Gentleman comment about that?
Mr Scott
The hon. Gentleman is right. The new President was a member of the same party as his predecessor. He then changed parties and stood against the previous President, and some of the things that have happened early in his presidency are of concern. For example, General Sarath Fonseka, who is named as an alleged war criminal by the United Nations panel of experts—it is the UN saying that, not us—is now an important senior member of the new Government, so I have grave concerns that the names are changing, but the policies are staying the same.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Given the composition of the new Government in Sri Lanka, what can our Minister say on his visit there to persuade them to sign up to the Rome statute establishing the International Criminal Court?
Mr Scott
The Minister needs to say, “Please honour what the UN, the Prime Minister of Britain on his visit to Sri Lanka, the President of America and various other Heads of State have asked for.”
There is only one way in which there can be justice. I emphasise, as I have in many previous debates, that my role is not to say who is guilty or innocent, but we need answers about those people who lost their lives and who disappeared, and someone needs to be held accountable. The only ones who can help that to happen are the Government of Sri Lanka, in co-operation with an international independent inquiry and the UN.
Another important factor is that a report is due out shortly. My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), as well as many others, have said to me that they do not want to see any delay in the report that is due before the UN in the coming weeks. It is quite possible that the new Government of Sri Lanka will ask for such a delay and, on the surface, it might appear unreasonable for people such as me and my colleagues to ask for that report not to be delayed, because a delay would give the new Government a chance to co-operate. Unless they are going to co-operate fully and abide by every single rule asked of them, however, I cannot see the point of any delay. The report should be published in Geneva on schedule.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The new Government will be aware of that report anyway, so there is no need for a delay. They would have been aware of the report even before they took power.
Mr Scott
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct that the new Government would have been aware of the report.
Only a political solution that recognises the rights of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, including that to self-determination, can address the root cause of the conflict. The Sri Lankan constitution already provides for an autonomous assembly, much as Scotland or Wales has in the United Kingdom. That assembly should be given to the Tamils. People should have power over their own destinies. I am calling not for changes to the existing constitution, but for people to honour the existing constitution.
The change in Sri Lanka’s political leadership should create a chance for the accountability process to work and help those who need justice. It should not be used as an excuse to delay that justice further and kick it into the long grass. I am fairly sure that with everything else going on in the world, the Sri Lankan Government hope that the issue will quietly go away and that people will forget about it. However, I assure the Sri Lankan Government that many Members of this House—look at the numbers present for the debate—will not forget and allow the matter to disappear. We are seeking justice for those people who no longer have a voice.
Yesterday morning, I stood in silence at the holocaust memorial, where we recognised the victims of not only Nazi persecution, but other genocides that have taken place throughout the world since the end of the second world war. I am afraid to say—it gives me no pleasure to say this—that genocide has happened. We cannot pretend that it has not happened. We are not talking about a war in which a regime tried to stop terrorism—I am the first to condemn terrorism in any shape or form by anyone—but about the women and children who disappeared, and the people who were in camps for year after year. Were they terrorists? No sane-minded person would say that they were.
The justice that is deserved and needed can be achieved only through pressure from the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, France and every country—I could go on and on. Sri Lanka must heed the call of our Prime Minister and co-operate fully with the UN investigation on Sri Lanka by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Sri Lanka must also sign the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court, to which 123 states are party, including the United Kingdom, to demonstrate its intent to be a good global citizen.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. It has been reported that the new Sri Lankan Government are spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars to boost their image throughout the world. Is not the way to boost their image for them to co-operate properly with a proper investigation into what has gone on in Sri Lanka?
Mr Scott
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not going to be an advert for the Sri Lankan Government, but we know from watching our TV sets the amount that is being spent on trying to encourage people to visit Sri Lanka and showing it as a free democratic country. If the Sri Lankan Government truly want people to visit and to show that it is a free democratic country, they should prove that by abiding by the all the rules of the United Nations.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that Sri Lanka as a whole has made great progress commercially. There is a lot of export activity—the UK made £53 million of exports to Sri Lanka last year—so in other ways the Sri Lankan Government are making progress, but on this issue they have badly failed. We are dealing with many thousands of lives, and so, although I understand that the Prime Minister has called for co-operation, surely the onus is on us to put more pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to deal with this situation so that it does not last for a number of years, as did the situation with the holocaust, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Mr Scott
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and that is why I ask the Minister to consider carefully the idea of vetoing future loans from the International Monetary Fund to Sri Lanka until the Sri Lankan Government co-operate. I am not for one second saying that if co-operation is given, that will change everything. I know that it has been only a few weeks, but I have not seen one sign of a change in position from that of the previous Sri Lankan Government.
Dame Angela Watkinson
Does my hon. Friend agree that one important thing that the Sri Lankan Government need to do is to change the constitution to allow retrospective legislation so that past atrocities can be investigated?
Mr Scott
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Anyone who has committed a crime has to be seen to be brought to trial for that crime. There can be no saying, “We’ll excuse them because they’re my mates,” or, “We’ll excuse them because it suits us for this not to come out.” I am not going to pretend that I can give a political analysis of the forthcoming Sri Lankan elections, but my understanding is that a lot of the people who will be sitting around the table after them will not be too different from those sitting around it before them, under the previous Government. If that happens, justice must still be done.
Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I will not speak for much longer, but I want to implore everyone to recognise one thing. Should we have done more when the atrocities were taking place? Without question, yes. Could we have done more? Yes, we could. We cannot change the past, or the tragedy and atrocities that happened, but we can build for the future to make sure that the women and children—the nieces and nephews of my constituents and the constituents of many hon. Members present—get the justice that they deserve. If we do not do that, we should hang our heads in shame. Let us all work together, whoever the Government of Britain are after 7 May, to make sure that the Sri Lankan Government—and, specifically, those responsible for the atrocities—do not get away with these atrocities, and that we honour the memories of those who lost their lives.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing the debate at what is a really exciting time in Sri Lanka, given Maithripala Sirisena’s stunning victory in Sri Lanka’s recent presidential elections. The welcome demise of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime has removed a serious impediment from the prospect of securing truth, justice and reconciliation on the island.
President Sirisena has a laudable programme for reform, and I hope that, as he has stated is his aim, he is able to lay the foundations of a
“disciplined society rich in cultural and moral values where all could live in harmony irrespective of differences”.
However, Sri Lanka will be truly set on the path to a sustainable and lasting peace only if the new Government take meaningful steps on several key issues: first, they must address the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from the end of the country’s armed conflict; secondly, they must end the culture of impunity that has blighted the country for so long; thirdly, they should negotiate a comprehensive political settlement to the Tamil national question; and, fourthly, they must ensure that the rights and freedoms of all Sri Lanka’s citizens are respected and protected. However, Sirisena has already rejected the mandate of the current UN investigation into war crimes allegations in Sri Lanka and has given no indication that he would be willing to grant greater autonomy to the Tamil and Tamil-speaking Muslim areas of the north and east of the island.
I agree with the assessment of the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice that a democratic mandate for President Sirisena
“cannot be any more a mandate for impunity than was the previous election victory of Rajapaksa. Only if he makes a firm commitment to dealing with war crimes allegations—with the support of the international community—can he hope to secure a just and lasting peace”.
I therefore intend to discuss why the British Government must remain eternally vigilant with regard to the situation in Sri Lanka. International efforts to ensure accountability and reconciliation on the island deserve our full and unwavering support. With the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights close to publishing its comprehensive report on war crimes allegations, the British Government, in concert with other countries and members of the United Nations Human Rights Council, must be prepared to hold the Government of Sri Lanka to account if they reject the report’s findings and fail to co-operate with its recommendations.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. Does she agree that it is hard to understand how Sri Lanka, under its new Government, can be admitted as a full member of the family of nations, and regarded as such around the world, if it does not co-operate with the UN’s work to investigate the war crimes at the end of the civil war?
Siobhain McDonagh
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend.
I make no apologies for expressing my delight at seeing the end of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s brutal decade-long reign. This is a man who presided over the slaughter of 40,000 Tamils at the end of the country’s civil war, whose contempt for human rights and the rule of law further intensified a culture of impunity, and who led an increasingly autocratic, nepotistic and corrupt Government. Right up until the end of the election campaign, violence and threats were being meted out against his political opponents and, since his defeat, serious allegations have emerged regarding both an attempted coup to remain in power and alleged complicity in the death squads of his brother Gotabhaya, the Defence Secretary. Those are yet more issues that require full, credible and independent investigation.
After years of misrule, Sri Lanka was crying out for new leadership. I applaud those who, in the face of much intimidation, voted Rajapaksa out, especially the Tamils and Tamil-speaking Muslims who had been so badly treated by his regime. In fact, the votes from the Tamil and Muslim communities were absolutely pivotal in securing Sirisena’s victory. Although Rajapaksa swept almost all Sinhala-dominated provinces, Sirisena received the support of about 80% of the Tamil vote and gained an even greater number of votes from Muslims.
I believe that the outcome of the presidential election raises two important points. First, it reaffirms the fact that Tamils warmly embrace democracy. The spurious assertions by Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Government of attempts to revive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Tamil-majority areas were complete nonsense. Tamils want not a return to armed conflict, but the opportunity to live with dignity in a peaceful, democratic society. Secondly, given the support that Sirisena received from Tamils and Muslims, they have every right to expect him to engage with them constructively and to address their long-standing grievances about war crimes, human rights violations, political marginalisation and religious intolerance, among other important issues.
Sri Lanka’s new leader has shown a willingness to reach out to Tamils on several issues. For example, he has removed the military governor of Northern Province, who did so much to undermine the work of the provincial council, and replaced him with a civilian, Mr Palihakkara, even though it must be noted that Mr Palihakkara was a senior Government representative during the conflict and defended them against accusations of war crimes committed against Tamils. Sirisena has also stated an intention to review the seizing of Tamil land by the army and has ordered the release of some Tamil detainees against whom no case has been brought. I hope that means that the likes of Jeyakumari Balendaran, a Tamil mother of one of the disappeared who has been detained without charge for 300 days, will soon have a taste of freedom again.
Sirisena has ambitious and worthwhile plans for government. His proposals for his first 100 days in office include notable pledges to abolish the executive presidency and to restore independence to the judiciary, police and other bodies. However, he will ultimately be judged not by his words, but by his deeds. The key constitutional reforms may prove difficult to enact, given the need for a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the possibility of needing to seek the support of aggrieved Rajapaksa allies. Significantly, although Sirisena may have stated that his Government’s priority will be “ethnic and religious reconciliation”, it is deeply unfortunate that his 100-day plan provides no explicit measures to address the key concerns of minority communities.
It is on that issue that the British Government, through their bilateral relations with Sri Lanka, and as part of multilateral organisations such as the UN, must make their voice heard. We should do all that we can to ensure that President Sirisena’s Administration understand the importance that we attach to Sri Lanka’s addressing the outstanding issues arising from the armed conflict and its aftermath.
A matter of days after Sirisena’s presidential election victory, Pope Francis arrived on the island. Addressing the crowds at Colombo airport, His Holiness said:
“Sri Lanka for many years knew the horrors of civil strife, and is now seeking to consolidate peace and to heal the scars of those years. It is no easy task to overcome the bitter legacy of injustices, hostility and mistrust left by the conflict. It can only be done by overcoming evil with good and by cultivating those virtues which foster reconciliation, solidarity and peace. The process of healing also needs to include the pursuit of truth, not for the sake of opening old wounds, but rather as a necessary means of promoting justice, healing and unity.”
I agree wholeheartedly with His Holiness’s sentiments, and his statement is an implicit endorsement of the UN inquiry.
President Sirisena has spoken of how his Government intend to
“have a foreign policy that will mend our ties with the international community and all international organisations in order that we derive maximum benefit for our people.”
The perfect way for him to show that he is sincere in his intentions is for his Government to accept the mandate of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and co-operate with its war crimes investigation. However, people are right to be sceptical about Sirisena’s sincerity, given that he is not prepared to engage with the work of the OHCHR and has vowed to protect Mahinda Rajapaksa and other senior Government and military figures from possible future war crimes charges.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The hon. Lady quoted the Pope, and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), also quoted those words about truth and reconciliation in the main Chamber recently. Does she agree that the Minister should repeat those words on his visit—not in the pastoral tone used by the Pope, but in crisp, diplomatic terms?
Siobhain McDonagh
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister is in Sri Lanka at the moment and we hope he will take up the baton laid down by the Pope.
There are no legitimate reasons to delay the pursuit of truth and justice for the victims of the conflict, yet some have already called for President Sirisena to be given more time and space to deal with issues of reconciliation and accountability, given the job that lies before him. His Government have even indicated that they intend to establish yet another domestic investigation into the allegations of war crimes during the final stages of the civil war. Experience tells us where that will lead: nowhere. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission that was set up in 2010 by Mahinda Rajapaksa was “deeply flawed” and failed to
“satisfy key international standards of independence and impartiality”,
according to the UN Secretary-General’s panel of experts on Sri Lanka. Impunity has been the rule in the country for too long and, as the UN high commissioner has said, the consequence has been that national accountability
“mechanisms have consistently failed to establish the truth and achieve justice.”
It is important to remember that Sirisena is not some innocent party to the situation. He was not plucked from the purity of opposition to become President. He is a former ally and colleague of Rajapaksa’s. He served as a Defence Minister during the final stages of the conflict, when tens of thousands of civilians were killed. He has also spoken out against those who have questioned the Government’s actions in the final stages of the war. In 2010, when Karu Jayasuriya MP wrote that the country should investigate “the many allegations” against it, Sirisena said the Government would identify “patriots and traitors” in the country and act accordingly. President Sirisena may also be implicated in some of the alleged crimes that took place during the armed conflict. His statement from 2010 suggests strongly that he was willing to play his part in helping to foment the culture of impunity under the rule of Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Many members of the Government of Sri Lanka, past and present, see the UN investigation as some pernicious attempt to damage the country and undermine its sovereignty. However, the investigation seeks only to uphold the values and precepts of international humanitarian and human rights law. Given the evidence, it is clear that it is the only credible and independent process available that can get to the truth about what happened. To paraphrase His Holiness, the pursuit of truth, and the realisation of accountability and justice, are the only means by which to lay the foundation for a better future in Sri Lanka—a future where the rule of law and respect for human rights replace the culture of impunity. Without that foundation, it will be virtually impossible to reconcile the different communities on the island, and Sri Lanka will continue to suffer as a result.
In the weeks and months ahead, I therefore call on the British Government to undertake a number of measures. They should urge the Government of Sri Lanka to co-operate with the war crimes investigation by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and engage constructively with the UN Human Rights Council’s concerns about the promotion of reconciliation and accountability. They should also state what the consequences would be if President Sirisena’s Government continued to snub the UN process and reject any criminal investigations that arise from the findings and recommendations of the war crimes report by the Office of the High Commissioner. Given the seriousness of the issue, no measures should be taken off the table, including possible sanctions and travel bans, if Sirisena’s Government fail to comply.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Earlier, she quoted the new President’s words, which indicated that he wanted to make sure that Sri Lanka made the most of its participation in a variety of international organisations to benefit the people of Sri Lanka. Is it not the case that that ambition will be possible only if Sri Lanka starts to co-operate with the UN’s work?
Siobhain McDonagh
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend.
The UK Government should also: make a formal request that the Government of Sri Lanka join more than 150 other countries by finally signing the declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict; place conditions on aid and inward investment into the island, specifying the need for accountability, and the promotion and protection of human rights; urge President Sirisena to publish a long-term plan, along the lines of his road map for his first 100 days in office, stipulating how he intends to address the concerns of minority communities, and to ensure truth, justice and accountability; and call on the Sri Lankan authorities to address the Tamil national question, and enter into immediate and meaningful negotiations with elected Tamil representatives and others to ensure a comprehensive and permanent political solution.
In addition, the British Government should request that President Sirisena, as an act of good will to the Tamil community: revoke the proscription of Tamil diaspora groups and individuals, which was implemented under the rule of Rajapaksa; call on Sri Lanka to demilitarise the Tamil majority areas of the island, release all political prisoners who have not been charged with any offence and revoke the draconian measures in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which allows for 18 months’ detention without charge; and closely monitor the human rights situation on the island, particularly in relation to religious and ethnic minorities. I look forward to the Government’s response, and I apologise to hon. Members for speaking for so long.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), a near constituency neighbour of mine, on his constant battle to support the Tamil community. He is recognised across the House for that work.
There are not many Tamils in my constituency; I wish there were. I am taking part in the debate because I am from the Jewish faith and believe that it is my duty to help races and nations that have suffered genocide. I believe that there has been a genocide of the Tamils. I define genocide as scientific murder. The Tamils have for decades been demonised and marginalised. They have been imprisoned in camps and annihilated. I commend the UNHCR for its renewed efforts to appraise the situation of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka, especially after last month’s regime change.
I agree that, although the Government might have changed, we should bear in mind some issues of concern that unfortunately remain, and a fundamental issue is the treatment of the Tamil community in the past and now. I will briefly speak about three matters: first, the need for Government recognition of war crimes and a show of willingness towards investigation; secondly, the need to introduce safer regulations for journalists and investigators; and, finally, the absolute necessity to scrap a repressive Act that contributes to the continuing oppression of the Tamil community.
I, along with many other hon. Members, applaud the regime change in Sri Lanka, but we must not sit back and let the current Government repeat the errors of the past. Given the fact that one of the key participants in the Government, General Sarath Fonseka, is an alleged war criminal, and the lack of a constitutional obligation for Sri Lanka to undertake war crimes investigations, there is still a huge way to go. First and foremost, the UNHCR commission must carry on investigating the civil war and exert pressure in whatever way it can on the new Government to pass new legislation on the treatment of war crimes. The actions committed during the civil war could then be appraised by a recognised court.
The continuing oppression of the Tamils, despite a few reforms here and there, is allowed to carry on unpunished because of the difficulty encountered by United Nations teams when they investigate the situation. That must stop, and we need to encourage the new Government to take the initiative on making it stop. I welcome the fact that our Prime Minister has already called for Sri Lanka to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sri Lanka, and President Sirisena should heed that call, as well as signing the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, to show his Government’s good will on repairing mistakes from the past.
However, the efforts of the new Sri Lankan Government should extend far beyond simple recognition of the horrors on both sides of the war. They should start by improving their record on the protection of journalists. Over the past 10 years, 370 journalists have been killed in Sri Lanka. Of those 370 cases, only 10% resulted in convictions. If Sri Lanka wants to improve its human rights record, it needs to set that straight and ensure that those very people whose mission is to denounce and investigate, to unearth and to expose, are safe enough to allow them to continue as the peaceful policemen of this world. “Je suis Charlie” applies as much in Sri Lanka as in Paris.
Mark Durkan
I endorse, exactly, what the hon. Gentleman has said about journalism. In addition to the journalists who have been killed, of course, many others have been attacked and threatened, and many have had to flee. Surely one of the best indicators that Sri Lanka had turned a corner would be for some of those journalists who have had to absent themselves to be able to return.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman, who does so much in Parliament for human rights, is absolutely right. The right of return for Tamils and those who have been oppressed, to live freely, would be the biggest evidence that the regime had really changed.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the new Sri Lankan Government need to repeal the terribly oppressive Prevention of Terrorism Act, which allows the police to hold a suspect for 18 months on motives as light as suspicion of connection to unlawful activity. Such a vague and liberticidal law largely contributes to the abuses in human rights and must be stopped. I urge the British Government to harry the Sri Lankan Government on that. I hope that the Minister will respond on that point.
We must encourage the Tamil minority in their struggle for self-determination. As the representatives of a country that has always upheld the values of human life and freedom, we cannot let the new Sri Lankan Government carry on the repression and errors of the past. The Tamils deserve international recognition of the genocide of their people, and I ask the Minister to comment on that. They deserve their right of self-determination, and to be treated equally before the law.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak on this matter, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on introducing it and thank him for giving us all the opportunity to debate it. As he rightly mentioned in his introductory remarks, this is the anniversary of the Holocaust, so our discussion of these important matters coincides with Holocaust memorial events. As my party’s spokesperson on human rights and equalities, I am pleased to contribute to the debate. I have a passionate interest in human rights, and I hope that the debate will enable us to be part of the change that is so desperately needed throughout the world. That is the importance of it.
Sri Lanka offered asylum to a considerable number of refugees even though it is not a signatory of the 1951 refugee convention. The UNHCR co-operates with the Government, as well as with NGOs and other stakeholders, to protect, assist and find durable solutions for refugees and other people of concern. The UNHCR’s involvement in Sri Lanka dates back to 1987 when the organisation was invited by the Sri Lankan Government to facilitate large-scale repatriation of Sri Lankan refugees from India. In 1990, just as its activities were to be wound down, the UNHCR was requested to expand its protection and assistance to include not only the refugees immediately under its mandate, but the people displaced internally by the abrupt resumption of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict.
The Tamil rebels, known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, began an uprising in 1983, after complaining of discrimination against the then minority Tamil community. Horrendous atrocities were committed in the conflict by the LTTE and Government troops. Thousands upon thousands were killed and thousands are still missing. The numbers are enormous. Although the conflict ended in 2009, the improvements made in northern Sri Lanka tend to be more superficial than real. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) made the point that the Government are spending money on the way things look outwardly, rather than looking at the internals and changing things on the ground. I would like to see that happen as well.
Dr McCrea
The House is united in wanting the truth about what happened in Sri Lanka. There should be no hiding place for any person, even those in elevated office. However, do not the United Kingdom Government need to be careful of accusations of hypocrisy, given that in Northern Ireland we have a Deputy First Minister who was part of the IRA army council, which, with his leader, Gerry Adams, ordered the slaughter of the Protestants along the border? Yet there has been no investigation of that, and when we ask about an investigation—people seem to be in elevated office—we are told the books are closed.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that salient point, on which we can all agree.
Since the end of the 25-year campaign, $3 billion has been spent on economic and infrastructural development in northern Sri Lanka. As Alan Keenan, the Sri Lanka project director at the International Crisis Group, noted, the situation in northern Sri Lanka has improved “in some ways”, but
“the government has made too much of large infrastructure and development projects, which it is able to show off to the international community, and not enough of the situation on the ground”—
as my hon. Friend said, and as we all adhere to and understand.
I remain extremely concerned about not just the discrimination against the Tamil people, which seems to be ongoing, but the risk of sexual violence to women—as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned, and which is so important—and the persecution of Christians. There are concerns from some members of the Tamil community that the Government are undertaking a practice of “Sinhalisation” of the area. Many Sinhalese fled the north due to the atrocities being carried out by the Tamil Tigers during the civil war. Some have returned, and there are concerns about the number of Sinhalese coming to the area. Estimates have suggested that there are 150,000 Sinhalese soldiers in the Vanni.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is outlining a litany of issues that need to be addressed, but does he agree that another matter is that almost 6,000 persons are still reported missing in the area? That needs to be addressed not just internally, but internationally.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. In Northern Ireland, we have experienced the disappeared, although in much smaller numbers, but every one of those people is still important. When the number is multiplied to 6,000 missing persons, the magnitude is incredible. This is a technical detail, but I wonder whether the Minister will address it as it is important. In Northern Ireland, we have been able to find some of the bodies of the deceased and have an expertise in doing that. Perhaps that expertise could be loaned in some way to Sri Lanka to enable the remains of the disappeared to be returned to their families, because that heartbreak is very real for every one of those 6,000 families.
At one soldier for approximately every five civilians, the ratio of soldiers to civilians is considered one of the highest in the world. Given the figures, it is unsurprising that people are concerned by the so-called Sinhalisation.
The conflict saw a large number of men and boys either killed or disappeared—a generation lost—and there are 89,000 war widows in north and east Sri Lanka alone. Given the high military presence in the country, there are concerns that those women are more vulnerable to sexual harassment and violence. Although the Sri Lankan military are held in high admiration in the south of the country, for many in the north, especially in former LTTE-controlled areas, the army is still the enemy.
That fear and dislike of the military are vindicated by very credible allegations of human rights violations, including rape and sexual and emotional abuse of women. Tamil women are also vulnerable to sexual violence, because they are often coerced into sexual relationships with Sinhalese soldiers, sometimes for the promise of marriage and sometimes for money. That continues to be a serious problem in Sri Lanka and, for many women, sexual harassment is simply accepted as a way of life, but that should not be the case. We need to change that mindset and we must do all that we can to help the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to stop rape and sexual assaults.
Another concern I must express, because this issue is very close to me, is the persecution of Christians in Sri Lanka. We must not let the opportunity to mention that issue today pass us by. Buddhists make up 70% of the population. That is followed by Hinduism at 12%, Islam at 8% and Christianity at 8%. In northern Sri Lanka, the majority of people are Hindu, but there is a large Christian population living there, too. The persecution of Christians has escalated in recent years, with the rise of militant Buddhist nationalist groups in Sri Lanka. More than 250 churches have been destroyed or damaged in sectarian violence. That is unacceptable, and that must be stated in this Chamber today.
Jim Shannon
I hope that the Minister has taken note of that important issue. Through our own churches in Northern Ireland, and across the United Kingdom, we have missionary contacts in Sri Lanka and we are aware of what is taking place—the persecution, the destruction, the abuse and, in some cases, the injury and murder of those who have Christian beliefs.
Although the constitution guarantees religious freedom while favouring Buddhism, minority Protestants have experienced violent persecution, as well as discrimination in employment and education, which is also unacceptable. Sri Lanka is ranked No. 44 on the Open Doors world watch list.
Last year, there were 60 incidents in which Christian services and prayer meetings were disturbed and disrupted, in church buildings and in private homes. Sri Lanka has a small group of expat Christians, mainly in Colombo, and a large group of traditional and recognised churches, both Catholic and Protestant. Non-traditional Protestant churches as well as converts from a Buddhist background face the most persecution. Although there are plenty of churches in the capital Colombo, the picture completely changes in more rural areas. Most Christians meet in house churches and are forced to keep a low profile. As one pastor in the central highlands said:
“If I had put a cross on the building, they would have killed me.”
That can never be tolerated in any society and certainly not in Sri Lanka.
We need to ensure that what is happening stops. I know the Minister is interested in the matter and that we will be assured by his response, but he and the Government need to work with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to stop the persecution of minority religious groups, including Christians, as well as stopping sexual and physical violence against women.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I apologise for being late, Mr Caton—I was in an unexpectedly lively Delegated Legislation Committee, so I was delayed. I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) in his debate and to raise some issues on Sri Lanka that I hope were not mentioned in his introductory speech or in the other speeches that have been made.
We should face up to the fact that we are talking about a ferocious, bloody civil war over a 30-year period. The LTTE, in particular, eliminated all opposition among the Tamil community and were responsible for a whole series of war crimes. It was a terrorist organisation with its own air force, army and navy, making it almost unique, I believe, among terrorist organisations. At the end of that war, which was unexpected and extremely bloody, the LTTE was eliminated, but the Sri Lankan Government and the defence forces, who were also responsible for war crimes during the war, are still around. They have to answer for the crimes that they created, and the crimes against the Tamil people.
At the end of the civil war, thousands of individuals—civilians or boy soldiers—surrendered with their religious leaders and went into camps. Allegedly, those camps are empty and everyone who went into them has come out, yet thousands of people are missing. I have constituents who have raised with me the names of individuals who surrendered—they have the names, the dates and the times. They surrendered with their religious leaders, yet they are missing. They are lost. They are gone.
During my visit to Sri Lanka some two and a half years ago, I presented the list to Government Ministers and said, “Where are these people? You took them in, yet they are missing. They are gone, and their relatives want closure.” No answer came, because there is no answer, but if those people were eliminated—murdered—those were war crimes, so the Sri Lankan Government and the individuals responsible have to answer the questions. They should submit themselves to proper scrutiny. We have an opportunity, through the election of the new Government, for a clean slate and to open up what happened at the end of the civil war, in particular, to public scrutiny and to the United Nations through a proper independent inquiry. If the individuals fail to answer the questions, that opportunity will be lost and the new Government will be stained in the same way as the previous Government were by that issue alone.
I take the view very strongly that the human rights issues in Sri Lanka are vitally important. The first duty of any Government is to protect the external borders, but the second duty—arguably equally important—is to protect the right of minorities to live, work and play within a suitable environment. Clearly, that has not happened in Sri Lanka, so there is an opportunity there. There is also an opportunity for Britain.
One of the things that I am particularly concerned about when I look at the security position in Sri Lanka is this. In the south of Sri Lanka—this is an island on a key sea lane and a key air route for the world—we have allowed a situation to develop in which the Chinese have invested heavily in an airport with runways that will take very heavy traffic, including military traffic, and in a deep-sea port right on what are, for the world, key strategic lanes. China now controls those air lanes and sea lanes on the edge of India. That is a threat, I believe, to western civilisation and our links to the east.
The Sri Lankan Government have questions to answer about why that situation has been allowed to happen. Will they continue their relationships with China, or extend the hand of friendship to the rest of the Commonwealth and back to Britain? We have a historical role. The Tamils want to work. They want to feed their families. They want the opportunity to develop their land. There is an issue about ensuring that arrangements are made between India and Sri Lanka over the fishing rights just north of Sri Lanka, where traditionally the Tamils have fished; they are not able to currently because of the problems there.
There is another issue on which Britain historically has a role. During the civil war, millions of land mines were laid in Trincomalee and around the areas of the east. They were put in by both the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan defence force. There are no maps, and there is a project that will last years under current arrangements. Individuals are identifying where those mines are and digging them out by hand, which is extremely dangerous.
As the land is reclaimed, Tamils go back to farm it. Immediately the land is clear, the opportunity is available for people to grow crops, harvest them and ensure that they can feed their families. However, our project seems to be dragging on year after year. There is still an opportunity, I believe, for Britain to take a lead in investing more money in clearing the mines more quickly, so that the Tamil people can farm their land as they traditionally have for hundreds of years.
Jim Shannon
There are 150,000 Sinhalese soldiers in the north of Sri Lanka. The ratio of soldiers to civilians is 5:1. Some of the soldiers could be used to oversee the mine clearance. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that discussions along those lines would also be helpful for the Government?
Bob Blackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The key point is co-operation and getting the job done. At the moment, the estimate is that it will last years. In the meantime, the land cannot be used and people are starving as a result. Clearly, that cannot be allowed to continue.
Let me explain one of the things that I found astounding on my visit. Yes, the Sri Lankan Government have put in infrastructure. They have put in highways, bridges and so on, which improve links. I have to say that the roads between Colombo and Kandy and beyond will stand much more improvement to facilitate sensible transport across the island so that goods and services can be exported; that is how Sri Lanka will thrive and grow. The opportunity is there, and new houses have been built, but in those new houses people end up camped on brick floors. No furniture and no decent facilities are provided; it is just the bare bones. Clearly, there needs to be investment in the provision of decent bedding, furniture and kitchen facilities for the Tamils who live in those houses.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the issue of minorities: Christians, Muslims and the Tamil people. There is a rise in radical Buddhism. There has been a problem on the island of Buddhists killing, and sacking churches and Hindu temples. The new Sri Lankan Government must put a stop to that immediately. That should be one of the demands that we make.
All in all, there is an opportunity with the new Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right to go to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka and to demand the opportunity to visit Jaffna and the areas of the east and see things at first hand so that he could make the demands for human rights for the people of Sri Lanka. The opportunity is there, as we extend, hopefully, the hand of friendship to Sri Lanka, to say, “We want to be friends and support Sri Lanka, but it is vital that you open yourselves up to scrutiny over the war crimes that were committed, that we find out what happened to the individuals who are missing and that the individuals responsible for the decisions and actions are held to account.” Until that happens, there will be this lingering suspicion and the demands will continue. The people who have left Sri Lanka and made this country their home rightly demand answers.
The opportunity is there. I hope that the response from the Minister will deal with those demands. When the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), returns from Sri Lanka, we will, we hope, get a report saying, “Actions have been taken, actions have been demanded of the new Government and we have good news.” I am not holding my breath, because in this case there has been no history of transparency or encouragement, but the opportunity now exists.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for their dogged pursuit of this issue over the years. I am also grateful for their work in the all-party group on Tamils.
The reality is that we have been here too many times. There have been too many of these debates, to be frank, and limited movement. We were here when the last onslaught on the Tamil community took place and 40,000 people died. We were here when, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, the disappearances started in earnest, and also when the ethnic cleansing of the Tamil areas started.
There has been some movement. The establishment of the OHCHR investigation was a significant breakthrough. Let us congratulate people on their contribution. The UK Government made a significant contribution to enabling that to happen, as did our current Prime Minister. I am grateful for that. Rajapaksa’s losing the election was also a significant advance. It was a brutal regime and if there is an investigation, he will have a lot to answer for. He may well come before the International Criminal Court at some stage.
All the speakers so far have treated the election of President Sirisena with some caution, and I agree that we cannot get carried away. He has at least acknowledged that crimes took place under the state and that there is an issue that needs to be investigated. However, the non-co-operation with the international investigation is, for me, the key issue. There has been the offer of a domestic inquiry, but to be frank, many see that as just a diversionary process. It is impossible to see how it can be regarded as independent and effective or how it can secure the confidence of the Tamil people in particular, but also the international community. That is why the real question today is how we can secure the new President’s co-operation with the international investigation.
This was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, but I want to come to it more straightforwardly. I believe that our best weapon for securing that co-operation is our economic influence. Nothing has worked until we have threatened the withdrawal of economic co-operation. Some 36% of Sri Lanka’s exports go to the EU. That is worth €3.5 billion. Sri Lanka has a trade surplus with the EU of €1.1 billion. It is given preferential treatment by the EU and is part of the generalised scheme of preferences, which allows it to pay no or very little duty.
For those reasons, I believe that the UK, within the EU, has immense influence. We should set a deadline for the new President to co-operate with the international investigation; if agreement is not reached by that deadline, we should place on the agenda discussion within the EU of the withdrawal of Sri Lanka’s status in the general preferential agreement. I do not say that lightly, because no one wants to inflict economic harm on another population. At the same time, I do not see any other way in which we can secure co-operation. The inquiry may lay the foundation stones for the future that we all want to see in Sri Lanka—one of peace and justice for the entire population.
The investigation is central, but I reiterate my support for the issues that others have raised: the need for an end to detention without due process, an end to the ethnic cleansing of Tamil areas, an end to the harassment of the Tamil population and an end to the use of sexual crime against women, which has been so prevalent in recent times. The international investigation should be part of the reconciliation process, which involves moving towards a general, agreed constitutional settlement that recognises the rights of the Tamil people, trying to bring back normality to Tamil areas and implementing the demilitarisation that has been called for.
Our message for President Sirisena is that we want to work with him in co-operation. However, unless a deadline is set for such co-operation, particularly with the UN investigation, I believe that we should seriously consider sanctions. In our role as UK parliamentarians, we should send a message to the President that we are not going away, and that we will continue our search for peace and justice using whatever parliamentary mechanisms and influence we have.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing the debate. It is not the first time that we have debated this matter, although it is notable that there is more consensus in the room than there has been on previous occasions. We have heard from hon. Members about various minority groups in Sri Lanka, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the persecution of Christians. There is also an issue with the Muslim minority community in Sri Lanka and, indeed, people from the majority community suffer such things as repression and false arrest. However, as today’s debate is about the Tamil people and the impending report, I will confine my comments to that.
As we have heard, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), is in Sri Lanka. I understand that the joint chair of the all-party group on Sri Lanka, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), was also due to go out on 27 January, although I do not know whether that is a coincidence. I hope that the Minister for Europe, when he responds to the debate, will be able to tell us a little bit more about his fellow Minister’s visit and with whom he will be meeting. I echo the comments of those who have said that it would be helpful if the Minister of State made a statement on his return from Sri Lanka, or wrote to those hon. Members who attended this debate, to tell us what has been achieved. At this time of great uncertainty, caution has rightly been expressed about what the result of the presidential elections will mean for Sri Lanka, so it would be useful to hear the Minister’s first-hand take on what he has seen there.
It is to be hoped that the presidential election marks the beginning of a new era for Sri Lanka, but we should not accept the argument that it is time to draw a line under Sri Lanka’s past and move on, as some people have suggested. There has been too much injustice, especially towards the Tamil people, for that to be appropriate. It is imperative that the UN investigation continues and reports to the UN Human Rights Council in March, and the election of a new President should not be used as a reason to delay that. Labour called for an international inquiry in 2011, so we welcomed last year’s decision of the Human Rights Council to launch an investigation.
President Rajapaksa repeatedly failed to comply with successive Human Rights Council resolutions. He also failed to deliver the necessary independent investigation, and he even failed to implement the recommendations of his own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, weak though that was. That was why we were so concerned by the coalition’s delay in supporting UN action and the refusal to use the Prime Minister’s attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting as leverage. We felt that the movement towards a proper, comprehensive UN inquiry were unnecessarily delayed by the Prime Minister accepting Rajapaksa’s assurances that he would investigate. We know that Rajapaksa set up a three-man inquiry, but I do not think that that will lead to particularly positive outcomes. Indeed, the new President may disband that inquiry.
There have been positive indications that President Sirisena will lead a Government who are very different from that of his predecessor, but there is ambiguity over the UN investigation and efforts to secure accountability and justice for everyone in Sri Lanka. As has been said, the new President was a member of the Rajapaksa Government and served as Defence Minister during the final stages of the civil war, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) expressed doubts about his commitment to action and with regard to his complicity in past acts. Reports during the election campaign indicated that he, too, rejected the UN investigation. Since then, the BBC has said:
“The new president…disowned Mr Rajapaksa but vowed not to allow him to be hauled before an international war crimes court.”
The Tamil Guardian stated this week:
“The new government, around President Maithripala Sirisena, has expressed its firm commitment to protect any Sri Lankan citizen who fought against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam from facing international justice.”
The President’s senior adviser is meeting the United Nations high commissioner for human rights this week and the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister was reported as saying that the Government would take action against perpetrators if there was evidence of war crimes. Those are positive signals, but there are mixed messages about whether the Sri Lankan Government will accept the conclusions of the UN investigation, whether they will work with international judicial mechanisms and whether members of the previous Government or the military will face justice in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Foreign Minister has said of the allegations:
“Whether those are war crimes or whether such crimes amount to genocide or not will have to be decided by a domestic inquiry.”
The new Government in Sri Lanka are reportedly in the process of establishing a domestic mechanism.
At such an early stage in his presidency, we cannot dismiss the possibility that President Sirisena is genuinely committed to delivering accountability. Indeed, we hope that he recognises that a successful, meaningful domestic mechanism would demonstrate his departure from his predecessor’s approach. I reiterate that no domestic approach can halt the UN investigation, which must fulfil the mandate set out in last year’s resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. Regrettably, the Rajapaksa Government denied the UN investigators visas to visit Sri Lanka. In the final few weeks of the investigation, President Sirisena has the opportunity to demonstrate to the international community that he will lead a very different Government. I trust that the UK is doing everything possible to encourage his co-operation with the UN. Needless to say, it will be crucial that the Sri Lankan Government accept the final report and work with the UN on its recommendations.
We are all aware of the reports of intimidation and reprisals suffered by human rights defenders and others in Sri Lanka. What is being done to try to secure the safety of Sri Lankans who give evidence to the UN investigation or any domestic inquiry? The report by the high commissioner in September noted several concerns about Sri Lanka’s Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Bill, which was submitted to its Parliament last August. Worryingly, the Foreign Affairs Committee has noted that the Foreign Office was not able to clarify whether the human rights defenders, journalists and others who met the Prime Minister in November 2013 had been targeted. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on the steps that the Foreign Office took to protect those Sri Lankans and monitor their ongoing safety.
Mr Scott
Does the hon. Lady agree that arresting people who are giving evidence is not in any way helpful or beneficial to an investigation, and that the new Government of Sri Lanka must put an immediate stop to that? Anyone who gives evidence to such an investigation should be able to do it freely and in an unfettered manner.
Kerry McCarthy
I absolutely agree, and there is nothing I can add. The hon. Gentleman makes his point very powerfully. The fact that such precautions and safeguards are necessary highlights the fact that our concerns about Sri Lanka should not be confined to what happened during the civil war. This is not something under which we can draw a line. As successive Human Rights Council resolutions have documented, there were ongoing concerns about human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Sri Lanka that President Rajapaksa failed to address. Indeed, in many ways, his conduct exacerbated those issues.
The new President’s pledges during the election campaign to correct those concerns were a significant factor in his success. His commitments to end nepotism and corruption, to restore the independence of the judiciary and to repeal the 18th amendment are welcome. It is also crucial that he seeks to work with the Tamil community and to repay the faith it invested in him during the election. For Tamils it is about not just the UN investigation, but addressing the injustices that they have suffered since 2011 and the publication of the LLRC report.
As the high commissioner’s September update to the Human Rights Council noted, the Rajapaksa Government proscribed a number of Tamil diaspora groups as terrorist organisations. The new President must take positive steps to safeguard freedom of expression, to deliver justice regarding the enforced disappearances, to end the arbitrary arrests, to ensure that freedom of religion is respected and to ensure that Tamil and Muslim minorities are protected. Demilitarisation will also be key, especially in the north. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, the President’s decision to replace the governor of the northern province with a civilian has been taken as a positive signal of intent and an indication that he is listening to the Tamil National Alliance. I hope that will continue. I also hope the Minister is able to update us today on discussions relating not only to the UN investigation, but to compliance with Human Rights Council resolution 25/1 more generally, and to agreeing the outstanding requests for visits by UN special procedures mandate holders.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned, it is notable that President Rajapaksa repeatedly refused to sign up to the Foreign Office’s preventing sexual violence initiative, despite the efforts of the Prime Minister and the previous Foreign Secretary to persuade him to do so. These are very early days, of course, but do the Government think that the new President will be any more receptive? Will the Foreign Office and the Leader of the House, who is still responsible for the PSVI, pursue that initiative with the new President as soon as possible?
Will the Minister for Europe also update us on the FCO’s work with the Home Office, following the previous Foreign Secretary’s assurances last June that he would investigate claims that failed Tamil asylum seekers who were returned to Sri Lanka by the Home Office had been subjected to torture and sexual violence? I know that this is not the Foreign Office’s direct responsibility, but I hope that he is able to assure us that the election result will not lead to automatic assumptions by the Home Office that Tamils are now safe to return to Sri Lanka.
Although the conduct of the election this month was an improvement on previous years and there seems to have been a smooth and peaceful transition of power, there were nevertheless reports of intimidation and harassment during the campaign, and reports that the new Government will investigate an alleged coup plot. It will be helpful if the Minister could provide his assessment of reports on efforts to investigate voter intimidation, and on the prospects for free and fair parliamentary elections later this year. I believe that those elections will be held in late May or June, so there is not much time to ensure that that happens.
We hope that the new President will be able to put Sri Lanka firmly on the path towards peace and democracy. He will have the full support of the international community if he chooses to do so, but he must also demonstrate a willingness to engage with international partners. We all await the UN report in March and hope that it proves instructive in finally delivering accountability and justice for everyone in Sri Lanka. I hope that the Minister is able to update us on the Government’s preparations for the 28th session of the Human Rights Council and on their plans to monitor compliance and carry the report forward. Fundamentally, the aim for this year cannot simply be the publication of the UN report. The aim must be justice, accountability and meaningful progress for not just the Tamil community, but all Sri Lankan people.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing the debate. I note the contributions of Members on both sides of the House and thank them for taking part.
The debate is timely, coinciding as it does with the visit to Sri Lanka by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), although that timeliness inevitably means that there are limits to what I am able to say. We will know a lot more and be able to make a clearer assessment of the new Sri Lankan Government after his meetings today and tomorrow. He hopes to see the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the new governor of the northern province, and he intends to travel to the north to meet the Chief Minister and representatives of Tamil political parties, engage with internally displaced persons and talk to journalists. He is making a point not only of talking to the Government, but of trying to see for himself the situation on the ground in the north and talking to people there from the Tamil minority, who will be able to give him a first-hand view of the current situation and their hopes and expectations for the future.
Of course, we await the publication of the report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is due to be presented to the Human Rights Council in March. The Government do not know what that report will say or what its recommendations will be. We await the report’s conclusions and recommendations on some of the issues raised in the debate, such as whether what happened in Sri Lanka should be classed as genocide, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) knows, carries legal, not just political, implications.
The new Government’s commitments are promising. They have said that they will end the executive presidency within 100 days; restore the independence of key institutions, including the judiciary and the police; reinstate media freedoms; end Sri Lanka’s international isolation; and return powers to the provincial councils. We have seen some early positive signs of progress, such as replacing the military governor of the northern province with a civilian, but I stress that these are early days, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Minister of State wanted to go to Colombo and the north of the island as soon as possible to meet the new Government and urge them to continue living up to the high expectations of the people of Sri Lanka and the international community and to make his own judgment on what the Government intend to do. We will not ignore the challenges that Sri Lanka faces, including the challenges faced by Tamil communities in the north and east of the island. There are many challenges, including the settlement of internally displaced people.
Kerry McCarthy
I am pleased with what the Minister has to say about the visit to Sri Lanka by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), particularly that he is going to the north. The Minister may be coming on to this, but when will we hear about the right hon. Gentleman’s visit? Will he be able to write to MPs or give a written ministerial statement?
Mr Lidington
I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware that Members on both sides of the House have expressed great interest in his visit and hope that there will be full communication when he gets back. I will leave it to him to decide whether he wants to meet Members who are particularly concerned or to offer either a written statement or letters to Members who have taken part in the debate. I undertake that there will be transparency, and I am sure that he will want to ensure that Members who have maintained a long interest in Sri Lanka are fully briefed on his conclusions after his visit.
The challenges faced by the Tamil community include the settlement of internally displaced people, land issues, militarisation and the need for an overall and enduring political settlement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw those issues for himself during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November 2013. He was the first foreign leader to visit the north of Sri Lanka since as far back as 1948. The Government continually raised those issues, including, most obviously, human rights abuses, with the former Sri Lankan Government, and we will continue to raise them in all our dealings with the new Sri Lankan Government.
The recent vote was clearly a vote for change; I say that in answer to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Our judgment is that the result on the day reflected the will of the Sri Lankan people, but we note the view of Commonwealth observers that there was an inadequate electoral and legal framework and an unequal pre-election environment, which meant that the nature of the election contest fell short of key international benchmarks for democratic elections. We hope that Sri Lanka and its new Government, with the support of the international community, will address those shortcomings ahead of future elections.
The new Prime Minister has committed himself in Parliament to implement the 13th amendment to devolve more powers to provinces, including policing powers, and we welcome the new Government’s moves to reach out to the Tamil National Alliance to discuss Tamil issues. We encourage both sides to work together to reach a political settlement.
President Sirisena’s manifesto committed him to a number of actions that would benefit the Tamil people economically through education and better governance. For example, he made commitments to provide better access for Tamil students to science education, improve relief to displaced people, put in place a democratic civil administration in the north and south of the island, put a stop to racial and religious hatred, and take steps to promote reconciliation between communities. I acknowledge that it is still early days. The important thing is that those public commitments have been given, and we are keen to talk to the Sri Lankan Government about how they propose to translate those manifesto commitments into practice.
We want to strengthen ties between the UK and Sri Lanka. We have a strong shared history through our people, education and trade, and we stand ready to support the new Government as they implement ambitious reforms. We will encourage them to make progress on human rights, and we welcome their early commitments on media freedoms, the protection of religious minorities and the restoration of judicial independence. We also have very high on our list of priorities for our conversations with the new Sri Lankan Government the need for a lasting political settlement for the north, and a credible domestic reconciliation process, along with accountability for alleged violations and abuses of human rights during what was, as has been said in the debate, a long and bloody 30-year conflict.
I think the UK’s position is well understood, and unless we see progress in those areas of policy the reality is that Sri Lanka will not be able to thrive as the strong, peaceful and inclusive nation that everybody in the House would wish it to be.
The UK joined an EU heads of mission statement on 2 January calling for the elections to be peaceful, credible and transparent, and we encouraged the previous Government of Sri Lanka to ensure that international observers were invited. During the election campaign, officials from our high commission in Colombo travelled around the country, co-ordinating closely with counterparts from other foreign embassies and with local election monitoring groups. We also provided a grant of £128,000 to a range of independent election observation groups to ensure that the elections could be monitored as thoroughly as possible.
On the question of the UN Human Rights Council, we remain firmly committed to making progress on Sri Lanka through the UNHRC. We strongly supported the March 2014 UNHRC resolution that called for Sri Lanka to make domestic progress on human rights and reconciliation, as well as establishing an international investigation of alleged violations and abuses of international law by both sides during Sri Lanka’s conflict. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) pointed out that the most serious allegations have been made about the approach taken by the Government of the former President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, but we must not blind ourselves to the fact that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam remains a proscribed terrorist organisation in this country, and for good reason, given its history.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his statement of congratulations to President Sirisena, encouraged Sri Lanka to co-operate with the UN investigation, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will repeat that message this week when he meets Sri Lanka’s leaders face to face. He will ask the new Government to engage with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the international investigation, and to take serious steps to establish credible domestic reconciliation and accountability processes. We will wait to see how Sri Lanka moves forward, given that those matters were part of the new Sri Lankan Government’s early plans.
I do not want to pre-empt the report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and it would be wrong to make comments that prejudged its recommendations. Once that report is available, we will study it carefully, along with our analysis of whatever steps the Sri Lankan Government take between now and then. The OHCHR report should be, in its own right, an important contribution to reconciliation. It will help to establish the truth for those who seek it—the families of the thousands of missing civilians, especially the missing children. We hope that the report will help to heal the wounds of the conflict, and help people to move on.
In response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who asked about missing persons, the experience of Northern Ireland will certainly be relevant to the work that needs to be done in Sri Lanka to try to establish what happened to those whose fate is unknown. There is also, tragically, experience elsewhere in Europe—in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Cyprus, particularly that of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus—that could be of value to the authorities in Sri Lanka and the international agencies as the work on Sri Lanka’s missing persons progresses.
I agree with what was said about the need to press the Sri Lankan Government to stop the persecution of Christians, Muslims and other religious minorities. It is important that the rights of all minorities in Sri Lanka are fully respected.
In response to the question from the hon. Member for Bristol East on asylum claims, I can tell her that the policy has not changed as a result of the election in Sri Lanka. It remains the case that each asylum claim is assessed on its merits, and in line with the test laid down in the UN convention on refugees and in our domestic law.
Britain is Sri Lanka’s largest export market in the EU; we have an important trading relationship and we are Sri Lanka’s third largest trading partner by value. In 2013, bilateral trade was nearly £1 billion. While that trade weighs heavily in Sri Lanka’s favour, last year Britain saw an increase of 14% in goods and services exported to Sri Lanka, and our relationship continues to rebalance in the UK’s favour. Many British people visit Sri Lanka each year. Between 22,000 and 42,000 British tourists may be in Sri Lanka at any one time, and about 6,000 British people are long-term residents. Also, we are a major education provider in Sri Lanka through the British Council, which has more than 200 staff delivering services across the country, including teaching English to more than 12,000 students each year at British Council teaching centres in Sri Lanka.
We have been pleased to be involved in demining projects in Sri Lanka. Between 2010 and 2015, we provided £5.1 million to support mine clearance, which allows people in the north to return home to their land. I will ensure that my colleagues at the Department for International Development hear what has been said in Westminster Hall this morning about the need for that work to continue. We have also supported community policing projects, women’s refuges, tsunami recovery work and much more. This country is committed to the people of Sri Lanka in helping them on their journey towards a prosperous and inclusive nation.
The new Sri Lankan Government represent a new opportunity for the Sri Lankan people and for UK-Sri Lankan relations, and we must give them a chance to show that they are indeed willing to deliver on their ambitious programmes for change and reconciliation. If we are asked, we will be ready to support them in that work. I hope that the early visit to Sri Lanka by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State sends a strong signal of the UK’s intentions. We want a constructive relationship that benefits both our countries and all our people, but we will not retreat from British values of promoting democracy, good governance and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Rail Services (Chelmsford to London)
(9 years, 10 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 Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I rise to speak about an issue that is of considerable importance to many of my constituents who are reliant on the rail services from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street to get to work and to carry out their business. Chelmsford is a major commuting station. Figures show that it is the second busiest such station in the country, with some 8,500 people commuting to and from it each day, mostly to London, but also to the north of the county towards Colchester and Ipswich. They are in addition to all the other passengers who use it during the course of the day to travel to London and elsewhere for other reasons.
It is crucial that my constituents enjoy a reliable and fast service, but sadly, in recent months, that has not been the case. In the first two weeks of December, in particular, the rail network seemed to be beset with continual problems that brought much disruption to the service. A number of those problems were not actually the fault of the provider, Abellio Greater Anglia, but that of Network Rail, due to the overrunning of engineering works and the breaking down of trains, especially freight trains.
There were three main causes of that disruption. Some 22% of the delays were caused by technical fleet delays—broken-down trains, in plain English—and that accounted for 23% of the rail cancellations. Some 12% of the delays were due to possession overruns, which is an interesting phrase that hides the fact that it means that engineering work by Network Rail has overrun. That affects Monday mornings particularly, because it completely disrupts the Monday morning commuter runs down to London. That factor was responsible for 14% of cancellations. The third cause was track faults and broken tracks, which led to 11% of the delays and 9% of the total cancellations.
The crucial thing for my constituents is to have a reliable and punctual service. There was a wide fluctuation in reliability between April and November last year—from 92% reliability at the top end down to 87.5% at the bottom end. However, I am pleased that since the beginning of the new year, there has been a marked improvement in the reliability, punctuality and delivery of the service, which I hope will continue.
I was interested to see the latest Passenger Focus inquiry, especially the part that concentrated on the Chelmsford service. It shows that in spring 2010, when we were not in government, the overall satisfaction of passengers with their journeys was 66%, but by autumn 2014, that figure had risen to 76%. I also noticed that the satisfaction level for punctuality and reliability was 57% in spring 2010, but that that had risen to 65% by autumn 2014. Satisfaction with the upkeep and repair of trains has deteriorated from 64% to 53%, however, which I will address later in my comments.
The other main reason for the disruption to services, which is a tragedy, is the increased number of suicides. That is obviously devastating for the family and friends of those who commit suicide, but it also has an immeasurable impact on the rail network. I am pleased that the rail industry, Network Rail and the train operators are working closely together not only to identify why there has been a significant nationwide increase in suicides on the rail network, but to examine measures that can be taken to minimise them. Everyone is united in trying to do all that they can to reduce this tragic problem, which causes so much misery to so many people.
On a positive note, I am pleased that significant investment is going into the great eastern main line network. Over the past decade there has been an upgrade of track and the replacement of outdated overhead electric cables. That process has moved from Liverpool Street to Chelmsford, and it is now moving north of Chelmsford. That is to be warmly welcomed, because it is a process of investing in the future and putting in building blocks to minimise future problems.
I am also pleased that specific measures are being taken in the Chelmsford area to help to improve the service and the capacity of the line. By the end of this decade or the beginning of the next, there will be a new station at Beaulieu Park to the north-east of Chelmsford. That will help to reduce not only road traffic congestion in the heart of Chelmsford, but the congestion caused by the number of passengers using Chelmsford, because some who come into Chelmsford to get the train will be able to go to Beaulieu Park. Another important thing is the commitment by Network Rail to a loop line to the north of Witham. That will, in connection with the station at Beaulieu Park, help to enhance capacity by allowing faster trains from Colchester to Liverpool Street to overtake slower trains, which can use the loop. It will also give rail operators more flexibility to put on additional services, particularly during the rush hour.
It is crucial that rail operators ensure that every train has 12 carriages during the morning and afternoon rush hours, as one or two trains in those two crucial periods have only eight carriages. Given that the service is used by considerable numbers of people, and that it is estimated that passenger numbers will continue to grow year in, year out for the foreseeable future, every opportunity must be utilised to provide more carriages and seating for passengers travelling to London and then coming back in the late afternoon or early evening.
I am also pleased that work will be done at Bow junction, just outside Liverpool Street, which will have a significant impact on the management of trains entering and leaving that station to help to deal with capacity issues. I was heartened to hear from Network Rail that it is looking at—it is simply a question of “looking at” at the moment—putting in another platform at Liverpool Street station. That would enhance the number of trains that can enter the station through what is, in effect, a bottleneck. Those two things—enhancing and updating Bow junction; and, if it is possible and viable, putting in a new platform—will be of considerable benefit to those who use the station, whether they are my constituents or those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The immediate golden opportunity to seek improvements to the line will come with the publication later this year of the new franchise document. There will be a tender process prior to the announcement of the next franchise, which will start when the existing one expires. It is crucial that that document includes a commitment for whoever is awarded the franchise to provide new rolling stock and trains for the whole line—not just the inter-city trains, but the commuter trains, which to my mind are more important. Through the work that my hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and I have done, the “Norwich in 90” taskforce set up by the Chancellor has made that proposal a crucial part of the recommendations for improvements to the rail network. I am pleased that he accepted in his statement last month the recommendation that would see £476 million invested in East Anglia’s rail network in the coming years.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
The points that my right hon. Friend is making are absolutely correct and I endorse them on behalf of my constituents who use Chelmsford station. Does he agree that, as we look ahead, one of the components of the new franchise should be the replacement of the 94 units of type 321 rolling stock, on which most of our constituents travel, but which are not fit for purpose in terms of their general reliability or capacity to accelerate? All the improvements in the network system for which we are looking, and for which we will be grateful, will be rather spoiled if the trains operating on it cannot perform to the maximum.
Mr Burns
I am extremely grateful for that intervention from my right hon. Friend, because he, too, has worked assiduously in recent years for improvements to the rail network. He, unlike me, has had to work on improving the rail network on two fronts: on the eastern side of the county on the Liverpool Street-Chelmsford-Colchester line; and, over many years, on the western side of the county on the line from Stansted and other areas down to Liverpool Street. I could not agree with him more about new rolling stock, which is at the nub of how to get improvements.
As the Minister knows, East Anglia has too often had to put up with other people’s leftovers, but that is no longer acceptable. We need a commitment in the franchise, as well as delivery after it has been awarded, on new rolling stock so that we have high-quality trains for all services, with air conditioning, automatic doors and wi-fi to improve the quality of our constituents’ journeys. We also want to ensure that all the trains during the crucial rush-hour periods in the mornings and late afternoon or evenings are 12-carriage ones—we want no eight-carriage trains—so that we can maximise capacity and meet the ever-increasing demand faced by our railways.
I am pleased that the investment recommended by the taskforce, when implemented, will have significant economic benefits for the rest of the three counties and their development. It is estimated that the investment of £476 million will generate about £4.1 billion in direct economic benefits, which will rise to £4.5 billion once wider productivity benefits are included. The investment will unlock an additional £1.3 billion of capital investment along the route from Liverpool Street to Norwich, through Chelmsford, Colchester and Ipswich. It will create 3,145 jobs in the construction industry and, once the work is completed, some 8,200 new jobs in Norwich, almost 10,000 in Ipswich, 16,000 in Chelmsford and 14,000 in Colchester. Those are significant figures, and such benefits will help the viability of the eastern region. Overall, it is estimated that for every £1 invested to upgrade the great eastern main line, the return will be £9.50. Such a return will be highly significant and economically beneficial to my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst).
At the same time, however, there is concern about the prices that we have to pay on our railways. I welcome the Chancellor’s actions to alleviate the problems faced by hard-working families in recent years by getting rid of the retail prices index plus 3% formula for fare increases, meaning that for the past two years, we have had increases solely in line with the RPI. People have benefited from that, but we need to put the charges that they have to pay in context. A standard year-long season ticket from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street costs £3,728, while a daily return for trains leaving after 9.30 am is £27.20. Let us assume that most people have a five-week holiday period, meaning that they use their season ticket for 47 weeks a year, and that most will use their ticket for five days a week. On those assumptions, the daily cost of a season ticket is £15.85. That is often forgotten. People have to find a considerable sum of money once a year—£3,728 is a lot to find in one go, if one must do so—and that blurs the fact that travel is cheaper on a season ticket than at a normal daily rate.
Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the problems that people face. Given the money that they have to spend, the least they can expect in return is a reliable, punctual and comfortable journey, which is why it is so important that the investment that the Government have promised continues to move ahead and that the investment promised in the taskforce recommendations is put in place. It is also important that the control period 5 commitments are honoured, as is the case at present, and that in control period 6 we have a commitment to the loop north of Witham. Crucially, the franchise document must include, among many other things, a commitment to new rolling stock, which will benefit my right hon. Friend’s constituents, my constituents and those all the way from Liverpool Street up to Norwich.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) on securing this debate. Hon. Members may be interested to learn that in my very first debate in Westminster Hall we were in opposite positions: he was responding from the Front Bench to my concerns about minor injuries units in my constituency. After he did that fine job as a Health Minister, he held the post I currently have as trains Minister—he probably knows more about trains than I ever will. That was reflected in the thoughtful tone of his comments and his analysis of what is happening on the route.
The overall concern that my right hon. Friend eloquently raised is about performance on the main line. He and I are both really aware of the problems and I deeply regret that performance is not at the level that passengers rightly expect and deserve. He has taken a welcome interest in the steps being taken to monitor and improve the performance of the great eastern main line for passengers travelling both from his constituency and from further afield.
Under the terms of the franchise agreement and the direct award, Abellio Greater Anglia has to provide regular performance updates to the Department and can be subject to punitive actions if performance standards fail to meet requirements. In addition, there has been a lot of ongoing work with Abellio Greater Anglia, including many performance meetings. Only last week, there was such a meeting between my officials, the Office of Rail Regulation and the management team from Abellio Greater Anglia, at which industry representatives were keen to demonstrate what they were doing, along with Network Rail, to improve matters.
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, some improvements have been made. Monitoring practices that are common in other countries are now in place, including remote monitoring of key components on the line, meaning that failing components can be dealt with much more quickly than before. But he identified the fundamental problem: that much of the infrastructure on the line is coming to the end of its working life. There is no quick fix for that, but the ongoing investment that he mentioned will address the problems over time.
As is the case with many other parts of the network, the line has been subject to a big increase in passenger numbers, which have gone up by about 2.5% a year since 2006. The whole railway system is struggling as a result of the increase in passenger numbers since privatisation—overall, passenger numbers have doubled—and, frankly, the decades of under-investment under successive Governments in both track and rolling stock. I am pleased that the Government are addressing the overall picture with an unprecedented £38 billion in investment in the railways during this control period, but the money clearly has to be targeted correctly.
Abellio Greater Anglia has instigated daily tracking of key performance indicators at its depot to maximise or improve fleet maintenance, which my right hon. Friend identified as a particular problem. He also raised four main issues: fatalities, fleet failings, infrastructure failings and operational performance, and I would like to address each in more detail.
As my right hon. Friend said, we have a tragic problem of people committing suicide on the railways. Suicides are a tragedy for the families involved, and they are an awful tragedy for the drivers and other staff who have to witness them and deal with their aftermath. With increased activity on the railways, these problems are having more and more of an effect. Indeed, in the last 12 months, the number of services on my right hon. Friend’s line impacted by a fatality has risen by more than 1,700 to in excess of 8,000.
The industry is taking steps to reduce these tragic incidents. The British Transport police, Land Sheriffs and Abellio Greater Anglia station staff have increased patrols at stations and increased the level of interventions, steering people away from this awful act. I would like to express my thanks to those staff who have saved lives as a result of that work. Preventive measures have also been employed, including the introduction of mid-platform fencing and the trialling of blue lighting—people do not like to cross blue lights, as we learned from a similar initiative on Japanese railways. Action is therefore being taken.
Secondly, I note my right hon. Friend’s concerns about fleet performance. As he said, that has improved slightly, and the figures on average delay minutes since early 2012 have improved by 23%, but I want to see greater improvement, not just stability. As he emphasised, reliability is so important for the people travelling from his constituency.
AGA is implementing more than 100 initiatives to improve the reliability of its rolling stock. That is a huge number, so I will highlight just a couple. There are new resources to undertake more extensive maintenance at night, as well as extensive initiatives to renew critical components. The company is also looking at more forward-looking maintenance planning regimes to maximise availability and reliability on the fleet.
My right hon. Friend made a compelling case for new rolling stock on his line and on other lines, including those serving the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). It remains the Government’s ambition to invest in new rolling stock in the franchise, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford will be aware that the Department is doing everything it can to make sure we deliver more reliable trains—and, indeed, refresh trains—for passengers using the network. I completely support AGA’s goal of reducing fleet delay minutes on the franchise by 20% by October 2016.
Thirdly, on infrastructure, we are all aware that track faults have increased significantly, particularly on the crucial Liverpool Street to Shenfield corridor. Network Rail replaced its renewals contractor in 2014 due to poor performance. We continue to invest to upgrade the route, but that will take time. Resources have been focused in three areas: Liverpool Street station and its approaches; rail defect removal; and the quality of track. I am pleased to say that, at Liverpool Street, Network Rail is nearing the end of its programme of replacing all problematic junctions, refurbishing point ends and carrying out rail replacements at the tight curves on the station approach. All that will improve reliability and sustainability. I am pleased to say that, to date, all the work has been completed on time.
Additionally, the company and Network Rail have worked well together to target further resources. For example, there is a new emergency incident unit based at Liverpool Street station, rather than remotely. The number of infrastructure faults was therefore reduced significantly between November and December 2014, to the lowest number for several years.
Finally, let me turn to my right hon. Friend’s operational concerns. As he and I know, the route has had some serious engineering overruns in the last year. Some have been on a Monday morning, and I can think of nothing more frustrating for a hard-pressed commuter trying to get to work and paying almost £4,000 for a season ticket than to hear these overruns being announced. It is completely unacceptable. My Department has been challenging Network Rail on its performance on the issue, as has Abellio Greater Anglia. Network Rail is constantly being made aware of its responsibility to passengers using the network to complete engineering work at the allowed time. As a result, all possession plans on this part of the network are subject to much greater scrutiny.
The programme to renew point work has been completed thus far with minimal passenger train impact. That is perhaps evidence that Network Rail is taking measures to reduce engineering overruns. I know that my right hon. Friend shares that ambition. The railway is not running steel boxes with wheels; it is moving people. If the Government can do one thing, it is to make sure that the unprecedented investment we are making is delivered for the benefit of passengers.
Everyone, from my Department to Network Rail and the operating companies, needs to sign up to that agenda. Some do it better than others, but there is no excuse for an engineering overrun that affects millions of people, and for not taking it seriously. I am pleased to say that effort is being put into recovering from incidents when they happen. The six-month average delay per incident has dropped by 20% in the past six months, which means that faults are being fixed more quickly.
As my right hon. Friend knows, it was not possible to specify in the short direct award an increase in rolling stock. He will know from his time in the Department that the direct award was introduced to smooth the process of franchise letting. He has made a powerful case for wanting new rolling stock. I am pleased to say that on his route, at least, he will see work going on to refresh the mark 3 coaches. That has been secured within the current franchise.
I visited the place where the new seats and other improvements were being put together and have sat in one of the new seats. The first vehicle is set to be unveiled on Friday, and there is an obligation on Abellio Greater Anglia to complete work on the entire fleet by the end of October 2016. Finally, there will be toilets that do not void on to the tracks, power sockets, new carpets and seat covers, new lighting and repainted interiors. That will make a real difference to the experience of passengers.
Sir Alan Haselhurst
The Minister will have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns)mention the construction of a new station to the north of Chelmsford, which will be beneficial for train loading. It is intended primarily to serve the people who will be living in the Beaulieu Park development, but there is strong local feeling that the station would be more appropriately named “New Hall Chelmsford”, or “Chelmsford New Hall”; I hope that she will bear that in mind.
Claire Perry
I will certainly take those comments into consideration. I was coming on to mention something directly relevant to my right hon. Friend’s concerns. The “Norwich in 90” group is a group of MPs working to pin down the economic benefits of further investment in infrastructure, including new stations—regardless of name. There is a desire really to improve journey times and connectivity on such vital routes in a high-growth region.
The consultation for the new franchise in which many of the improvements can be brought about began in December 2014. The new franchise is to commence in October 2016 and the invitation to tender is expected in August, with the successful bidder to be announced in the summer of 2016. Bidders will of course be invited to provide their plans for improving rolling stock operating on the route and for achieving the aims of the “Norwich in 90” taskforce.
Much more clearly needs to be done, but there are some firm foundations on which to improve the performance of the great eastern main line, as the passengers deserve. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford alluded to the interesting and exciting change that will happen when Crossrail finally comes on stream in 2018. It will free up passengers at Liverpool Street, enabling platform capacity at that vital station to be improved, and reducing overcrowding on those vital routes. Infrastructure improvements such as the remodelling at Bow junction, turnbacks in the Chelmsford area and at Wickford, and associated signalling works, should all help to improve performance and durability by 2019.
As for CP6, my right hon. Friend made a powerful case, and investment is planned in the Witham loop, with potential associated new stations. Work is being done and being planned for the future. We know that we can do more, but I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend to bring in the improvements I have outlined for the benefit of his constituents and all passengers using what is a vital route.
Government Contracts (SMEs)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I congratulate those throughout the United Kingdom who have taken the bold step of starting a small or medium-sized enterprise, thereby creating employment in their local community and strengthening the local economy. I am sure that many Members agree that we should thank the House of Commons Library service for its excellent research in the debate pack, and I thank my own staff who have helped me to prepare for the debate.
By way of background, the usual definition of an SME is any business with fewer than 250 employees. There were 5.2 million SMEs in the United Kingdom in 2014, or more than 99% of all businesses. Most businesses in the UK are small, with fewer than 50 employees, rather than medium-sized, with 50 to 250 employees. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Government estimated that 21%, or £45.4 billion, of pay-as-you-earn received in respect of the 2010-11 tax year came from small businesses. There are also micro-businesses, which by definition have between one and nine employees. In 2014, there were 5 million micro-businesses, accounting for 96% of all businesses.
The economy is therefore dominated by small business. According to a 2013 report by the Federation of Small Businesses, small firms in the UK make up 99.3% of all businesses, contribute 51% of gross domestic product and employ 58% of the private sector work force. Research commissioned by the FSB with other partners in 2008 demonstrated substantial barriers to SMEs winning public sector contracts, indicating that 70% of SMEs rarely or never bid for Government procurement opportunities; 76% of SMEs felt that there were barriers to prevent SMEs from being fully aware of public procurement opportunities; and 55% of SMEs felt that the process of bidding for Government contracts required more time, effort and cost than their business could allow. Lack of awareness of opportunities was among the most important reasons for not bidding for a public contract.
Research also shows that SMEs are generally more successful in bidding to the private sector than to the public sector: 51% of SMEs reported a success rate of more than 40% when bidding for private sector opportunities, while 62% had a success rate of 20% or less when bidding for public sector opportunities.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in the midst of the stats coming full and fast—he must be in full flow. He is getting to the nub of things, but does he agree that many of the SMEs, in particular out in the regions, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, are very small and employ only one or two people? The time and expertise required to apply, therefore, is often not in place, and we need to support that.
Dr McCrea
I agree with my hon. Friend. That will certainly be part of the effort that I am endeavouring, through the debate, to achieve.
The Government plan for growth published alongside the Budget in March 2011 highlighted a number of policies stated to be of particular benefit to SMEs, including such measures as making it easier for them to access public sector procurement by eliminating the prequalification questionnaire for contracts worth less than £100,000, advertising procurement opportunities on Contracts Finder and setting an aspirational target that a quarter of Government contracts should be awarded to SMEs.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is certainly in the flow today, so it is hard to intervene. As well as action on procurement, does he agree that over the past number of years the Government also promised to speed up payment terms for small companies? A lot of what has been done, however, has been paying lip service. Northern Ireland has improved, but a lot of work remains to be done. Cash flow is vital to small companies if they go for Government contracts.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am sure my hon. Friend will touch on the matter, but does he accept that part of the problem lies with the procurement rules that we inherit from Europe as part of an attempt to create the single market? They lay down pretty draconian requirements when it comes to bidding for Government contracts. We ought to be looking at how those requirements can be amended and how we can raise thresholds to avoid some of the European regulations on procurement.
Dr McCrea
I agree, but even within the European regulations, there are things we can do and that the Government should do more of to alleviate some of the problems that my hon. Friend mentions.
In the 2013 autumn statement, the Chancellor included measures designed to benefit small businesses, including the introduction of a £2,000 employment allowance from April 2014, making it cheaper to employ staff aged under 21. That incentive, according to the Government, will benefit up to 1.25 million businesses and result in about 450,000 businesses, or one third of all employers, being taken out of paying national insurance contributions altogether.
After the autumn statement, the Government launched the “Small business: GREAT ambition” scheme in December 2013—a series of measures designed to make it easier for small businesses to expand, including the introduction of broadband vouchers worth up to £3,000 in 22 cities throughout the United Kingdom, which were designed to let more small firms access faster broadband connectivity. It is disappointing to note, however, that Malcolm Corbett, head of the Independent Networks Co-operative Association, has said:
“The scheme has not proved as successful as the Government had hoped”.
I therefore encourage those businesses eligible to avail themselves of the scheme before the March 2015 deadline to do so.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He touched on the need for broadband in small businesses. Especially in rural communities, we are seeing the difficulties of getting that high broadband speed. Does he feel, as I do, that that excludes a lot of small firms from bidding for contracts, especially e-procurement ones?
Dr McCrea
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. The lack of an up-to-date and modern broadband connection makes it very difficult to get into Government contracts.
To promote the further growth of SMEs, following on from the recommendation in Lord Young’s report, a new scheme was designed to make it simpler for small firms to win public sector contracts, which are estimated to be worth £230 billion a year. In addition, there was a commitment to tackle the late payment of small firms to ensure that those small businesses supplying the public sector and its supply chain were paid at the same time as the large contractors.
In May 2013, Lord Young published “Growing Your Business”, a report on growing micro-businesses following on from his report on entrepreneurship and start-ups published in May 2012. The 2013 report makes a number of policy recommendations for businesses employing fewer than 25 people, including the establishment of a small business charter and, crucially, a
“new ‘single market’ commitment to ensure a simple and consistent approach is taken across public sector procurement.”
In 2012-13, the public sector spent £230 billion on procurement of goods and services, including capital assets, accounting for 34% of total managed expenditure. Of that £230 billion, approximately £38 billion was capital procurement, the rest being current. Of the current procurement, approximately £40 billion is by central Government, £84 billion by local government, £50 billion by the national health service and £13 billion by the devolved Administrations.
Hon. Members will note the public interest in several recent awards of major procurement contracts, which have attracted scrutiny and even criticism from some hon. Members. In the light of the recent difficulties, the Government set themselves a target of procuring 25% of goods and services by value from SMEs by 2015, with the flattering words that such businesses are
“a crucial engine for growth”
as they account for 99.9% of UK businesses.
Research by the FSB reveals that every £1 a public body spends with a small business generates 63p of additional benefit to the economy, compared with 40p of additional benefit when spent with a large business. Although there is much ongoing debate about the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership and whether the UK should remain within its bureaucratic quagmire, the position remains that the Government not only can but should do more to support SMEs in accessing public procurement in compliance with EU diktat.
David Simpson
Does my hon. Friend accept that, although there is a problem with procurement, in some small companies there is a lack of understanding of the procurement process? There needs to be a robust educational process, perhaps through councils, under which small, young micro-companies learn exactly what it is all about.
Dr McCrea
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. However, to give an illustration from my own constituency experience, I often find that a small business not only finds it difficult with all the filling in of forms, but is blocked from getting into contracts. That is the issue that I want to get to the heart of, but I must first lay the foundations.
A core principle of the EU is to establish a single market that encourages trade and maximises value for the taxpayer in public procurement, obtaining the latter through increased competition by allowing companies from other EU nations to bid for contracts. As SMEs are crucial to the UK’s economic recovery, what have the Government done to encourage and assist them in accessing EU markets and public procurement in other EU member states?
EU procurement rules include transparency, fairness and non-discrimination. They apply to SMEs accessing public procurement in other EU member states, but do nothing to tackle those issues within the United Kingdom, as such rules do not apply. It remains an anomaly of the single market rules that, although under EU law one member state is not allowed to discriminate against an SME from another member state as part of public procurement of goods and services, subject to certain criteria, member states are entitled to act in a discriminatory fashion towards their own nationals.
It is admirable that the coalition Government have engaged with SMEs as one of their two main priorities concerning public procurement and that they intend to achieve that aim by making the procurement process
“much simpler, more open and less bureaucratic—so all businesses, no matter what their size, have a chance of success”.
However, the realisation of that priority, by opening doors for SMEs and providing them with the tools to apply, will make the real difference to our businesses and propel this country’s economic recovery forward.
Mr McKenzie
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Europe and the European strategy to exclude others and source products and services more locally. How does he feel about the playing of the green procurement card, which seems to be natural across Europe? Should we adopt that strategy and say that, in the spirit of green procurement, we will source as locally as possible?
Sammy Wilson
Before my hon. Friend moves on, does he accept that there is considerable merit in the point raised about the green procurement card, especially when it comes to the purchase of fresh food for schools and hospitals, which can be locally sourced? There is an environmental as well as an economic argument for sourcing such goods and services locally.
Dr McCrea
I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend on that point and am delighted that he has a genuine interest in that environmental issue. I am sure that will be noted carefully.
The old proverb says, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life.” Although Stephen Allott, the Government’s appointed SME champion, argues that the
“big change is that procurement reform under Labour was a nice thing to have, whereas today saving money is central”,
the Government need to realise that people’s livelihoods are at stake. Owners of SMEs have often bravely given up a comfortable lifestyle and made significant investment to start up businesses from scratch. They are not mere pawns on a Government chessboard to be played when election time comes around. Much more needs to be done to upskill SMEs in the public procurement process. If a supplier has not bid before and is not very skilled at completing the tender, although it might be the best supplier, it will not win the contract. That was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) a few moments ago.
Interestingly, Mr Allott has stated that the difficulty in fast-tracking the SME agenda arises because of staff cutbacks in the public sector, and notably cuts to the number of individuals in procurement. Such streamlining has led to greater aggravation. It may on occasion save the taxpayer money, but it does nothing to support SMEs. Mr Allott has gone further, stating that the pressures now borne by remaining procurement staff have led many to
“stick with the suppliers they know rather than spend time researching potential partners or having speculative meetings with untried suppliers”—
so it is not what you know but who you know. That leaves SMEs isolated while large companies continue to court those with influence.
On indirect contracts, how will the Government ensure there is a “David and Goliath” approach to prevent prime contractors from driving down prices and creaming off the best work for themselves, leaving slender pickings for their smaller partners? What will the Government’s SMEs champion be doing to help SMEs to get the best possible deal when working with large companies?
David Simpson
On the “David and Goliath” issue, when many large companies receive Government contracts, SMEs turn out to be subcontractors and are pressurised harder on pricing, so their job becomes even more difficult.
Dr McCrea
I accept what my hon. Friend says.
I turn now to what the UK Government could learn from the devolved Administrations. According to FSB research, in 2013, authorities in Northern Ireland spent on average 80% of their total procurement spending with SMEs. Details of all current Northern Ireland public sector tender opportunities are available on one centralised web portal. In addition, a number of events have been organised to encourage economic co-operation and trade, enabling local businesses to meet a wide range of public sector buyers, including buyers from central Government Departments, councils, universities and other public bodies.
In 2009, the Assembly’s Committee for Finance and Personnel conducted an inquiry into public procurement and practices in Northern Ireland. As a result of that inquiry, the Committee made 52 recommendations to the Department of Finance and Personnel in a report published in February 2010, including all the recommendations put forward by the FSB. That shows that key stakeholders such as the FSB are listened to in Northern Ireland.
According to the Cabinet Office papers “Direct and Indirect Spend with SMEs” and “Making Government business more accessible to SMEs”, the total proportion of procurement spend with SMEs by central Government Departments has increased year on year. However, that analysis fails to include public bodies outside central Government. Hon. Members need to note that there are 22 non-ministerial departments, 346 agencies and other public bodies, 70 high-profile groups and 12 public corporations that, in total, have considerable spending power.
In October 2012, when Lord Heseltine published his independent review on increasing UK growth, “No Stone Unturned”, he recommended that the Government
“should place a general duty on all public bodies”—
not just those in central Government—
“setting out the procurement standards to which they should adhere, by providing a pan-government procurement strategy, legislating if necessary.”
When the Government published a consultation on a range of measures to simplify and standardise public sector procurement in “Making public sector procurement more accessible to SMEs” and “Small Business: GREAT Ambition”, in September and December 2013 respectively, they said that they would legislate and make changes across the wider public sector. However, it is regrettable that none of those changes included placing a duty on all public bodies, not just those in central Government, to set out
“the procurement standards to which they should adhere, by providing a pan-government procurement strategy”,
as Lord Heseltine recommended, because that has not happened.
I have tried to explain my general feeling about SMEs and Government contracts to set the scene for the debate, which I was urged to secure because of an experience in my constituency. That experience has not just troubled me; it has really got to me. A local person has put all their money into trying to be innovative and to create something good as a British enterprise, but that seems to have been stamped on and put into the ground.
That small, innovative British SME in my constituency has been failed by the Government and a public body for which it is accountable—the Highways Agency. That failure has affected not just the company, but the work force on the strategic road network, the taxpayer and the British motorist. This case study illustrates: the extent of the barriers erected to prevent market entry; the power of the small number of big companies that dominate the road maintenance market on the strategic road network; the disregard for safety and efficiency exhibited by the Highways Agency; and the seeming impotence of Departments to ensure that British SMEs are treated fairly and given appropriate opportunities, in this instance to introduce new products designed specifically to improve safety for the work force and the motorist, and to secure much better value for money for the public purse.
It is clear from the evidence that the safety of the work force is not given the priority that is required. On 8 January 2015, the Highways Agency was censured for the death of a traffic officer in September 2012 and, recently, another road traffic worker was killed on the strategic road network. It is also clear that the automation of traffic management processes could be made much more efficient through the use of an automated system of cone laying and retrieval.
Between 2002 and 2006, the SME that I am speaking about focused on ensuring its compliance with all UK industry standards, which involved complex interactions with several public bodies including the Highways Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the Department for Transport and the Transport Research Laboratory. By 2006, its manufactured system had been thoroughly tested and trialled across the UK, and it was fully compliant and market-ready. The Highways Agency funded all of the trialling, which signalled its interest in this innovative automated product.
In August 2006, the product was launched with a DFT press release and a statement from Dr Ladyman, the then Minister. He commented:
“In 2005, five road workers were killed in the course of their work on England’s motorways and major roads, making the motorway one of the most dangerous working environments in Britain…This new machine will help to give extra protection to workers and the public on our busiest roads, and help the Highways Agency to use lanes more efficiently during roadwork programmes…Road workers risk death and injury from traffic accidents every day, while making sure our roads are safe and well maintained”.
At that point, given such a press release, one would have expected that the product was well placed for adoption throughout the strategic road network.
The Highways Agency introduced the company to one of its major contractors in 2006. In the company’s view, their negotiations were not conducted in good faith. It transpired that the major contractor wished to purchase only one or two systems, because what it really wanted was the transfer of all intellectual property and manufacturing rights to itself, although what was proposed would have involved a loss for this small business.
As the months followed, it appeared that the role of the Highways Agency was to exert pressure on the company to accept the contractor’s offer at the contractor’s price, even if that involved a loss. The Highways Agency used its influence to support the major contractor, but not to support the SME, the theme behind Dr Ladyman’s statement about how road workers
“risk death and injury from traffic accidents every day, while making sure our roads are safe and well maintained”,
nor achieving a good price.
During 2008, to facilitate Highways Agency contractors to trial the new technology locally, a vehicle, system and skilled traffic management crew were made available for the entire Highways Agency network, ready to mobilise at short notice. Direct involvement with the Highways Agency failed to attract any business from the contractors.
Following my intervention in 2009, the Transport Research Laboratory, acting on behalf of the Highways Agency, presented the company with a proposed new contract. A signature on the contract would have transferred all intellectual property and manufacturing rights from my constituents to the Highways Agency, acting on behalf of the Crown. As part of the proposed contract, the agency would have been free to appoint a third-party supplier to benefit from the rights, to the loss of the original SME. The SME was expected to support the potential new supplier.
The company refused to sign the contract, but was prepared to negotiate. That led to an extended trial in 2009-10, which was carried out by the TRL and the agency. The trial was deeply flawed because untrained workers were used on the live road network, which meant that only seriously understated benefits could be derived from the use of the new product. Once again, for the benefit of the industry and to test this new technology locally, a vehicle and system was made available for the entire Highways Agency network between March and September 2010. There was professional support from about 20 depots across England, but Highways Agency contractors were not interested.
In 2011, on the company’s behalf, I, again, engaged with the Department and its then Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning). As a result, the Highways Agency conducted a cost-benefit analysis, which suggested that there would be huge additional costs and limited benefits, due to poor value for money and little safety benefit. Following a challenge of the work, the then Minister—I give him full credit—ordered an independent review, which was carried out by Jacobs, an international consultancy. It proved extremely difficult to secure proper data from the Highways Agency—I needed to table a series of questions, as a Member of Parliament—but eventually, in February 2012, the Jacobs report concluded definitively that the product could provide significant value for money, improved traffic flow and considerable safety benefits, which was the opposite of what civil servants said to the Minister. For example, when the then Minister asked how many stoppages there would be, the civil servants said that there would be 120,000 lane closures a year, but when I asked the question, as I did again and again, the answer that I received was 26,000. They were only out by about 4:1, so of course that really means little. The cost-benefit analysis was proved completely wrong.
The company wrote to the contractors and approached the SME champion at the Department for Transport. That engagement led to a report from the contractors that displayed a total lack of interest in a product that an independent and credible evaluation had declared could bring significant efficiency savings, value for money and safety benefits. The Highways Agency arranged a meeting between the company and the contractors, but appeared to be content that its contractors, using public resources, could turn their back on efficiencies, modernisation and safety. Then, of course, the Minister was moved from the Department, and the new Minister who took over did not seem to have the same interest.
The early contractual negotiations were not conducted in good faith. They were designed to ensure that a major contractor could benefit from the intellectual property rights and manufacturing potential of an SME-driven innovation. So much for getting SMEs into Government contracts.
It appears that after the refusal to sign the contract that was offered, the product was closed out of the market, even when it was ready to be used locally across the network. The independent report by Jacobs, which identified good value for money and safety benefits, was ignored by the contractors and also, largely, by the Highways Agency. The Department proved unwilling to challenge either the agency or the contractors with any degree of rigour, despite being the funder of the agency’s contracts. All the bodies involved did not address with sufficient vigour the safety benefits that the product would have brought. In addition, the Department and the agency refused access to the minutes of the Road Workers Safety Forum trials team because that might inhibit a free and frank exchange of views by contractors. The public interest did not appear to be paramount.
The experience of this company from 2006 to the present day has created the impression that a cartel of big contractors can ignore potential value for money, efficiency and safety considerations with impunity, and that that does not matter, as they will get their pay at the end of the day. They will be paid for what they put in, but the small company or micro-business can be trampled into the ground.
The system of accountability for the expenditure of public money appears to lack any effective scrutiny or teeth. There is a real issue about the safety dimension of this experience that does not appear to have been given serious attention by any of the major public or private players. The question at the heart of the matter is about the relationship between a public body and its private contractors. How far are decisions on road safety being determined by commercial concerns, and to what extent are the Government content to allow the self-regulation of safety standards for road workers and users?
This is an important issue and I will not let it go. I will continue to try to find out exactly how this happened. I do smell something wrong in this, as it seems that some persons within Departments are happy to play along with the big contractors.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, for what I believe is the first time. I again congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on securing this very interesting debate on public procurement—having heard myself say that, I may need to get out more if I find public procurement an interesting subject to debate.
I have witnessed procurement in the public and the private sectors. Indeed, in my time in local government, I was glad that our procurement was brought into line with some of the private sector practices and brought up to date. In my local environment, we had to bring in many of the SME businesses to spread the money around and create as much opportunity as we could.
We are all aware that small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the British economy and we need to ensure that central Government and local government do everything they can to help them through procurement procedures. The hon. Member for South Antrim gave a lot more statistics than I ever have to hand, but I can say that SMEs account for a large part of the private sector business in the UK and, I believe, 58% of private sector employment. That equates to 14 million people up and down the country being employed in SMEs.
This is about keeping things as local as possible. We know that 83p in every pound spent by local government procurers with local businesses will go back into the local economy. That in turn will stimulate the local economy and provide real employment opportunities there. It is a question of people stretching procurement as far as they can to get the biggest payback on what they are putting out there for goods and services.
SMEs are a major driving force of our economy and deserve their fair share of public sector procurement. Public sector bodies, including central Government, spend about £220 billion a year on goods and services. That indicates the complexity of the procurement. They procure everything from paperclips to chemicals—you name it. Government procurement is extremely complex.
Progress has been made in public sector procurement, and I will go on to highlight some of the advances made by the Government. I accept that steps have been taken and advances made. We have gone from almost a “catalogue” procurement process to what we see today—an approach that is more embracing of best practice and best value. I referred to a “catalogue” approach to procurement, which was simply taking something off the shelf and saying, “We have purchased from them for the last 10 years, so we’ll continue to purchase from them for the next 10.” That was not the best way to enable SMEs to get in on procurement by public bodies.
However, more could be done to improve the best-value approach. Not least is the fact that best value does not always mean the cheapest price, and what about people doing contract monitoring over the length of a contract to prove that they have a valued and performing supplier? We need to evidence contract monitoring if we are to make progress on procuring more locally and putting more into SMEs.
Public procurement is an underused tool when it comes to keeping trade as local as possible to local government and central Government spreading contracts around the country. It is essential that the Government take that on and spread the contracts as far and as wide as possible around the country. They should not simply look at a certain area where most of the spend takes place. If we are to regenerate areas, we can do so through Government procurement.
We also need to enhance contracts that we put out there by writing into the terms and conditions employment opportunities such as apprenticeships and therefore get more for the money we spend. More than half of SMEs believe that the process of tendering for Government contracts requires, as we have heard, more time and resources than their business can allow, making the tendering process too costly and time consuming.
We can take as an example what I have already highlighted—e-procurement. This is about going out and educating SMEs on what they need for e-procurement, and a common mistake is for them to fall into the same practice they used for tendering processes. As we have highlighted, broadband issues lead to difficulties when people are trying to download a tendering document, which takes a bit of time. It will bomb out at the last minute and, hey presto, they have missed out on the contract.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman is making some thoughtful and worthwhile points, but does he not accept that the more we build into the contract and the procurement process not only price, but the qualitative issues he has talked about, as well as ongoing issues such as apprenticeships and employing the long-term unemployed, the more that adds to the complexity and the paperwork involved in the procurement process and to the monitoring of the contract? There is a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, taking the simple approach of looking at price only and, on the other, looking at quality, employment opportunities and all the other qualitative elements of a procurement exercise.
Mr McKenzie
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but if procurement does one thing, it should be to get the most for what is spent. Monitoring whether we get jobs, especially apprenticeships, out of procurement would not be too difficult. The local council in my area has done that for many contracts. Those contracts have been gratefully received, and we have been really successful in keeping our youth unemployment down to a low level using those contracts.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), there is a question of balance in those contracts. However, if contracts awarded by Belfast city council and others over the years have a clause about local employment, local people see that the council and other agencies are delivering something in their locality that is about not just a building or a project, but jobs. My hon. Friend is right to talk about balance, but it is important for local people to see a definite benefit from the public money being spent in their area.
Mr McKenzie
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point: this is about local people seeing real value for money and getting opportunities.
Many small businesses do not bid, because they feel unable to compete with the larger suppliers and to offer lower costs. There is also the issue of understanding contracts and not making them too complex. We should go out to small businesses to help them understand contracts and what is being looked for in the terms and conditions. The issue may not be solely the cost; it may be things such as the quality of the product, the lead team or the hubbing aspects of getting the product to someone at specific times. This is not entirely about the cost factor, and a range of terms and conditions might put smaller businesses off attempting to compete with larger organisations.
I want to mention three areas where I have seen improvement in the procurement process. In 2010, the Cabinet Office set up the efficiency and reform group to make sure that Departments work together. That consortium approach to procurement is wholly sensible. It is hard to believe that each service would have been going out to procure the same commodities on differing contracts, but that could have been taking place. The Government also set a goal of ensuring that 25% of spend went to SMEs, either directly or through the supply chain, although that was downgraded to an aspiration.
Secondly, in 2011, the Government appointed a Crown representative for SMEs, with the intention of helping to redesign and improve public procurement policy and processes to bridge the gap between the Government and small suppliers. The main aims were to understand the concerns of SME suppliers, which is essential, and to open up the Government procurement process more to them. Another aim was to put together a list of tips for SMEs bidding for Government contracts, although I am never too sure that the word “tips” sits well with a procurement process.
Finally, in 2012, the Government ran a pilot of the Solutions Exchange—an online tool to enable a two-way conversation between Government and SMEs, in the hope of creating better dialogue between them.
The hon. Member for South Antrim touched on the directives coming from the EU. A set of new procurement directives, including reforms that should help SMEs, was agreed in Europe last year. There is now a need to transpose them into UK law.
Let me refer to what the FSB says about the problems facing SMEs on procurement. It says that there are four main difficulties. Access to finance—getting those loans—is still a problem. Another problem is tax simplification; tax can be difficult and confusing for SMEs. A further difficulty, which we have heard about many times, is fuel duty; the cost of fuel is crippling many small businesses. The final problem is late payments. If a payment is not made on time, that can end a small business, especially a micro-business. We have recently heard in the news about the horrendous time scales for meeting payment terms, and those are having a detrimental effect on small businesses up and down the country.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What is the Government’s position on the recent EU procurement directives? Will the terms and conditions in contracts be looked at with a view to including employment opportunities for young people—for example, by writing in apprenticeships? Will any person or business that has been engaged in blacklisting or in compiling blacklists of workers be excluded from bidding for Government contracts? Finally, when will the Government truly embrace e-procurement, get out there and assist SMEs as much as possible to understand and navigate the process?
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. Before we move to the next speaker, I should say that I intend to call the shadow Minister no later than 3.40 pm. I am sure that DUP colleagues can allocate the remaining 24 minutes between them fairly.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to speak under you, Mr Davies; I intend to speak for only about 23 minutes.
I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). The circumstances that he has placed on the record are astonishing. They show that a small, creative company has been really screwed, quite frankly. That company deserves explanations and honesty. I hope the Minister, who I know will genuinely look into this, will be able to give the company some reassurance and support—if not today, then at some point after he has had the chance to examine these claims.
We are trying to rebalance our economy in Northern Ireland. We are trying to attract inward investment and more private sector work. That includes growing our indigenous companies and, in particular, encouraging small companies, which are the backbone of Northern Ireland—whether they are in the agri-food sector, the creative media sector, financial services or any other sector. We are trying to help those companies to grow by one or two people each year so that the economy can really rebalance itself.
Those things can be made difficult, however, if one source of job opportunities—Government contracts—is not made more readily available to local companies. There is a saying in Northern Ireland that if someone is not working for the Government, they are not actually working. That is because so many people are employed directly or indirectly in Government or departmental activities. That includes not only the obvious things, such as health and policing, but the less obvious things, such as the technical and financial sectors, where a lot of the work relates to Government activity and Government-associated activity. It is critical that local companies are not only given the opportunity to bid competitively for these opportunities, but are, as many Members have said, encouraged and actively supported in their bids.
Our job is made much harder whenever major companies in the private sector are threatened and have to take employment away. That means that more people are put on the unemployment heap, and they will then, more than likely, have to seek public sector-related employment. I have seen that in my constituency, with the announcement that almost 1,000 jobs will be lost between now and 2017. The tobacco manufacturing company JTI, formerly Gallaher, is being closed down because of Government over-regulation—the European directives on tobacco products and the Government’s gold-plating of those directives through the plain packaging legislation. That destroys employment and opportunities, and has a knock-on impact on the economy. It affects 900 people directly, and a further 200 indirectly. There is pressure on the economy from those policies.
Earlier this month, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made the ambitious statement that he wanted to make the UK the factory of the European Community. I welcome that statement and ambition, and the aspiration to attract employment here—not only private sector employment, but more Government work flowing to private sector companies. I have a challenge for the Government: to make sure that in attracting companies and making these islands into the factory of Europe, they do not forget about the little island off the coast, and do not forget about Ulster. I challenge them to include Northern Ireland in their ambition, and to make sure that jobs go there. It is easy to kick back and say, “Look, this is really a matter for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland or some other local devolved body to deal with.” That attitude is no longer good enough.
We are all in this together and must ensure that the national Government do as much to encourage employment and inward investment as the local, devolved Administration, who are tasked with doing the same. Northern Ireland is, of course, part of the United Kingdom and wants to play its full role in contributing to it, and delivering jobs. I would like the Minister, if he cannot tell us today, to report back to us with a specific, active strategy to attract employment for small and medium-sized enterprises and factories in Northern Ireland. That will help to rebalance the economy and ensure greater opportunities to bid for contracts—particularly Government contracts, when they come up—because more companies will be operating in Northern Ireland. Government contracts are a benefit to employment, and we want companies based in Northern Ireland to be entitled to bid, and to have the benefit of such contracts.
Both Members who have already spoken in the debate have mentioned broadband, which is critical in enabling viable bids to be made for some contracts. There are many companies at Woodside industrial park in Broughshane in my constituency; it has a local radio station, agri-food manufacturers, a fantastic company called Sunstart Bakery, which makes buns for Buckingham palace, and aeroplanes and international export businesses. Those companies deserve support, but they do not have adequate broadband, and have been campaigning for it for months. That would make the difference and allow the industrial park to continue to grow, and improve its effectiveness in fulfilling contracts. That is a key area for development.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim represents the area of Aldergrove, the international gateway into Northern Ireland. It services employment not only in his constituency but in mine, and in East Antrim. There are moves afoot to try to attract a business park to that location. What an opportunity that would be for all our constituencies—a thriving business park there, supported by Government contracts and readily marketed as an area where companies could be based, with international connectivity, just 45 or 50 minutes from mainland Britain. That would be a huge opportunity for employment.
Ian Paisley
Broadband connectivity is a serious issue. The problem means that companies are deficient; some company directors send their staff home to work, because they have better broadband connectivity there than in an industrial park. That makes a mockery of the system, and the issue must be dealt with as part of a package of measures to enable the industrial parks to flow.
We are challenged by our neighbour on the island of Ireland; the Republic of Ireland has just this week announced that it intends to build a super-fast train link from Belfast to Dublin airport, so it can take business from our airports and connectivity. We must get ahead of the game. Our neighbour is entitled to compete with us, but we must beat it in the competition. We can show that we are better; we can show it a clean pair of heels. We need a kick-start, and making Government contracts readily available to Northern Ireland companies would provide one for that part of the economy. I welcome this debate for those reasons.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on setting the scene, which he did clearly and specifically with reference to his own area. I thank other hon. Members for their speeches. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place—I look forward to his response—as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). Yesterday some of us, in discussion with her, mentioned that there were 100 days to the general election, but she said she was more interested in the next 91 days, because in 91 days’ time something more important for her will happen. We wish her well for when that occasion arrives—congratulations.
This debate is about a topic central to economic progress, on which opportunities to speak are much sought after. SMEs are an area of great importance for Northern Ireland for many reasons. We each have numerous SMEs in our constituencies, and in Strangford they are vital to job creation. There are four or five that began from a small kernel or seed and now employ about 200 people. They are of the utmost importance, because they have been proved to be vital to rebuilding and strengthening the economy in times of much economic uncertainty, such as the past five years. Not only that, but they form the centre of any financial strategy for progress with sustainable regional and national growth. For those reasons we should in all ways promote and encourage entrepreneurship in SMEs. My concerns have to do with funding—its availability, information about it, and the ability of anyone to apply for it.
Another concern stems from the multi-level governance dimension. In the coming months much responsibility will fall to local government, with the reform of the Northern Ireland council structure. Additionally, there are concerns about forthcoming EU directives and their implications for SMEs and Government contracts. A particular European issue recently has been changes to how EU directives will affect SMEs. Figures I have been given suggest that perhaps 150 to 200 SMEs have been forced to close as a result. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
I cannot emphasise enough how important SMEs are to Northern Ireland’s economy; I hope that that is shown by Northern Ireland’s European entrepreneurial region status for 2015, which has a focus on SMEs. I congratulate agencies such as Invest NI, local councils and all the SMEs that contributed to achieving that status. A lot of effort went into striving for it, and that effort delivered. I thank everyone who made it a reality. It shows that we are already charging forward in investing in our people, their creativity and their innovation, all three of which are important. What has been achieved is a recognition that we need to put support for such endeavours at the top of our agenda for stimulating sustainable growth and development.
For one thing, local businesses in Northern Ireland were responsible for 90% of the employment increase since 2011. That figure should not be ignored; it represents an astounding one in seven of the working population being employed because of an SME. Invest NI support for local businesses has created or promoted 1,783 jobs from April to the end of November, through targets to assist in SME expansion. Arlene Foster, the Minister at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and our friend and colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has been active in that area, and has made it a priority. She is very photogenic and is regularly in the paper announcing the expansion of jobs. It is great when that happens on a regular basis in Northern Ireland.
All that should be celebrated, but there is still a long way to go before SMEs gain the clout that they need to compete against larger competitors, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim suggested in his detailed and informative introduction. It is troubling that small businesses in Northern Ireland exported only 4.8% across the EU, while larger businesses exported 80%. There is clearly a gap in our efforts to assist smaller enterprises, which must be addressed with much haste, as my hon. Friend said.
Sammy Wilson
Although we are hearing about the downside to procurement and all the rest of it, there are encouraging signs in Northern Ireland. A small company that starts up in Northern Ireland will last 75% longer than a similar company anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We need to put out the message that start-ups are very successful and there is resilience.
Jim Shannon
We all value my hon. Friend’s knowledge of business life in Northern Ireland, and he makes a valuable contribution to the debate. Some 30,000 micro-businesses accounted for 89% of local companies. We must emphasise the need to look at the barriers that prevent the rise of SMEs, especially with regard to Government contracts, and address them coherently and fully. Steps have already been taken to look at the accessibility of funding, to simplify the application process and to remove the red tape of bureaucracy that bumps up the costs of application and development in public procurement.
I sometimes wonder how anyone ever gets through the early stages of a business. Years ago, there was less bureaucracy, but today we seem to be entangled with it at almost every level. On the ground, SMEs still find it difficult, costly and sometimes unfeasible to compete with larger competitors.
I congratulate the councils, Invest NI, South East Economic Development and other agencies. Financing their endeavours is only the first of many hurdles faced by SMEs, and it is vital to their success. To have that stage of the process so well accounted for by those valuable agencies is paramount. Through the assistance of such agencies, bank loans to SMEs totalled £408 million in the second quarter of 2014, which represents a rise of 29% on the previous quarter.
Although that work has been important and successful, there is still a lack of clarity about how to identify and access the many sources of available support. I would reject any process that further impeded the accessibility of money through more and more layers of bureaucracy. As of 1 April, Northern Ireland will downsize to a new system of 11 regional super-councils, through which we will do our best to simplify the process and walk SMEs through the steps of accessing Government contracts and funding.
The Northern Ireland Members present are all former Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) reminded me when we were preparing for the debate that the Northern Ireland Assembly insisted that Government contracts in Northern Ireland must include a 30-day payment scheme for those who had contracts, many of whom previously had to wait 90 days or longer for payment. It is absolutely ridiculous that small companies should have to wait so long. We can take some credit for moving forward that process in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the fact that the UK Government have pushed forward in their goal of awarding 25% of Government contracts to SMEs. Entrepreneurship will drive our economy forward through innovation and creativity. Therefore, we really need to make the leap of innovation—of becoming a successful endeavour—an attractive idea, given the risks of setting up and upholding an SME.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) referred to broadband, which is a problem not only in his constituency but in all our constituencies. I gather from my constituents that he has had some success in banging together the heads of those responsible, and making sure that the DETI and the NIE get together and achieve success. In my constituency, we have a similar problem, and those involved in online businesses have been prevented from expanding their businesses by the lack of broadband. That seems ludicrous. I cannot understand how the problem can be so prevalent in this age of modernisation. It seems simple to me to make the connection within 100 yards of a business to help it to progress, but we find layers of bureaucracy, obstacles, obstructions and reasons for not doing so. We need to act on that system in good faith and make it better if at all possible.
I have concerns about the EU directives and their implications for our ability to invest in our vital SMEs. I acknowledge that a range of positive measures has come from the EU, and not everything is negative. I know we have lots of problems with the EU, but there are positive aspects on a regional basis, such as the merging of funding into an accessible single portal, which includes the structural funds, with an emphasis on encouraging SMEs as a pivot of national economies. However, I am concerned about the upcoming enforcement of the EU public procurement directive. The directive states that
“for public contracts above a certain value, provisions should be drawn up coordinating national procurement procedures so as to ensure that those principles are given practical effect and public procurement is opened up to competition.”
I am concerned about the implications for local, regional and national SMEs, and about our obligations to protect SMEs on a national level, given that they have put so much back into our economy—not only in growth, but in lowering unemployment levels. What exactly will that mean for the distribution of Government contracts? Will the implementation of the directive create any obligations that will impinge on our goal of awarding 25% of Government contracts to SMEs?
I welcome any measures in the public procurement directive that aim to cut red tape and assist UK companies to make the most of the single market. I hope that the promised new regulations will benefit SMEs by encouraging buyers to break contracts into smaller lots and by reducing the cost of the bidding process. The European Commission claims that they may reduce that cost by as much as 60%. SMEs in my constituency and nationwide need reassurance that the process of obtaining Government contracts will not become more elaborate, confusing or inaccessible, and that their interests will not be compromised by the implementation of the directive. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim for giving us all a chance to contribute, and I look forward to the shadow Minister’s contribution and the Minister’s reply.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for initiating the debate. He was absolutely right to point out just what a force small and medium-sized business are across the country. There are 5 million of them, and they are what keeps our economy moving. He cited examples from his constituency, and I am sure that all hon. Members will have their own examples in mind. Taken together, SMEs are the single biggest employer in my constituency, and that situation is replicated in many towns, cities and rural areas throughout the country.
There is much more that we could do to support SMEs, which are one of the country’s greatest assets, and to unlock their talent, energy and commitment to their communities. I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about job creation in Northern Ireland over the past few years. It is fascinating to hear what small businesses manage to do despite all the problems and challenges that they face. Think what more they could do if we put in place more support and took away some of the barriers that they encounter.
We must acknowledge the extent to which SMEs have felt the squeeze in recent years, and the problems surrounding Government contracts, which are the focus of today’s debate, must be seen in that context. An economic policy that imposed huge front-loaded cuts on public services has undoubtedly had an impact on SMEs, because in many areas of the country—this picture is familiar to people in Wigan—that policy has created a toxic mix of unemployment, low wages and insecure jobs, which has stopped people spending money in small shops and businesses, thus costing those businesses trade and, in many cases, jobs. In a few instances, the situation has cost people their entire business, which was why I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said about the balance that must be struck between conditions on contracts and the need for simplicity. He is absolutely right to raise that point because there is a common picture throughout the country of contracts that contain unnecessary complexity that could be removed, with some concerted effort.
When we talk to SMEs, we often find that they are keen to use Government contracts as a force for social good, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) described when he spoke about apprenticeships and jobs, but they can need Government support to achieve that. The future jobs fund was a good example of a partnership involving public sector bodies at first, and later smaller employers that could not necessarily afford wage subsidies, but wanted to create opportunities. The programme had a significant effect on young people.
In my area, as is the case in many parts of the country, making the living wage a condition of contracts has been hugely helpful for many SMEs, partly because that means that they do not have to engage in a race to the bottom to undercut prices, because if the requirement to pay the living wage is clearly set out in a contract, such companies can compete without driving down the conditions of their work force. SMEs also benefit from that approach because if more people in towns such as mine are paid the living wage, it is more likely that they will have surplus income to spend in local shops and businesses, meaning that the cycle continues.
It is right to recognise that the picture has been very difficult for many SMEs across the country. The huge front-loaded cuts to many local authorities, health services and other public sector bodies have meant that SMEs have lost contracts. Many small businesses that could borrow money easily from banks on a short-term, sustainable basis a few years ago are now struggling due to the loss of trade and contracts. Taken together, all those things have been problematic for this group of businesses.
Despite the cuts, and although central Government are not handing out large contracts or spending huge amounts on public services, and are unlikely to ramp up that spending any time soon, there is far more that they could do by using the range of tools at their disposal. That was why the hon. Member for South Antrim was right to focus on Government contracts and procurement, which are among central Government’s biggest tools for good. Central Government spend £40 billion a year on goods and services, about 10% of which goes directly to SMEs. Over time—I am not making a party political point because this has happened over a considerable period—a trend has developed for putting in place centralised contractual arrangements that, for various reasons, have tended to shut smaller organisations out of the process altogether. As a result, businesses that are closest to their communities, and that deliver services and do the good that hon. Members have talked about, have become subcontractors in a supply chain, if they are able to compete at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde said that he might need to get out more, and while I could not possibly comment on that, perhaps the same is true for the Government, because there is a regional and local picture to consider, too.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Lady accept that, at a time of fiscal constraint, there is a need to get value for money from contracts? That sometimes means that contracts need to be centralised, but one way around that might be to encourage consortiums of small businesses to apply for larger contracts, because such contracts do not necessarily have to exclude small businesses. I sometimes wonder whether we have explored all options of how we ensure that we can have large contracts while still involving smaller firms in delivery.
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was just about to address the difficulty that small and medium-sized companies face when bidding for public sector contracts. The hon. Member for South Antrim talked about the lengthy, expensive and unnecessarily complicated process, and the lack of support, so I will not rehearse those points to the Minister, although I am interested in his response to them.
One way in which we can ensure that small and medium-sized businesses are not shut out of the procurement process is by moving that process much closer to communities through the devolution agenda, with more commissioning at a regional level. In the past few years, local enterprise partnerships have been established in the place of the regional development agencies, which were very successful. In some areas, local enterprise partnerships still have to bed in, and we can do much more at the local, regional and national levels to make them work for local communities. I see this being played out at the local level, too, but when resources are scarce in local, national or regional government, there is a perceived tension between getting value for money and giving contracts to local providers or those that can offer over and above in relation to the social good. In reality, small and medium-sized companies are much more effective at delivering such contracts because they are rooted in their community, because they see the social impact of what they do and because they can have regard to a range of factors beyond just day-to-day profit making.
There is a good example of that, from which I hope the Government have learned. During the commissioning process for the Work programme, some smaller providers, including a number from the voluntary sector, pulled out because they felt that they could not make an impact through their contracts. We can see a good example of the problem of contracts being dominated by bigger companies, with smaller organisations acting as sub-primes, because St Mungo’s, the homelessness charity, pulled out because not one person was referred to it through the Work programme during the period of its contract. It is inconceivable to think that, had St Mungo’s been given the contract directly, it would have been unable to find people who were desperate to get into work and could have benefited from the intervention it could offer.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that such dominance by a small number of larger companies is not effective at any level—it is not good for the public or for SMEs. This is not just about SMEs getting what they deserve; it is about ensuring that we are delivering the best value for money in our communities and across the country.
In the time I have remaining, I will address the length of time it takes for payment to reach SMEs for the services that they provide. We hear the complaint that bigger companies are contracted and small companies have to act as sub-primes. The Government could do much more to act in instances when they have made a payment to a prime provider but that has not yet reached the smaller company at the bottom of the chain.
Sammy Wilson
A possible solution when there is a substantial number of subcontractors is the greater use of project bank accounts. Rather than money being paid to the main contractor, it goes into a project bank account to be drawn out as invoices come in. In Northern Ireland, a main contractor can be excluded from applying for public sector contracts for a specified period of time if there are complaints that it is clearly not abiding by the terms of a contract.
Lisa Nandy
I would welcome the Minister’s response to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Although the Government’s record on prompt payment is better than that of the private sector, the National Audit Office found a few weeks ago that the figures are skewed by the Government making prompter payments to a few large suppliers. Astonishingly, it is virtually impossible to assess the record of the Cabinet Office and many other Departments because paper invoices are not dated when they arrive, which is a method commonly used by smaller organisations. Despite the Government’s rhetoric, the situation betrays a casual attitude to something that can be make or break for many small businesses. It would be helpful to know what the Minister has done in the past few weeks to address the situation. Were the Government to pay invoices within five calendar days rather than 30, the reduced interest cost to businesses could be worth up to £88 million, according to the NAO, and the reduced cost to the taxpayer could be up to £55 million. The NAO report called for strategic leadership from the Government and I hope the Minister agrees that it is important that the Cabinet Office leads on this by ensuring that its own suppliers are paid on time.
In conclusion, the Government could draw on the success of other countries. Labour would set up a small business administration that could work to mainstream and hardwire such activity in government. That would require a huge cultural change, but there are small things that the Government could do more quickly, such as taking action on late payments, to signal their intent to unlock one of this country’s biggest assets.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for securing this debate on such an important subject. I know that much of his concern is born from the experience of a constituency case, and it is absolutely right that he should speak up for small businesses in his constituency. I join him in congratulating all those wealth creators who take the risk of running their own businesses and, ultimately, pay for the public services that we all enjoy.
From the outset, this Government have fully recognised the vital role that small and medium-sized businesses have to play in helping us to achieve the best possible value for money when we buy goods and services. That was why we included in our initial programme for government an aspiration that by the end of this Parliament 25% of direct and indirect Government procurement of goods and services by value should go to SMEs.
That was a bold step considering that, under the previous Government, Departments had no idea how much they were spending on SMEs. After a lot of hard work, we found that it amounted to 6.5% of Government procurement of goods and services in 2009-10, or £3.1 billion. That was a shamefully low figure, given that 95.5% of private sector businesses in the UK are micro-firms—companies with fewer than 10 employees. However, those micro-businesses together accounted for 32% of private sector employment and 20% of private sector turnover.
We recognised that something had to be done to remove the barriers facing SMEs bidding for Government contracts, and we have gone a long way to removing those barriers. During the past four years, we have increased accessibility and transparency, identified and tackled poor procurement practice and provided practical assistance to help SMEs. We are now taking steps to extend those reforms further across the public sector.
In 2011, to increase accessibility, the Government established the Contracts Finder for central Government. That is a one-stop shop to enable suppliers to find procurement and subcontracting opportunities, tender documents and contracts online and free of charge. The Government have also committed, for the first time, to the publication of future contract opportunities to provide greater transparency about future public sector business, and to help suppliers to plan for and win more business.
Contract pipelines also enable the Government to secure deals that offer better value for the taxpayer by allowing for early negotiation with suppliers. The contract pipelines have developed from £40 billion of future spend in 2011 to more than £191 billion on 19 pipelines by December 2014. This information provides a view of major contracting opportunities through to 2020 and beyond, and it includes projected spend on High Speed 2 and the Thames tunnel, to give just two examples.
We have also appointed Stephen Allott as Crown representative for SMEs to be a
“strong voice at the top table”
for SMEs. He works across Government, and with SMEs and their trade associations, to get full value from SMEs and to increase the number of SMEs bidding for and winning Government contracts. We also set up the Cabinet Office SME panel to provide a regular forum for SMEs to raise the issues that concern them most and to hold our feet, as a Government, to the fire.
Mr Rob Wilson
I will continue for a little bit longer, if I may, because I have to get through a lot of questions to which I know the hon. Gentleman and others want answers.
To identify poor procurement practice, we have introduced a mystery shopper service. If a supplier encounters poor practice, such as an over-bureaucratic pre-qualification requirement or unreasonable selection criteria, they can blow the whistle and refer that to our mystery shopper service, which will raise it on their behalf with the contracting authority. We regularly publish the outcomes of mystery shopper investigations on the gov.uk website. We have now received nearly 800 mystery shopper cases, with four out of five investigations resulting in a positive outcome.
In addition, the mystery shopper service has started proactively spot checking procurements by examining procurement documents online. We have instigated nearly 500 spot checks to look at a range of aspects of procurement, and have found issues in around 20% of the checks that we have conducted, including burdensome pre-qualification questionnaires.
Some 45 of those spot checks tested compliance with the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 and involved asking contracting authorities to set out how they considered the requirements of the Act in the pre-procurement stage of service contracts. The sort of evidence that we look for includes whether any consultation took place with the market, and with current and potential service users, and how the conclusions drawn from such consultation were used to shape the requirement. In total, 20% of the authorities examined were unable to provide sufficient evidence of compliance, so we have advised them to ensure they consider the Act in future.
We are particularly conscious of the burden of pre-qualification questionnaires, which are used to select suppliers to be invited to tender, and the pressure that they can place on SMEs. To address that situation, we have eliminated the use of PQQs in 15 out of 17 Departments for all central Government procurement under the EU threshold of approximately £100,000. The two Departments still using PQQs—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence—are doing so only for security reasons. For those procurements that still require a PQQ, we have introduced a much simpler standard set of questions, which reduces the burden on suppliers and levels the playing field in terms of financial risk and evidence of experience.
We recognise that being paid promptly is vital to enable SMEs to manage their cash flows and to reduce the amount of time wasted on chasing invoices. We are determined to help businesses to manage their cash flows and to transform the culture of late payment. In 2010, to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), the Government reiterated our policy of paying 80% of undisputed invoices within five days and ensuring that the prime contractors pay tier 2 suppliers within 30 days as a condition of contracting with Departments. We expect our suppliers to follow our example on prompt payment and to pay their subcontractors within the 30-day limit. When this does not happen, we encourage suppliers to report late payment to the mystery shopper service.
We know that we need to do more to improve performance across the public sector, however. We have made much progress in the past four years, but following recommendations by Lord Young of Graffham, we now intend to extend these reforms across the public sector to non-devolved bodies such as the NHS and local councils in England.
We intend to introduce measures in the next few weeks to ensure that 30-day payment terms flow down the public sector supply chains into all new contracts, which will ensure that smaller suppliers benefit from prompt payment. Contracts Finder will be extended to become a one-stop shop for public sector contract opportunities. We have fully redeveloped the original site to make it more user-friendly, including by creating a powerful search facility to make it easier to find and bid for work, and providing the ability to look up contracts by location and postcode. The site will function on multiple devices.
I am conscious of the time, but I want to cover as many of the questions that were asked as possible. We heard about EU procurement rules being unwieldy, and we have negotiated a new procurement directive that will improve the chances of SMEs winning public contracts. Regulations to transpose that directive will be introduced very soon.
As for the EU procurement requirement, as part of this year’s new public contract legislation, there will be more open approaches for supplier procurement and a reaching out to more suppliers, including SMEs. The documentation required from SMEs is being reduced to make it easier for them to access opportunities. The UK engaged proactively in negotiations on a new directive on SMEs and EU markets.
I was asked about aggregating demand with regard to helping SMEs. Breaking large contracts into more manageable lots is key to ensuring that SMEs can compete for aggregated deals, and the new procurement regulations will require contracting authorities actively to consider that. The new public contracts regulations will apply across the whole public sector, apart from devolved bodies, and will include Lord Young’s recommendation to abolish PQQs. Under Lord Young’s reforms, we are requiring the public sector generally to advertise contracts on Contracts Finder. This includes an option to highlight any opportunity as applying to an SME.
The hon. Member for South Antrim talked about an individual company. The Highways Agency fully supports the use of Conemaster on its road networks. It has funded its use in road trials, as well as an analysis of its economic performance, which showed that Conemaster demonstrated a positive benefit-cost ratio of 2:1.
I think that is about as far as I will get on answering hon. Members’ questions, but I would like to say finally that we—
Human Rights in Mexico
(9 years, 10 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
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to have secured the debate, which allows me to raise the issue of human rights in Mexico. I begin by saying that I do not claim any particular expertise in the matter—certainly not as much as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who chairs the all-party group on Mexico and will speak briefly later. I am also grateful to my constituent, James Graham, and to members of the local Amnesty group, who brought these concerns to my attention. That led to me requesting the debate.
In many parts of Mexico, insecurity and violence on both sides of the conflict have left communities unprotected and at risk. There are frequent reports of human rights abuses being committed by police and security forces, including enforced disappearances, torture and arbitrary detention. Impunity for those crimes remains the norm. On the other hand, those who try to expose human rights abuses and support victims, such as human rights defenders and journalists, risk violent retribution. Women, indigenous peoples and migrants face discrimination and violence, but their chances of redress are slim. The justice system continues to fail victims, the accused and society. Those are just some of the human rights problems that people have to face in their daily lives.
In the short time available, I want to focus on three key areas: torture, the criminal justice system and the disappearances. Sadly, torture seems to be endemic on both sides of the law in Mexico. Indeed, it appears to be the preferred method of investigation for many police and military officers. It is reported that beatings, sexual abuse and fake asphyxiation are routinely used by the security forces to punish detainees or to extract confessions. One of the many victims of torture is Miriam Lopez. On 2 February 2011, she had just finished her school run when she was abducted by two men wearing balaclavas. She was taken to a military base near Tijuana in Mexico and held for seven days. She was beaten, raped three times, given electric shocks and nearly asphyxiated by her captors to get her to implicate herself and others in drug trafficking offences. She was eventually released without charge.
Cathy Jamieson
Before the Division, I was speaking about the situation of Miriam Lopez and the treatment she received. When she was eventually released without charge, she was brave enough to file a formal complaint, but four years have passed and none of her torturers has been brought to justice. Sadly, her ordeal is not unique.
Between 2003 and 2013, there was a 600% rise in the number of torture cases reported to the National Human Rights Commission. Another torture victim, Claudia Medina, told Amnesty that on 7 August 2012 navy marines broke into her home, tied her hands, blindfolded her and took her to the local naval base where she was tortured using electric shocks, sexually assaulted, beaten, kicked and left tied to a chair in scorching afternoon heat. The following day she was again blindfolded and transferred to the federal Attorney-General’s office where she was interrogated and pressured into signing a statement that she was not allowed to read. Later that day, the authorities presented Claudia and the other detainees to the media, claiming that they were dangerous criminals. She was later released on bail. She reported her treatment, prompting a federal judge to request an investigation. Over two years later, no investigation has taken place.
Federal courts dealt with 123 prosecutions for torture between 2005 and 2013, but only seven resulted in convictions under federal law. On paper, Mexico has adhered to the highest international standards in its examination of alleged torture claims, but in reality forensic examinations tend to be poor, late, re-traumatising and biased. For example, detainees should be medically examined following arrest, but many say that that does not happen and that no questions are asked about injuries. The initial examinations that take place are often held in the presence of people who may themselves have been implicated in torture. The medical professionals involved are military officials or employees of the offices of the Attorney-General or of the prison system. Photographs to document injuries are almost never taken, so the potential for torture or other ill treatment to go unrecorded within the system is clear.
I hope the Minister will respond on those two particular cases and tell us whether an investigation to secure justice for Miriam and Claudia is any nearer.
Many arrests are made without evidence or warrants, with suspects allegedly caught red-handed. In many cases, people are arrested without there being any direct connection to a crime or crime scene, due to anonymous tip-offs or because their name has been given by a torture victim. All too often, those arrested are from poor and marginalised communities. They have little access to effective legal support; of course, the less support they have, the more likely it is that they could be tortured.
The victims, their relatives and activists defending their human rights often face threats and intimidation, deterring many from lodging formal complaints. Key safeguards in Mexican law such as the right to a defence from the moment of detention are not upheld. Amnesty has interviewed victims of torture who allege that they were refused access to a lawyer until they had signed a statement. Between 2008 and 2013, 8,500 people in Mexico were held in 80-day pre-charge detention under the arraigo system. Of those, only 3.2% were convicted.
Mexico is also plagued by frequent abductions. Last November, the disappearance of 43 students once again bought the country unwelcome notoriety. In Mexico itself, thousands of people took to the streets to demand an urgent search and justice for the missing students, who were training to become primary school teachers in rural communities. They came from a largely indigenous area with high levels of depravation, discrimination, marginalisation and lack of access to basic services. They were politically active, and many were involved in demonstrations over rural teachers, education policy and other issues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The disappearance of the 43 students caused worldwide outrage. They were killed, their bodies burned and their remains wrapped in bags and thrown in a river. At the time, it was indicated that a level of corruption and links to a drugs cartel ran through from the police to the judges and even the mayor of Iguala. Does the hon. Lady feel that if we are to tackle the human rights abuses in Mexico the dirty officials have to be removed?
Cathy Jamieson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In very recent developments within the past day or so, the parents of the students have refused to accept a claim from Mexico’s Attorney-General that the students are dead and have demanded that the search continue. Amnesty believes that the Attorney-General of Mexico has failed properly to investigate allegations of complicity by the armed forces and others in authority. Local police operating in collusion with criminal gangs are thought to be responsible for many of the disappearances, as well as the separate killing of three students and three bystanders.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the local mayor, who is suspected of involvement and was also the subject of separate allegations, from a first-hand victim, of direct participation in violence and murder, which were not investigated. The Mexican Government have to tackle the collusion between the authorities and organised crime. Otherwise, there can be no justice.
The 43 students form part of more than 23,000 cases of people who are missing or have disappeared and whose whereabouts remain unknown. In 2012, the National Human Rights Commission said it was investigating more than 2,000 cases of reported disappearances. Thousands of unidentified bodies lie in mortuaries across the country or have been exhumed from mass graves. The Mexican Government must demonstrate that they are prepared to take serious and urgent action on torture, murder and abduction. That means making it clear that officials can no longer ignore human rights abuses and that anyone implicated in them, directly or indirectly, must be prosecuted. Victims must have access to truth and justice.
I have a few points to put to the Minister. I hope he will agree that the UK Government have a moral obligation to act in the face of torture, abduction and systemic persecution. I hope, too, that he will agree to call for urgent action to stop the use of torture and terror, end the culture of impunity and improve the justice system in Mexico.
Among the issues that I hope the UK will raise with the Mexican authorities are immediate investigation of all allegations of torture and other ill treatment; immediate and proper medical examination of detainees; immediate access to legal counsel for all detainees and enabling them to meet with their families; holding detainees only in recognised detention facilities; abolition of pre-charge arraigo detention; suspected torturers all being held to account, regardless of rank; and reparations to people who have been subjected to torture. With 2015 being the year of the UK in Mexico and of Mexico in the UK, an upcoming visit of the Mexican President also provides an opportunity to raise such issues. We are a key ally of Mexico, so I hope that UK Ministers will harness their diplomatic leverage and urge the Mexican authorities to make human rights a political priority.
Specifically, how will the UK Government use the Mexican President’s state visit to the United Kingdom in March to press for accountability on human rights violations in Mexico? How will the UK Government use the opportunity of the year of the UK in Mexico and of Mexico in the UK to secure tangible progress on human rights? Given the worsening human rights situation in Mexico, will the UK Government include Mexico among the “countries of concern” in the annual Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) on securing this important debate. I am grateful to her and to the Minister for giving me a few minutes to say something.
I am chair of the all-party group on Mexico and vice-chair of the all-party human rights group. I have led a delegation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to Mexico and visited the country on many occasions—most recently, last November. Furthermore, the all-party human rights group has convened a series of round-table meetings in which we involve Foreign Office officials, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Mexican embassy and the Mexican community in London, and we interact on human rights issues. We are trying to be positive and to make progress, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that this year of relations with Mexico will provide not simply a jamboree for trade and investment, but a serious look at the endemic, systemic human rights problems that exist in Mexico.
Since 2006, 100,000 people have been killed in Mexico in the supposed war on drugs. The number of people missing is difficult to quantify exactly, but is somewhere around 23,000, according to Amnesty, although many independent human rights groups in Mexico put the figure much higher than that. The disappearance of the 43 students at Ayotzinapa in Guerrero state was shocking because it was so brazen; it was shocking because they were taken off a bus and disappeared. The more the investigation goes on, the worse it gets. Every time the investigators look, they find another unmarked grave. Who is in those unmarked graves? Unaccompanied migrants from Guatemala trying to flee to the USA to gain a sustainable living, who have been killed by gangs, often in collusion with the local police. The police are, in turn, in collusion with local officials.
The sense of anger in Mexico is palpable. I was there in November, only a short time after the disappearances, and although I have been to Mexico many times, I have never seen so many people on the streets, so angry and so determined that there should be real political and judicial change. The President is under real pressure.
Among the problems in Mexico are the facts that there are 2,000 different police forces that do not talk to each other and 31 governors who do not talk to each other; disappearances are endemic in many states; and there is a close relationship between some of the politicians in some of those states with the gangs and the disappearances. There is also a problem with the virtual impunity of the armed forces. I hope that the Minister will address those issues in his response today and raise them in discussion with President Pena Nieto during the state visit at the beginning of March.
If there is to be a change in Mexico, it will, in part, be as a result of pressure from outside. I have some sympathy with Mexico, in that guns come south from the unregulated gun trade in Texas and other US states, while drugs produced in Colombia and other places come north. Mexico is therefore a bit of a transit place for all of that, so the issues must be dealt with in part from a wider perspective. I hope we will be able to put on some real pressure for improvements.
Changes have been proposed in the legal system, where British involvement and representation have introduced the idea of adversarial justice, rather than the Napoleonic form of magisterial justice. That is a step forward. However, there is also a need to listen more carefully to independent human rights groups in Mexico, rather than just to the Mexican Government and the Mexican human rights commission. In my experience, the independent human rights groups have much more of a finger on the button. They are prepared to prosecute cases, to take them to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and to bring about real change.
Mexico is a country of the most amazing history, contrasts and diversity, but it is also a place of great sadness. I conclude with this thought. One weekend, my wife and I were in Cuernavaca—a beautiful city not so far from Mexico City. As we arrived, we heard that 12 bodies had been suspended from a bridge and that the heads had been left by the side of the road. That was some kind of signal to somebody; that is the degree of human rights abuses, fear and threats in Mexico.
As a friend of Mexico, we should use our relationship with it to put on all the pressure we can for genuine human rights dialogue. We should also call Mexico to account when it comes to the UN Human Rights Council in March, so that the universal periodic review recommendations it said it was accepting are actually implemented and so that people in Mexico can develop their justice and human rights in their country.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) on securing a debate on this important issue. It is timely, given the approaching state visit by the President of Mexico.
This would hardly be a debate on Latin American matters without the contribution of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), whom I have heard speak on these themes on other occasions in the House. No one in the House, whatever political party they represent, has any doubt about his long-standing, principled commitment to human rights in that part of the world.
It is important to commend the excellent work done by the all-party groups on Mexico and on human rights, as well as the initiative they showed in organising two recent round-table discussions on human rights in Mexico. They secured the participation of not only Members of both Houses, but the Mexican embassy to the United Kingdom and Amnesty International. The fact that not only non-governmental organisations that had been critical of the state of human rights in Mexico, but representatives of the Mexican Government were able to take part is a good indication of the way in which we should continue discussions on these subjects.
The hon. Lady mentioned the cases of Miriam Lopez and Claudia Medina. We are aware of those cases, which have been widely reported. I will ask the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who has ministerial responsibility for Latin America, to write to her and other Members present with more detail about those particular cases.
The disappearances and killings in Iguala and Tlatlaya have, understandably, prompted significant international concern. In many ways, they have come to symbolise the concerns felt about human rights and impunity in Mexico. As the hon. Member for Islington North acknowledged, we all need to recognise the genuine and serious security challenges that Mexico faces. We have been among the countries closely monitoring the recent tragic events and the Mexican Government’s response, and I will say a little more later about some of the initiatives that we have taken here and through our embassy in Mexico City.
The Mexican Government continue to express their commitment to human rights and have a good track record of engaging with the United Nations and other international human rights bodies. I know that Members who went to the all-party group round-table on 3 December last year welcomed the presence of Mexico’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Juan Manuel Gomez-Robledo, and his confirmation that the Mexican Government had agreed that the Inter-American Commission On Human Rights should create an interdisciplinary group of independent experts to examine his Government’s response to and investigation into the particular case of Iguala.
Jim Shannon
In my earlier intervention, I specifically mentioned the 43 students who went missing. Have our Government had any discussions with the Mexican Government on the disappearance of the 43 students and the corruption that let that happen? In response to my intervention, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) mentioned that the families have, as yet, no knowledge of where their loved ones are. Have we had any correspondence or discussion with the Mexican Government? If we have, what has come back?
Mr Lidington
In particular through our embassy in Mexico City, but also in our contacts through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Mexican embassy in the United Kingdom and with Mexican visitors to the country, we certainly express our deepest concerns about those cases, the disappearances and the subsequent discovery of hidden graves in Iguala.
The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, raised the Tlatlaya and Iguala cases in high-level political talks in Mexico in November last year. We very much support the declared intention of the Mexican authorities to carry out an exhaustive investigation to try to find the missing students and to bring justice for the victims and their families. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, in the past few days there have been reports that the students are dead, but the families are challenging that. It is important that a thorough investigation is carried out so that the families, whatever the outcome, feel that everything possible has been done to find out what happened to their children.
The Mexican Government’s plan to address insecurity, announced in November 2014, included a series of reforms to the police service. As the hon. Lady said in her opening speech, the police have been the focus of quite a lot of the critical commentary on Mexico’s human rights record. The proposal is that Mexico’s 1,800 municipal police forces be replaced with 32 state- level forces and that a specific law on torture and enforced disappearances should be enacted. The Mexican Government have also committed themselves to new legislation allowing for the dissolution of local governments infiltrated by organised crime. Clearly it is not only that declaration and plan, welcome though they are, that are important, but action to see that plan implemented.
Cathy Jamieson
That information is helpful and welcome, but does the Minister agree that simply making those structural changes will not necessarily have the required effect, unless those new police forces have a different culture and different training? Does he have any information on who will assist in trying to make that happen?
Mr Lidington
I completely agree. Wherever one looks in the world, changes to the structure and the organisation of institutions are important. We should not deride that sort of reform, but those sorts of administrative changes need to embody cultural change, too. That is a lesson I am well aware of from my ministerial work with Governments in parts of central and eastern Europe—I am thinking of some of the Balkan countries, in particular. Changes to an organisation’s structure are necessary to trigger cultural reform of the type the hon. Lady described.
We stand ready to support the Mexican Government in their efforts to strengthen processes and mechanisms so that those responsible for human rights abuses are brought to justice. In recent years, the FCO’s human rights work in Mexico has focused on tackling impunity in particular as a way of improving human rights across the country.
The hon. Lady asked how we propose to deal with the question of human rights in the context of the forthcoming state visit. We are keen to help Mexico to strengthen its capacity to uphold its human rights obligations—it is party to all those international conventions that proscribe torture and other abuses of human rights—as well as to tackle its security challenges. We see the state visit as an opportunity to strengthen our bilateral relationship. That, in turn, will allow for continued full and frank conversations, including about human rights.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the Minister for giving way; I know he has only a couple of minutes left. During the discussions, will he raise the impunity of the armed forces in relation to the decision taken by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on one of the cases there and whether the belief is that the new law in Mexico meets the requirements of that court?
Mr Lidington
I will make sure that that idea is drawn to the attention of both the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, and the Foreign Secretary.
The war on drugs featured as a case study in last year’s FCO human rights report, and the issue of Mexico and impunity will feature in this year’s report.
During 2013-14, our embassy in Mexico City helped to fund an initiative called Citizens in Support of Human Rights—or CADHAC, to use the Spanish acronym—to support efforts to strengthen criminal prosecution and judicial processes in the northern state of Nuevo Leon, where the majority of enforced disappearances are alleged to have happened. We believe that as a result of that project, the legal framework to address enforced disappearances has been strengthened and access to justice improved, but we are continuing efforts to build and strengthen links with human rights organisations in Mexico and to secure funding for similar grass-roots projects now and for the future.
In the coming months, we will be supporting a project to strengthen the judicial system in the state of Chiapas, and in the future we particularly hope to support charities and NGOs working to tackle enforced disappearances. We believe that regular constructive dialogue with Mexico will bring the best results for human rights defenders and victims of human rights abuses and violations.
The UK enjoys a strong bilateral relationship with Mexico that allows for full and frank conversation. We have well established co-operation on such matters as climate change, transparency, non-proliferation and international development. The 2015 year of the UK and Mexico and the state visit of President Pena Nieto in early March will provide further scope for such constructive engagement. One of the messages that we raise in our discussions with Mexican Ministers and officials is that greater respect for human rights and the rule of law and improved security will lead to a better environment for business and investment. The two should not be seen as in any way in opposition. Respect for the rule of law gives confidence to business in terms of trade and investment commitments in the future.
It is right that the international community, including the United Kingdom, should respond vigorously to allegations of human rights violations in Iguala and elsewhere. We recognise the human rights challenges that Mexico faces, and through constructive dialogue as part of a positive, bilateral relationship, we stand ready to support the Mexican Government in their efforts to deliver on their international human rights commitments and ensure that those responsible for human rights abuses are brought to justice and held accountable.
Jeremy Corbyn
I want to make one last point to the Minister. Will he assure the House that the embassy will be fully staffed in Mexico City—I pay tribute to the staff there; I have met them many times and they are always extremely helpful—to ensure that there is a good, strong and effective human rights and legal affairs team there that can take part both in European monitoring as well as UN monitoring of what is going on in Mexico? We all need to take part to improve the human rights and life chances of many people in Mexico.
Mr Lidington
Our ambassador and his team see human rights as a very important part of their responsibilities, but again I shall make sure that that strong message from the House this afternoon is conveyed both to him and to the officials to whom he reports.
Rail Services (Blackpool North)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is fortuitous to be called to speak in this debate now, given the timely change that is happening for rail in Lancashire, and the number of rumours flowing in local papers and on the internet. I am grateful for the opportunity. I agonised a little over what subject to propose for the debate: should it be about rail services from or to Blackpool North? Blackpool is a holiday resort so we want people to come to it, but I would not want to deny my constituents the chance to travel from the station at some point. So, I covered both. I have a lot to get through, so I will be as brief as I can.
Blackpool North is no tiny rural stopping point. It is the eighth largest station on the northern rail network. Its size needs to be set against the 66% increase in passenger numbers in the whole northern franchise in the past decade. However, there has recently been an immense amount of negative coverage in the local press about Blackpool North rail services. Real concerns have been raised, and it is worth quoting the council’s recent submission to the franchise consultation:
“Government and Network Rail’s continued commitment to national rail investment in an austere period is welcome”.
I endorse those sentiments—all our comments should be placed in that context—but a handful of people passionately believe that the Government are seeking in some way to downgrade services to Blackpool North. If that is so, they have found an expensive way to go about it. However, I would welcome a stern rebuttal from the Minister, explaining why that is not what is happening.
We have a lot of good news to trumpet. We have just restored the direct rail service to London Euston with Virgin. It is not ideal timing. At 5.25 in the morning even I am not at my best—believe it or not—and the 4.30 pm return journey from Euston means that many things that people might want to do during the day cannot be done, but it is better than nothing. However, my real concern is that it should not be just a short-term wonder that will disappear when the franchise process is over and Virgin feels secure and can stop it again. I would welcome some reassurance on that point.
We need to make sure that when electrification is complete we upgrade the rolling stock in line with that new capability. Electrification is the second piece of good news. The line between Preston and Blackpool will be significantly enhanced, but the consultation in early 2014 suggested it would all be done by March 2017. I would welcome clarification, because there has been a lot of argument locally about what the precise timings are. Are they still as they were in the original consultation or has there been slippage? If so, is that related to finance—the money made available by the Government in the next control period—or has it more to do with the change in the sequencing of the different electrification projects, because of changes at Euxton junction station box, which I think lies at the heart of it?
There are queries about rolling stock. As the Minister knows, we have an excellent service from Blackpool North to Manchester airport, using class 170 units. However, they have a crucial flaw for a route connecting a holiday resort and an airport—there ain’t much luggage space on them. People struggle to cram their suitcases on and children hang off the sides—not quite; that would be a rail safety issue. However, it is incredibly overcrowded, and that needs to change.
I suppose I should welcome the fact that we are to have larger trains with more seats—800,000 per annum, in fact. That must be a good thing, but the cost of solving that capacity problem will be that we shall be using older carriages. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) regards the trains in question as less comfortable, and they may well be for someone whose bottom is sitting on them, but I commuted for many years from Layton to Salford Crescent on those services, and nothing is less comfortable than a standing journey all the way to Manchester. This is an improvement, but I hope the Minister can see that it is a case of one step forward and perhaps one step back. We have not made enough progress on improving that rolling stock.
Another annoyance is that the carriages that we thought we were getting appear to be heading down to leafy Oxfordshire, to the Chiltern line. That has caused a little bit of local resentment, and I could not possibly comment on why that might be.
The next concern, which the Minister is no doubt sick to death of hearing about, is the Pacers—the buses on wheels. They are absolutely appalling; no one disagrees about that. I welcome the fact that they will be refurbished, but that is not quite enough to put a smile on my face, because I am concerned that within the new franchising process there will be some sort of pay-off—better rolling stock, but fewer stopping services. That would affect another station in my constituency, Layton, where I used to embark for my commuting, because it has seen an increase in passenger numbers in the past year alone of 11.5%. If the cost of getting better carriages on the Blackpool North line is fewer stopping services, Layton will suffer, and Layton is a major commuting point, so I would like the Minister to take account of that concern.
I am glad that the Government recognise that Pacers have had their day. I just wish that we had slightly better alignment over when we actually get round to replacing them, so that it could be done a little more quickly. This goes to the nub of rolling stock policy. I regard it as the equivalent of quadratic equations in terms of rail policy. Despite years of trying, I have never got my head around either of them. I spent a good few years on the Select Committee on Transport and I struggled to work out how rolling stock procurement in this country functioned. I failed: whenever I thought I had got it, another little quirk crept in. It is a very frustrating process, and everyone looks at everyone else in it. We seem to be spending an awful lot of money enhancing the network—that is very welcome—but I am talking about improvements in routings, in the track and in the capability of the track. At the same time, we are not investing at the same pace in the rolling stock that can operate on it. That was a clear finding in the most recent Transport Committee report. In my view, the two have to go together.
Rolling stock leasing companies appear bereft of the ability or unwilling to state how they will improve rolling stock provision. No one seems willing to grasp the levers, pull them and make the upgrades happen. What we seem to get is the leftovers from down south, which are cascaded northwards. I would far rather have a clearer view of when improved rolling stock will come, even if it is a few more years into the future.
My next concern relates to how Northern and TransPennine Express will interact as two separate franchises. There is a suggestion that some of the Blackpool North services will be folded into the Northern franchise. That causes a degree of local concern. People are also looking rather enviously, for a change, over at Cleethorpes. We normally look down on Cleethorpes as a lesser seaside resort, but people in Cleethorpes have achieved a great deal, because they have managed to save their TransPennine Express franchise, and good for them—well done to the Member of Parliament there—but if Cleethorpes can have that, why cannot Blackpool North?
We are quite keen on our TransPennine Express franchise and want to keep its services, too. What impact would that have on our routes to York and the relatively new route to Huddersfield, all of which are important for getting tourists into town at the height of the summer season? I would far rather be making the case for new routes and services from Blackpool North than fighting to retain and justify what we already have.
The new announcement that TransPennine Express will use some Northern rolling stock on Blackpool North services in the coming weeks as part of the cascade process makes me concerned that the decision has already been made and set in stone and therefore will not be changed. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that in particular.
However, I really want to focus on today’s little bombshell in my inbox, which is the suggestion that in some way we will now see fewer services to Liverpool Lime Street. They will reduce from four an hour to three an hour and terminate at Preston. Anyone who has had the misfortune to terminate at Preston and have to transfer to a Blackpool service knows that that is not a pleasant experience. There are better things to do close to midnight than trudge over that dreadful station bridge while carrying luggage. It is simply not good enough.
In addition, two of the most popular originating stations for travellers to Blackpool North are Liverpool Lime Street and Wigan North Western, both of which will be affected by the proposed change. I want to know what new services can be included for Blackpool North; it should not just be a case of trying to retain the old ones. I would be grateful for clarity from the Minister on the latest rumour.
There are things to welcome. The northern hub has excited me ever since I first heard about it because it is an opportunity to transform rail services across the north. The language of the northern powerhouse and the possibility of HS3 signify great things for the future, but we also have the here and now to worry about. I welcome devolution in the form of Rail North, which is a good step. Part of me regrets the lost four years after we abolished “The Northern Way”, which was rapidly heading in that direction. After abolishing it, we stepped back for four years before reinventing the wheel and calling it Rail North. There has been a lost opportunity, but Rail North is a real chance. I share the Select Committee’s concern that smaller authorities such as Blackpool might feel a bit left out in the formation of Rail North. Are they hearing all the information that they need to hear? The report contains some concerning suggestions.
I stress the importance to the resort of services to Scotland and the Pennine towns, especially in south Yorkshire, to which we have poor links. That relates to open access, which is one of my hobby horses. The Government have not done enough on open access. I am glad that the Competition and Markets Authority will try to put a bomb under the Office of Rail Regulation to allow for more open access, which can only be a good thing.
Open access will benefit places such as Blackpool North. When we have our Glasgow week, I want loads of services bringing people down from Glasgow, but I do not want those services every week of the year. There is capacity on that stretch of the west coast main line, and such services could be incorporated and would be attractive. It needs to be much easier for people to take that step, invest in the services, and be innovative and creative in growing the passenger base. Good connectivity within the northern hub cannot rely only on people changing trains at Manchester Piccadilly, however smooth and swift that may be. We need more services that go across the northern part of the Pennine routes so that people do not have to go through Manchester Piccadilly. It is important for the Government to dwell on that.
The Minister might have noted last week’s Centre for Cities report comparing different city regions. Blackpool did not come out well. I think a few statistical quirks lay behind that, but the sum total was that some 14,000 jobs have been lost since 2004. However, I am pleased to say that private sector job growth in my constituency has been stark since 2010, so it is going in the right direction in my local area. It is easy to link that to other areas of the north such as Halifax, Hartlepool and Sunderland, which have all seen private sector growth and general job growth over that decade.
What connects those three towns? They all have good, competitive open-access arrangements alongside the franchise alternatives, which is driving the market to the benefit of passengers. It is also good for the local economy and for jobs growth. I would like the Government to be more ambitious for open access in the north because it can deliver on economic growth.
My final point is slightly obtuse, but it is important none the less for many of my constituents. When I was standing waiting for the train down to Euston one Monday morning, staff from two rail companies approached me with very serious concerns about staff safety on trains going in and out of Blackpool North. The period of risk for staff, and indeed for passengers, on those trains is elongated compared with many other towns because of the nature of our entertainment industry. Throwing out times can be at any hour of the day or night, and many who leave the nightclubs at 3 am will get on the first train in the morning from Blackpool North. There is concern about the inadequate number of British Transport police on the right trains at the right time when staff are at greatest risk.
I wrote to British Transport police on 9 October, and I have not heard a dicky-bird since, which is deeply disappointing. I still have constituents who are being put at risk and who would love to see more British Transport police on the platforms, particularly on bank holiday weekends, but also on Friday and Saturday nights throughout the year. The key early morning trains, including the first train of the day, may well be the most risky for staff. The Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers agrees with me—I do not usually pray the RMT in aid, but on this occasion we are in agreement—and I would welcome the Minister putting some pressure on British Transport police to look into that situation.
In my 15 minutes—I have just made it by 10 seconds—I have given the Minister an awful lot to reply to. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing this vital debate on train services to and from Blackpool North station. He has spoken eloquently about the opportunities and investment that Government plans for rail in the north of England have brought to the vital seaside resort of Blackpool and the rest of the region. I thank him for his words of support for the overall direction of the investment plan and hope that I will be able to address all of his points in the minutes left to me.
It is an exciting time for rail passengers in the north of England. My hon. Friend represents a beautiful constituency with an amazing huge, vaulted station, built in Victorian times to deal with the millions of people who travelled by rail to take their holidays in Blackpool. Frankly, like the rest of the country, his part of the world has suffered from years of under-investment in the rail network and in rolling stock, as he rightly pointed out. That is why I am so pleased that it is this Government who have set out plans to spend an unprecedented £38 billion on the rail network over the next five years—the biggest investment since Victorian times.
There will soon be two new rail franchise lets in my hon. Friend’s region, Northern and TransPennine Express. Shamefully, under the previous Government those franchises were let on a zero-growth, zero-investment basis. On my watch, they will be let absolutely on the basis that there will be more growth and investment to benefit passengers who travel to and from Blackpool North and right across the region. That is because the economy of the north is vital to the prosperity of this country, from the huge cities of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield to industrial and freight hubs such as Hull and cultural and tourist centres such as Blackpool. It is vital that we keep investing.
We will also continue to invest in the most significant rail modernisation programme for generations. As my hon. Friend mentioned, that includes the northern hub programme and the electrification of routes in the north-west, including the recently announced confirmation of electrification of the Windermere branch and the north TransPennine line between Manchester and York.
My hon. Friend asked about the timing of that electrification. I can confirm that the electrification from Preston to Blackpool is planned for early 2017, within this capital period. As he knows, the programme is complicated and the work has not been undertaken before, so it is absolutely right that sequencing is carried out. However, I can confirm that those are the current dates for the work.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has also set out his vision of a northern powerhouse, bringing together the cities of the north of England so that they can take on the world. That is why we are looking at electrification right across the region, as well as options for how we can create high-speed rail services in the north of England, plans dubbed “HS3”. That is how we are building a long-term economic plan for this vital region and the country as a whole.
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, we do not want to talk only about jam tomorrow; we want to talk about steps to improve and enhance services for his constituents now. Like him, I was delighted to welcome the launch of the Virgin Trains west coast direct service. It had not happened for the previous 11 years. I am told the service is well used—I know both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) have taken it. It came about as a result of the Government’s negotiations with the operator of the new direct award franchise on the west coast.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys asked whether the service would continue. That is an operational matter, but based on current traffic numbers and what the service’s bosses say, I cannot imagine that it would not be common sense to keep it running. It means that people from his constituency can get down to London on weekday mornings in time for a 9 o’clock meeting, albeit with a very early start. I know that Virgin worked hard with the Department to find a way to provide those services. Also, let us not forget the direct services to Shrewsbury that were secured at the same time.
My hon. Friend raised concerns about crowding on services from Blackpool and the implications of the transfer of the class 170 trains from TPE down to the leafy Chilterns. As he knows, that decision is a commercial one made by the private sector rolling stock operator, but it was vital that the Department worked with operators and the leasing company to make sure that current services could be maintained on the franchise.
My hon. Friend will know that some of the trains now running on his lines, the class 156 trains, are older. However, they look reasonable—I have looked at them—and will provide a significant increase in capacity on those vital lines, with about 2,500 more seats a day being provided from Blackpool to Manchester Airport station via Bolton. That is, of course, a relatively short-term solution until electrification continues across the whole network. I take his point about luggage capacity, which is very important for people travelling to and from airports and to Blackpool North. I hope that he will report back to me that people can get on with their cases, given that a little more space is being provided.
I believe that the solution is a decent one. It works, and it has an impact on crowding on the line. The new franchise, which will be let on the basis of new investment in the north, is the perfect time to take a look at the rolling stock solution for the region in the long term. The Pacers, as everyone from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, have served their time. There are other opportunities, particularly for electrified trains.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing the debate. He is a true advocate for rail transport on behalf of his constituents. When it comes to investment, I urge the Minister to look at Kirkham and Wesham station, where there is no disabled access lift. If we are improving services, we must improve them for disabled people, too, to ensure that they can access the trains from that busy station.
Claire Perry
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that vital point, and we will certainly look at that as part of the overall franchise specification. You and I have had many conversations about the Pacers, Mr Davies. I have seen them for myself and travelled on them, and I believe that passengers’ concerns are entirely justified.
Bidders on the Northern franchise will be expected to include plans to phase out the outdated Pacer trains. The exact details are being considered and will be contained in the invitation to tender, which is expected to be published shortly. The new franchise is the right time to set out the growth aspiration for routes right across the north, including those in my hon. Friends’ constituencies, and I am looking forward to making those announcements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys referred to the potential for services from Blackpool North to Manchester airport to be remapped, so that they would all fall under one franchise. The thinking behind the proposal was that it would allow the entire electric fleet to be managed by Northern, which might provide a more efficient solution for rail services. The consultation, published last year, included a specific question on that, and we have listened carefully to the responses.
No final decision has been taken, contrary to what my hon. Friend may have heard. We have had a number of representations. To be absolutely clear, I expect there to be no decline in service quality, regardless of any route mapping. It would not be acceptable to remap for operational efficiencies and expect passengers to suffer a downgraded service quality. That will not happen on my watch.
I wanted to reply to a couple of the other points that my hon. Friend raised. One point was about Blackpool’s voice within Rail North, and how loudly Blackpool could shout in that forum. I know that Blackpool stands up and punches above its weight in many other areas, so it would be entirely appropriate for the voice of Blackpool and the entire county to be heard. The intention of Rail North is to get closer to rail users so that decisions are made not by my very effective officials, but at a local level for the benefit of local people. I hope that Blackpool will have a strong voice in that process.
My hon. Friend raised a worrying concern about staff safety. I commend, as I am sure he does, the staff on the trains on dealing with circumstances that sound difficult. I will certainly raise that point directly with the head of the British Transport police, Paul Crowther. I will ask for a response to my hon. Friend’s letter and what can be done to improve staff safety.
My hon. Friend also asked about open access. I share his view on that, and we have many conversations about it in the Department, because I, too, see the benefits that it can bring. Of course, there are always challenges when we are looking at the overall package and letting franchises based on the revenue that might be available. I will not go any further than that, for fear of upsetting my officials.
In conclusion, I hope that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have been reassured that the Government are passionate about the improvement required to rail services in the north of England, particularly in his constituency. The Government are listening to the needs of passengers. I have said before, and I will say again, that the railway is not simply a series of metal boxes on wheels being shunted around; it is about moving people around, to and from their holidays, jobs and families. It is vital that their needs are put at the heart of our decisions.
We are making investments in the region in tracks and rolling stock. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in the next Parliament, should we both be lucky enough to be returned, about the impact that that is making on the vital economic performance of the area that I know he is proud to represent, and which he represents so assiduously.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Competition and Markets Authority: Contingencies Fund Advance
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills wishes to report that a cash advance of £13 million from the Contingencies Fund has been sought for the Competition and Markets Authority (“the CMA”).
The advance is required to meet an urgent cash requirement on existing services pending parliamentary approval of the 2014-15 supplementary estimate. The supplementary estimate seeks an increase in net cash requirement in order to settle material liabilities arising from an increase in the level of existing services and utilisation of a budget cover transfer from BIS to the CMA.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £13 million, will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the CMA. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure, estimated at £13 million, will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.
[HCWS227]
Construction Update
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
On 15 July 2014 my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) announced to the House our plans for the divestment of public sector ownership of the Constructionline scheme by a competitive sale process. I now have pleasure in announcing to the House that the sales process has been successfully completed.
At the time of announcing Government’s divestment of the scheme it was noted that Constructionline had operated to reduce the administrative burden from businesses in the construction industry, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, and that there were now a number of further opportunities to help business which were best developed by a private sector owner of Constructionline within the competitive market.
I am pleased to note that bidders have recognised and responded positively to those opportunities throughout the competitive bid process and I can announce that Capita will become the new owner of the scheme from today. The receipt for the sale of £35 million is good value for money for the taxpayer.
[HCWS228]
Housing Delivery
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I would like to update hon. Members on some of the recent actions that the coalition Government are taking on housing delivery, as part of our long-term economic plan.
Helping councils build more homes
The Government are pleased to announce the publication of the report on the independent review into the role of local authorities in housing supply, carried out by Natalie Elphicke and Councillor Keith House: “From statutory provider to housing delivery enabler: Review into the local authority role in housing supply.”
The Government welcome the report, which found that local authorities could do more to play a central role in supporting the provision of new homes, across all housing tenures. As set out in last year’s autumn statement, the Government welcome the core recommendation in the review that councils should become housing delivery enablers. The Government also accept the proposal that they should consult on extending the local government transparency code to cover all housing revenue account land. We also accept other key recommendations including that the Government monitor schemes to support small builders, and consider strengthening advice to encourage more councils to proactively support neighbourhood planning.
Additionally, the review makes a number of interesting recommendations for local authorities to proactively use existing powers, levers and opportunities, including periodically testing value for money from their contracts. Local authorities and local councillors will be able to consider how best to take these proposals forward within their existing resources. The review makes a number of further recommendations that Government consider interesting, including some that need further detailed consideration with partners as appropriate. We will consider these proposals separately in due course.
Ministers would like to put on record their thanks to Natalie Elphicke and Keith House for their dedication and hard work in carrying out this review.
Rewarding councils for house building
On 16 December 2014, we announced provisional new homes bonus allocations for local authorities. The representation period closed on 14 January 2015. We received 12 representations. These have been taken into account in finalising the figures.
We will pay £1.2 billion of new homes bonus to local authorities in England. This includes instalments from the previous four years of the bonus. These allocations bring the total amount of funding awarded under the new homes bonus since it began in April 2011 to £3.4 billion. This total recognises delivery of over 700,000 homes, and over 100,000 empty properties being brought back into use.
The bonus will be paid in respect of 165,000 homes from October 2013 to October 2014 including 155,000 extra homes and 10,000 long-term empty properties brought back into use. The allocations also include an affordable homes enhancement, which totals £15 million in respect of 43,000 new affordable homes. The Department is writing to local authorities confirming their final allocations and I am writing to all Members of Parliament and local authority leaders in England.
Building homes on brownfield land
The national planning policy framework makes clear the need to prioritise building on previously-used brownfield land and more than two thirds of all new homes are now built on brownfield sites. But the Government want to go further—and have set a clear ambition to have local development orders in place for new homes on over 90% of suitable brownfield land by 2020.
Today, we are announcing a multi-million pound fund to help deliver 200,000 new homes on brownfield sites across the country. This will enable councils to bring forward brownfield sites of 100 homes or more in their area—making it quicker and easier for developers to get work started.
Planning permissions granted through local development orders will give the green light for new homes to be built on those sites and will let developers get planning permission quickly—getting workers on site quicker and homes that communities want built.
The Government will also publish proposals for the collection, sharing and reporting of information by local authorities on suitable brownfield land. Information would be updated at least annually, and would enable local residents to see the land that is available for new homes in their area—and to challenge councils to get work started.
Strengthening shared ownership
This week we will be publishing, with the Homes and Communities Agency, a technical consultation on proposals to streamline the resale of shared ownership properties. This builds on our commitment in the autumn statement to work with housing associations, lenders and the regulator to identify and lift barriers to extending shared ownership.
All shared ownership homes funded through the affordable homes programme—outside London—include a pre-emption right in the lease which secures the housing provider’s ability to nominate a subsequent purchaser for current and former shared ownership homes.
In some cases, this right of pre-emption has raised barriers to selling on. It can lengthen the selling process; can deter buyers; and lenders can view it as hampering the ability to realise the value of the home for the householder, and hence restrict their lending in this market.
We will be seeking views on a range of options on the pre-emption right; evidence on the operation of the current pre-emption right; other methods used to retain homes within shared ownership at the time of selling on; and how we might streamline the process for selling on shared ownership properties and encourage the market for second-hand shared ownership homes.
Since the end of 2009, we have delivered over 700,000 new homes across England. There is still more to do to, but this illustrates how this Government’s long-term economic plan is building more houses, giving more power to local communities, and helping people move on to and up the housing ladder.
Copies of the documents associated with these announcements will be placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS230]
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (Statutory Review)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The Government have announced the appointment of Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts to conduct a review of the operation of the regulatory regime governing third parties at the 2015 general election.
The review will report on the operation and effectiveness of the provisions regulating third parties contained within part 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The regulation of third party campaigners was amended by the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.
When assessing the effectiveness of the current provisions governing third party campaigning within part 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the reviewer should consider the following principles:
the need to maintain public trust and confidence in the regulatory regime governing third parties; and
the need to ensure campaigning which seeks to influence voting intentions at elections is undertaken in an open and transparent way.
The review will assess whether third parties understood the regulatory rules, complied with those rules, and where breaches of the rules occurred, whether appropriate enforcement activity has been undertaken by the regulator.
In order to determine the above, the review will consider the following specific matters:
suitability of Electoral Commission guidance and whether it was clear to non-party campaigners what the regulatory rules are and their obligations under the regulatory regime;
appropriateness of the registration thresholds and the effect on the number of third parties registering;
the operation of the new reporting regime in relation to donations to recognised third parties;
the operation of the rules on lead/small campaigner provisions, where a coalition of third parties work together to a common plan; and
effective and proportionate enforcement of the rules by the Electoral Commission to ensure third parties comply with the regulatory regime, and where complaints or breaches occur, these are effectively and appropriately investigated and enforced.
Ministers are required to lay a copy of the reviewer’s report before Parliament before November 2016.
[HCWS229]
Grand Committee
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that, in the event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.
Clause 40: The Adjudicator
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, we come today to Part 4 of the Bill and the much debated topic of the Pubs Code and the adjudicator. The problems we are trying to address in the pubs industry have a long history. The imbalance in bargaining power between tied tenants and their pub-owning companies, and the difficulties that arise from this imbalance, have been well documented by the BIS Select Committee in four reports over the course of 10 years.
Part 4 of the Bill introduces a statutory Pubs Code and an independent adjudicator to enforce it, to provide much needed protections for the 13,000 or so tenants who are tied to large pub-owning companies in England and Wales. Furthermore, the other place voted to add to the Bill a market rent only option for pub tenants, meaning that pub-owning companies will be required to offer their tenants the right to go free of tie in certain circumstances. The tenant would then pay a market rent for the pub but would be free to purchase beer and other products from any source.
As I set out at Second Reading, the Government have listened to the decision in the other place and accept that there should be a market rent only option. The amendments I am moving today seek to make the provision workable and mitigate the potential unintended consequences. The amendments, which are split into three separate clauses for clarity, set out a clear framework for the market rent only option, make provision for the procedures needed to deliver it, and provide for the adjudicator to resolve disputes. Our amendments will provide tied tenants with the right to a market rent only agreement at a number of trigger points, including at a rent review; at a lease renewal; when there is a significant and unexpected price increase; or if a local economic event occurs that is outside the tenant’s control. Although prospective tenants will not have the right to the market rent only option, our amendments provide that they will have the protection of the parallel rent assessment—PRA—which will show them how their tied deal compares with a free-of-tie deal.
Although I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting him, I pay tribute to my honourable friend Greg Mulholland for his tireless campaigning on behalf of pub tenants. I would also like to thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for the constructive discussions we have had in advance of today’s debate and the perceptive questions they have raised with me. I can assure the Committee that the Government are committed to making the market rent only provision workable and legally robust. That is why we have brought forward these amendments, which are needed to ensure that the benefit to pub tenants can be achieved.
For example, the market rent only clause introduced in the other place provided MRO to tenants on entering administration. Rather than provide protection for tenants, this could hasten the route to company liquidation, which would certainly not be in the tenant’s interests. The Government’s amendments attempt to address such unwelcome effects, which I will cover in more detail as the Committee progresses.
There may be some differences of opinion on the detail of the Government’s new clauses, which the House will rightly want to debate, but I encourage the Committee to accept these amendments today to ensure that a workable framework is in place as the basis for further discussion on Report. The Government’s new clauses set out in the Bill the key principles of the market rent only option, and I am sure that we will debate these during the course of today. Our new clauses provide for the details of the market rent only process and market rent only triggers to be set out in secondary legislation.
For example, this includes the point at which the market rent will begin to be paid. I know some would prefer this detail to be set out in primary legislation but this would not allow for the consultation that is essential to get this right. There has been very limited consultation because of the genesis of this clause. I believe that that is a risky way to legislate. A full public consultation will help to ensure that the process works as we all intend. The use of secondary legislation for this purpose also allows some flexibility if a review later demonstrates the need for a change of process.
I know that a number of my noble friends and other noble Lords have tabled amendments to the market rent only provisions. I think it would be right to let them speak before I try to respond to the amendments.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that introduction. I have two amendments in this group and I am certainly not happy that they are in a group of 66 amendments. This must be about a record for Committee stage. It is interesting that amendments in this group have been put down by a number of different noble Lords, but there are five separate groups further on for amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I am sure that he deserves such special treatment but I wonder why. I do not know whether any other noble Lord was consulted about this grouping—I certainly was not. I give notice that I would like to debate Amendment 90A separately. I do not know whether any other noble Lords will have a similar view, but I hope that that is acceptable.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I also have a number of amendments in this group. I think the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that these amendments are all about Clause 42 and the subsequent groups are about subsequent clauses. What we are doing here is debating the whole of Clause 42, rightly or wrongly. It may be too big a group but that, I think, is the background. I think other amendments to subsequent clauses form other groups.
The Government have said that they will accept the spirit of the amendments passed in the other place, but I am afraid that despite the Minister’s assurance—
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, proceeds, the point made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley indicates a more serious procedural problem. It is not that these amendments are not serious, but they are specific. I also have some amendments in this group, but if I degroup them, a decision would have been taken on the Minister’s amendments before we reached the appropriate point in the text of the Bill.
We have a very new clause, inserted at the final stage in the Commons. The Minister quite rightly said that there has been limited chance for consultation on that. We have a huge amendment from the Government deleting an entire clause and replacing it. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Hodgson, and I, all have amendments to the original amendments. My noble friends Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Stevenson have amendments to the Government’s amendments. So, there is not only a large number of amendments, but it is going to be a very confusing debate.
That is not to say that we should not have the debate today. However, the way that this has been dealt with, and the fact that consultation since the Commons decisions until now has not allowed consultation with the bodies that represent tied landlords, has not allowed for significant debate with those in the Commons who pushed this amendment. We have a few weeks between now and Report stage for proper consultation to take place. I am very happy to have the discussion today because that will inform the Government, but at the end of that discussion it will behove all of us to withdraw our amendments and move them for a proper discussion on Report, which could have been preceded by some effective consultation between the Government and the various parties involved, both politically and industrially.
Although we can degroup this group, there is a rather more profound problem here. If all noble Lords agree to withdraw their amendments at the end of the debate, there is no great problem and we can have a sensible discussion over the next three weeks. However, if we proceed, we proceed as per normal. It would be sensible, even from the Government’s point of view, if we allowed ourselves a bit of a breathing space to have those discussions.
Lord Berkeley
Is my noble friend suggesting that the Minister should withdraw her amendments as well?
Lord Snape (Lab)
Before the Minister replies, I endorse and agree with the remarks made by my noble friends. On Second Reading, I intervened on the Minister’s opening remarks. I said:
“I am sure that the House will recognise how far the Government have moved on this”—
that is, the principle of consultation—
“and will welcome that movement. However, can she assure us that any future discussions will involve representatives of the tenants and will not be dominated by the pubcos?”.
The Minister replied as follows:
“My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are always discussing these issues”—
I emphasise the word “always”—
“and changes with tenants—that is extremely important when you are making changes of any kind—and, indeed, they have helped us to get to the position that we are now in”.—[Official Report, 2/12/14; col. 1243.]
That is not the view of the tenants who I have spoken to. Indeed, most of them take the view that the position we are now in is thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and some of the pubcos.
Although we are grateful to the Minister for the sympathetic way in which she pointed out that there was a difficulty with some of the amendments in the group, we should return to the question of consultation. I hope that she will spend some time explaining to us exactly what consultation has taken place and with whom. Is it true, for example, that, despite the Minister’s promise on Second Reading, the consultation with the representatives of tenants consisted of an hour or so in the department? What consultation has taken place with the pubcos in the department and elsewhere?
I have a feeling, looking around at the Room, that a considerable amount of entertaining—if I can put it that way—has gone on over lunch. Perhaps the views of the pubcos have played a major role not only in the grouping of the amendments—about which we rightly complain—but the sentiments that the Minister expressed and, I fear, will express, about the postponement of proper legislation that was voted on in the House of Commons but seems to us by the amendment and the grouping to be being flouted by the Government.
I hope that the Minister can reassure us at this early stage, because if she cannot, I can assure her of a fairly long and drawn out Committee sitting here today, and that a considerable number of amendments will be tabled at Report on behalf of those who feel that they have a raw deal under the existing arrangements and cannot see it getting any better under the Government’s proposals.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, I think we are still intervening on the speech of my noble friend Lord Hodgson on these procedural matters. I urge my noble friend not to withdraw all her amendments for the simple reason that I find it very difficult to unravel, from all the amendments tabled by the Government and by others, exactly where we are supposed to be at the end of the process that the Government wish. It would be helpful to write the Government’s proposals in full into the legislation at this stage, so that we and everyone else who is to be consulted in a short while can see exactly what the Government are proposing properly set out. No doubt then, at Report, some noble Lords will move their amendments, whether they are identical to or different from those on the amendment paper.
Lord Snape
I find it difficult to imagine that someone with such a distinguished record as the Deputy Chief Whip in the other place can confess to any confusion about the layout of the Bill and the amendments. Regarding him seeking clarity, it was my experience in the Whips’ Office—although not personally with him—that clarity was sometimes the last thing that Deputy Chief Whips ever sought. Indeed, I find it surprising—as I suspect the Committee will—that the noble Lord should make such an admission at this early stage.
Lord Cope of Berkeley
That is as may be, but I hope, if the noble Lord thinks that I have diverted from my previous course of action, that that will strengthen the force of the remarks that I make.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to stand up before noble Lords start to talk about the amendments, but I am essentially, as noble Lords know, a practical person, keen to try to progress the Bill and to do the right thing with today’s business on pubs. I will respond to the point that has just been made on consultation and reassure the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that Jo Swinson, my friend in the other place, held a round table with pub companies and another with tenants, both for the same amount of time. Officials have also had discussions with people on both sides of the debate throughout, while always trying to be balanced and objective. Ministers, advisers and officials have also had several meetings with Greg Mulholland since Report in the Commons, although it would be fair to say that he is keen to keep his clause exactly as it is. So far, that has made progress a little difficult.
Lord Snape
I thought I heard the Minister say that she has not met Greg Mulholland. It is surprising that a Minister in charge of a Bill in your Lordships’ House has not got round to meeting the person responsible for a major amendment to that Bill, although she rightly paid him a compliment for the work that he has done. Is there any reason why she did not meet him?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Lord makes a good point. The Secretary of State and Jo Swinson have been intimately involved in all this. I have now taken over the yoke in this House. The next thing I was going to say is that I held an open-door session yesterday. Noble Lords were invited. I was surprised that more noble Lords were not able to come, but that might have been a timing issue. I am keen to get to know all the views of the Committee on this important issue. I joined the House of Lords because it is an important revising Chamber. We have to look at these things and get them right. Our door will be open between now and Report.
Clearly this group of amendments is very large, but I have already said that I would like to listen to what is being said by noble Lords on their amendments before I respond and comment on what we should do with our amendments. We are being very constructive; we are trying to seek a balance and to do the right thing. If we could get on and get into the detail we may find that we can narrow down some of our differences.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, when I was interrupted a minute or two ago I was explaining that I had some amendments here and that we had some doubts still, despite my noble friend’s assurances about the workability of what is now proposed. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who I think asked the question, that I do not propose to move my amendments today; I propose to have them discussed. I suspect that that is what he expected me to say, but then I suspect that he was not putting his question to me.
At this point I remind the Committee, as I did the House at Second Reading, that until a year ago I was a non-executive director of one of the six companies covered by the proposed code. The group of which I was a non-executive director had five breweries, two large ones and three small, stretching from Cumbria to Ringwood in the New Forest. It owns some 2,000 pubs, of which about 500 were managed, and the balance were tenanted in various forms.
This is a bit of housekeeping. The Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms has told me that it has been suggested that I did not declare this interest at Second Reading. For the record, I draw the attention of the Committee, and indeed the House, to col. 1289 of Hansard on 2 December, the date of the Second Reading of this Bill, in which I declared in terms the interest that I just declared. It was further suggested by someone that I did not declare my interest at the beginning of my speech. That is perfectly true; I did not. I think that the Companion does not require you to make your declaration at the beginning of the speech. The beginning of my speech was not about pubs; it was about pre-pack administrations and about the Government’s procurement policies as they affect small companies, in which I had no interest to declare. When we came to the pubs, I made the declaration that I have described, so I hope that we can draw a line under that question.
I thank my noble friend and her team of officials for the time they have given to discussing some of the operational problems that it is feared may occur. I thank the Government, having listened to some of the arguments that my noble friend has just briefly outlined for the Committee, which include a complete rewriting of Clause 42, which, as we realise, is the essential heart of the new regime. The amendments, as we have heard, were tabled last Thursday night, and it is fair to say that, given only three complete working days since, all parties are struggling to understand the full implications of what is now proposed. My noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley had a sensible suggestion to achieve some permanence that we can then discuss and amend on Report if necessary. I do not suppose that CAMRA will agree with much of what I say but it may be persuaded by some of the arguments, and I suspect it would agree that we are struggling slightly with the flow of information that has come so late in the day.
I have tabled a number of amendments to Clause 42, which form part of a strategic whole. Before discussing the amendments in detail, I shall take a few minutes to discuss the shape of the pub industry and how those amendments would be to its long-term advantage. I begin by making three things clear. First, these amendments do not—I repeat, not—seek to overturn the House of Commons decision to introduce a market rent only option, the MRO. I think that that is probably a mistake; time will tell, but it may accelerate pub closures. However, the Government have decided to accept the decision, so I want to move on from that point.
Secondly, the amendments are designed to help to keep pubs open. The sector is under pressure from a wide range of adverse tides. There seems to be a view that somehow pubcos want pubs to close. A landlord needs a tenant as much as a tenant needs a landlord. That is particularly true of the company with which I was involved, which brewed its own beer in integrated premises, and it is through its own pub estate that a large proportion, 25% to 35%, of the product is sold. A closed pub is of no use in this regard, and closure even for a short period can be disastrous. If I may use the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as an example, if he is in the habit of having a pint on the way home from work and his normal hostelry is the Crown but it closes for refurbishment, he will not cease having his pint but will go to the King’s Head, elsewhere in the high street. It may be that as a result of the Crown having closed for a bit, his permanent patronage will be shifted to the King’s Head. In the company in which I was involved, when we undertook refurbishment we wanted it to be as quick and painless as possible to avoid upsetting our regular clientele.
Thirdly, these amendments are designed to iron out some of the idiosyncrasies and unevenness that, if not changed, will seriously affect future investment in the sector and its longer-term health. I am afraid that it is not realistic to believe that individual free house operators will have access to the sums of capital that large companies have at their disposal.
I turn to the industry. As I have said, the Bill affects only six companies, unless the Government accept Amendment 69A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is not surprising that the issue of hybridity has raised its head and has had to be addressed in Clause 70(3). The six companies fall into two categories: two of them brew beer as well as owning pubs, which they sell in part through their own estate. They also sell in supermarkets, through independent pubs, free houses, off-licences and so on. I will refer to these as the integrated model. The other companies are pubcos. They do not brew beer; they very often buy their beer in from breweries operated by their rivals. They are clearly more focused on the rental levels available in their pubs.
As I explained at Second Reading, this rather counterintuitive structure of pure pubcos came about because of a parliamentary decision on the beer orders in the 1980s, which prevented breweries from owning more than 2,000 pubs. The disinvestment programmes forced on them resulted in what have become known as pubcos. They resulted from a parliamentary decision, which many argue had a completely unexpected and unintended consequence. We need to make sure that we do not set out today on a journey that has similar unintended consequences. By the way, some argue that the way in which this weakened the brewers weakened the whole of British beer on the pub market and led to the rise of foreign lagers, which are sold in every pub in the country. If your Lordships go into a pub you will be faced with Stella Artois, which is originally Belgian, Fosters and Castlemaine from Australia, Grolsch from Holland, Kronenbourg and, more recently, Peroni. Most, although not Peroni, are brewed here under licence but not owned in Britain at all.
Those two types of companies have differently aligned interests and objectives, but I would like the Committee to remember a further differentiation between managed and tied pubs. Managed pubs, as the title implies, are run by employees of the company who are paid a salary with a bonus and other fringe benefits. They are quite different from tied tenants, who are essentially self-employed small businessmen. All the issues about beer pricing and other conditions of the tie are of no interest to the manager, who is in effect running a branch office. I am very grateful to my noble friend for having made it clear in moving her amendment that managed houses have no place in the provisions of Part 4.
As I said at Second Reading, people feel strongly about pubs; even if they do not want to go to them, they like them to be there. Their disappearance is resented for removing an essential part of what people see as a community. Just how strongly people feel about pubs, though, even I underestimated. It is not often, working away as a humble Back-Bencher in the decent obscurity of your Lordships’ House, that a single sentence in a 13-minute speech can get one simultaneously on to the front pages of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph and described as an Islamophobe to boot. For the record, let me set my sentence in context.
I said that the pub trade in all its forms—tied, untied and free—faces very adverse tides, which are resulting in pub closures. The adverse tides, in which I fear that the tie plays only a marginal part, include cheap alcohol in the supermarket, with an average price of £1.13 per pint compared to about £3 in the pub, so that people drink at home; the rise in the consumption of other beverages not normally associated with the pub, such as wine; the rise in regulation including drink-driving, the smoking ban and new licensing laws; rises in costs, including council tax; and deep-seated socioeconomic changes, including the deindustrialisation of parts of Britain—I used the example of the carpet trade in Kidderminster at Second Reading—and the arrival of people whose faith forbids the drinking of alcohol. That last point is not in any way and was never meant to be a criticism, as I am a great believer in religious tolerance in every direction. However, it means that such people are, quite understandably, unlikely to be persistent frequenters of premises which, under Clause 65(3), are defined as ones in which,
“one of the main activities carried on at the premises is the retail sale of alcohol to members of the public for consumption on the premises”.
As a result of these trends, in which sectors of the pub trade are closures now taking place? From the publicity being given, it would appear that the conclusion is that nearly all the closures are taking place in the tied sector. The truth, I am afraid, is rather different. Mr Doug Jack, an analyst at Numis, the City investment house, says in a paper that the closure rate in the free-of-tie sector is more than double the closure rate in the tied, tenanted, leased sector. There is a multitude of reasons for this, all connected to the fact that tied pubs also tie the pub company into the pub’s success or failure. As part of the rent is paid through the beer, the pub company is motivated to drive up beer volumes, which is why pub companies invest substantial amounts in capital expenditure, tenant support and rent concessions when good licensees are struggling.
Lord Snape
If, as the noble Lord implies, the tie is not the principal reason behind the unhappiness of many tenants, perhaps I could refer him to the CAMRA report into the tie. Can he explain to the Committee why more than 70% of tied tenants feel that the tie is, to say the least, unhelpful to their business?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I do not say that the tie is perfect. In fact, I was about to say that the tie has had its imperfections. But I do not think the statistics that are produced by some of the pubcos show that there is the level of dissatisfaction that the CAMRA figures indicate. We can argue about the polling; no doubt the way you ask the question and who asks the question can move the figures around a bit. But I think the other side—the pubcos—would argue that actually the level of dissatisfaction among tenants is not as great as the CAMRA figures suggest.
Lord Snape
Again, can the noble Lord give us some examples? If CAMRA has got it wrong and he has got it right, perhaps he can explain to the Committee how he has come to that conclusion.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble Lord is very kindly almost making my speech for me. I was about to say—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I was about to say that in the 25,000 or so examples of tied tenancies, I do not doubt that there are examples of egregious behaviour by pub owners. Those need to be addressed swiftly and promptly. But I do argue, and I will provide at least two specific examples when we come to Amendment 82 on significant investment—I remember the noble Lord, Lord Snape, chiding me at Second Reading and asking me to produce them—that the tie can work well for all parties and can provide a cheap and effective way of creating a satisfactory, profitable small business. I do not want to see the creation of a regulatory structure that strangles the possible advantages that the tie can offer.
To compete for people’s leisure time and their leisure pound, pubs have to offer an experience that is valued by the chosen target market. The target market may be younger males with sport, TV and pub games; younger females want more of a wine bar; families want play areas for children; and cheaper meals attract the retired. But noble Lords will quickly recognise that setting out first to choose a target market and then to develop it successfully takes experience and knowledge. That back-up and support is what in good circumstances a pubco can provide.
Whatever type of pub you are running, running a successful pub is very hard work: long, anti-social hours; periods of the year when external events such as the weather dramatically reduce your level of trade—this evening, if the weather continues as it is, pubs all over the country will be empty; and a readiness to deal with, humour and enjoy the company of the great British public in all their diversity. By no means do we all possess the multifaceted set of skills required to be a successful Mein Host.
Lord Berkeley
Looking at the list of groupings, it appears that the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is Amendment 69, which seeks to leave out Clause 41(6), which says:
“The Pubs Code may require large pub-owning businesses to provide parallel rent assessments”.
Is that what he has been speaking to for the past few minutes?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I hope I made it clear to the Committee that I was trying to give a bit of a tour d’horizon of how these amendments fitted into the future. I was trying to explain that the adverse tides, which I have just been talking about, are not part of the tie but are part of other, bigger issues. In a couple of minutes I will come to each of the amendments, of which Amendment 69 is the first.
I explained that running a pub was exceptionally hard work and many people coming into it, often as a second career, find that it is not as easy as it looks. Like all of us, they are inclined not to blame themselves but to look for somebody else to blame. In such circumstances, the owner of the tied pub can be a first, and relatively easy, target. A complaint sells itself well in the community and the local MP’s surgery. This does not just apply to pubcos; I have had correspondence since Second Reading from people with free-of-tie pubs which have fallen on difficult times. When they tried to close them they were prevented from doing so by them being listed as assets of community value, so they were left with a bit of a pub they could not sell and a pub which they did not want to buy.
Finally on this opening section, I draw the Government’s attention to what I call the nuclear option. This is not available to the integrated companies because, as I explained, they need the pub estate to sell their beer, but it is available to pubcos. The pure pubcos could react to this parliamentary focus on rent only by becoming property companies. They could cut their overheads drastically by removing all the pub support, such as business development managers. This would boost their profitability in the short term; in the longer term, they would sell the better performing parts of the estate to other companies while closing and seeking alternative uses for the rest. This nuclear option—and I have no idea how likely it is—could dramatically increase the rate of pub closures. The amendments in my name—the focus of the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, a minute ago—are designed, as a whole, to avoid a dogma-driven solution and instead create, with the MRO option, a balanced and flexible structure which affords the best chance of keeping pubs open in as many places as possible.
After that very long introduction, I will whip through the amendments in my name. Amendment 69 seeks to delete Clause 41(6). As my noble friend said, this proposes a system of parallel rent assessments. These might have been of value before the House of Commons amendment introducing the MRO and associated provisions. Given that change, parallel rent assessments are essentially duplicates of what is proposed elsewhere. I am not sure whether they are needed anywhere, but they are certainly not needed in connection with the MRO option. I hope that my noble friend will explain why they are still there and how they are supposed to operate within the confines of the Government’s proposed new clause to replace Clause 42.
The remainder of the amendments in my name are all concerned with Clause 42—which, as my noble friend has explained, it is proposed to remove. The proposed new clause definitely answers some of them, definitely does not answer others, and the impact in the remaining cases is unclear. I would be grateful for my noble friend’s help in bringing clarity to these points. Amendments 70 and 71 are covered because they are about tied and managed pubs and my noble friend has made it clear that managed pubs form no part of the new regime. Amendments 72, 73 and 74 are important because they concern integrated businesses that brew beer and sell it through their own estate. It must be logical for the Pubs Code to permit such businesses to require their tenants to stock their own brands of beer and cider. If, under the code, a new MRO tenant could immediately turn round to the pub owner and say: “I am not going to stock your beer any more: I am going to stock the beer of your bitter rival”, this would have a disastrous effect on pub ownership.
Lord Snape
Has the noble Lord reflected on the wording of Amendments 73 and 74? Does he feel that, as presently drafted, they restrain the sale of products other than beer, even if they do not stop it? I agree with the principle, but is he happy with the drafting?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Well, the focus in these pubs is on the beer—and possibly cider—because that is what is really essential to the brewers. That is part of their output. If they cannot sell their beer through the tied pubs, that might be cutting off 30% of their market.
Lord Snape
No, the point that I am seeking to make is that if the amendment is accepted, it appears to stop the tenant selling anything other than beer.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My wording is focused on beer and cider and not on other products at all. I think the clause is clear. It has to be read in conjunction with the fact that the MRO tenant can be clear that he is free to purchase those beers or ciders wherever he wishes, not necessarily through the brewery, so there can be no question of unfairness of pricing.
Lord Snape
I am sorry to keep interrupting; I am asking him to define his own amendments here. Brewers do not only sell beers. They sell soft drinks as well, which are often part of the tie. His amendments appear to stop them from doing that. That is the only point I am putting to him. To be quite honest, I think his amendments are daft anyway, but they appear even sillier when one reads them.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
There are two parts to this. The question is whether the tenant is being forced to take supplies at a price higher than he can buy elsewhere. The key part is to ensure that, if the tenant feels that he or she is not getting the fairest price from the brewery, he or she can buy elsewhere. They can go to a wholesaler or other sources. That is his or her protection. A protection for the brewery is that it can insist that its beer be sold. A protection for the tenant is that the brewery cannot insist that the beer be bought from that brewery. It can be bought wherever the tenant wishes. The brewery has to compete for it and make sure that they offer the keenest price to the tenant.
After that exchange, I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify and reassure me that the Government intends to provide certainty of supply, and that this provision will form part of the Bill. This is a very important amendment for the future of the industry.
Moving to Amendments 75, 76, 83 and 86, these are essentially drafting points to clarify the timing on when an MRO offer has to be made. I think the new clause addresses them but I hope my noble friend can confirm this.
Amendment 88 amends Clause 42(9)(b), adding at the end,
“provided that the requirement to enter into a new tenancy or lease if such tenants choose the Market Rent Only option shall not be considered discrimination”.
The purpose of that amendment is as follows. It would surely be unfair for the tenant to use the MRO option as a means to evade his obligations under his existing lease. A tenant may choose the MRO option, but having made that choice, he must then sign up for it and it should not be discriminatory for the pub owner to require him so to do. Further, in taking the MRO option, the tenant is electing to agree to a normal commercial lease as defined by the British Property Federation. That is to say, an MRO lease does not contain any special underlying legal features unique to the sector. It would be most helpful if my noble friend would give some assurance on that point.
Amendments 79 and 89 are about “significant” and “unfair” and potentially have a greater impact. They concern the events that can trigger the requirement to make an MRO option available. Clause 42(6)(b) requires the offer of an MRO option,
“when the large pub-owning business gives notice of, or imposes, (whichever is the earlier) a significant increase in the price at which it supplies products, goods or services”.
This wording appears to be replicated in subsection (6) of the proposed new clause. Amendments 79 and 89 propose to replace “significant” with “unfair”.
The question is, what constitutes a “significant increase”? Is it the right word anyway? The reasons given for the introduction of the Pubs Code revolve around the inequality of arms between the pub owner and the tenant. The Pubs Code is intended to ensure fair dealing between the two parties and give the tenant redress when unfair practices have taken place. The word “significant” is a general term, not a particular one. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “significant” as important and notable. There might be many reasons for there to be a significant, important and notable increase in the price of what the Bill calls a “product, good or service” supplied to a tenant.
Lord Berkeley
Has the noble Lord thought about what the word “unfair” means? For the pubco, it is probably different to what it means for the tenant. It seems to me to be rather more wishy-washy than “significant”.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that. I am about to come to the definition of “unfair” in about one second. I am talking about the importance of the definition of “significant” as important and notable. The price of beer might rise sharply because of: the cost of raw materials, such as hops; governmental action on alcohol taxation following medical advice; or increased delivery costs following price rises or road tax changes. It is surely not right to potentially penalise the pub owners alone as a result of such events, which have equal impact on all parties.
By contrast, coming to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “unfair” is: not equitable; “unjust”; not according to the rules; partial. In my view, this precisely matches the concept behind the Pubs Code. It is intended to deal with situations that are inequitable—that is to say unfair—between the two parties: the pub owner and the tenant. I hope that the Government will think again about this wording before Report.
I turn to Amendment 80, which concerns the other events that could trigger the requirement to offer an MRO option. This formed part of my noble friend’s introductory remarks. Clause 42(6)(c) requires an MRO offer on the sale of a pub. This would be quite unfair to pub-owning companies. Pubs, whether singly or in blocks, can be sold for perfectly legitimate reasons. So long as the tenant’s position is protected, as it would be, the identity of the owner really makes no difference to the tenant. If this paragraph were to remain in the Bill it would freeze up the market for pubs and so discourage investment.
The amendment also seeks to remove another trigger point at Clause 42(6)(d): that, if a pubco goes into administration, an MRO offer must follow to the tenants. I think that my noble friend addressed this point in her opening remarks. The same objections apply to this: provided that the tenant’s position is protected, he has no interest in the affairs of the pub owner. If this paragraph were to remain, it would have serious consequences for the industry. First, pubcos would find it much harder to borrow. From a bank or lender’s point of view, the fact that, on administration, the relationship of the pub owner could change with every one of its tied pubs would make lending significantly more risky and, therefore, less attractive, thereby reducing the flow of investment to the sector. Secondly, if administration was to occur, the position of the creditors would be significantly worsened as value could be destroyed by the uncertainties that would result from an MRO option. I understand that the Government are proposing to withdraw those paragraphs. I would like my noble friend to give that commitment.
Amendment 81 is also concerned with a trigger point: Clause 42(6)(e), which appears to form part of the proposed new clause at subsection (6)(d) and subsection (9). This also covers the emergence of trigger events. In the proposed new clause, the definition of a trigger event is drafted very widely and is likely to lead to a good deal of uncertainty in its application and interpretation. That is surely not to the advantage of any party in these circumstances.
We have the well established procedure that has been used to determine appeals against rateable value; that is, whether there is deterioration in the circumstances of a property. Paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act 1988 lays out the matters to be taken into account. They include,
“matters affecting the physical state or physical enjoyment of the hereditament … the mode or category of occupation of the hereditament … matters affecting the physical state of the locality in which the hereditament is situated or which, though not affecting the physical state of the locality, are nonetheless physically manifest there, and … the use or occupation of other premises situated in the locality”.
This definition sets out the criteria for when a change happens to a business and a rating reduction can be allowed. It is a well used and well understood definition that could, with advantage, be used to define when an MRO option could be triggered. I hope my noble friend will reflect further on this before Report.
I come now to Amendment 82 and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Snape. This is an important amendment and I do not think it has been addressed in new Clause 42. The amendment inserts into the Pubs Code:
“The Pubs Code shall offer an exemption from the Market Rent Only Option for a mutually agreed period in return for a significant investment by a large pub-owning business in that tenant’s pub”.
This would mean that if a pub-owning business spends a significant sum improving a pub, the Pubs Code would permit an agreement with the tenant for a period during which there would be an exemption from the MRO option.
Those who successfully proposed the amendment to Part 4 of the Bill in the House of Commons see the tie as universally malign—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, and I discussed a few minutes ago—an arrangement without merit and having no benefit. But this is not true. I was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, at Second Reading to produce evidence to support the continuation of the tie in any form, and this I will now do, with a couple of examples.
If I may, I will take the Committee to the Black Bull in Mansfield. I should make it clear that the tenant, Janice Shaw, has given permission for me to use it as an example. When Janice Shaw took the pub on, it was trading at about £7,000 a week as a result of a lack of catering facilities, which resulted in strict food service times and a rather poor food offering. The brewery invested £100,000 in the pub. It addressed kitchen standards and capacity, doubling the size of the kitchen by extending it into the car park. In addition, the pub was redecorated, with new signage and fixtures and fittings. The result is that the turnover is up to £10,000 a week—an increase of £3,000 a week or £150,000 a year. The brewery has increased the rent by £5,200, from £32,800 to £38,000, and is making, as it wished me to remind the Committee, £6,000 more from increased sales of beer. So from Janice Shaw’s point of view, she has £150,000 of extra revenue while the landlord has £11,200 of extra profit. It is doubtful whether a bank would have funded this. It is a messy lend, being part construction work, part purchase of fixtures and fittings, and part redecoration. Of course, a bank would not have had the same vision and confidence as to the likely success post-investment.
My second example is the Crown Hotel in Southwell, Nottinghamshire. Anna Guise is the current tenant. She took on the Crown in 2005. Although pretty well run, the site had become tired, resulting in the consumer often becoming confused; little food was being sold; the reliance on the town centre drinking circuit was evident; and there was a need to change to a more balanced offer in order to appeal to wider consumer groups. Anna Guise tried to invest in the site but could not afford the necessary capital and the pub remained in decline. To support the operation, the brewery reduced the rent and Anna’s father supported her with regular cash injections.
The brewery invested £84,000 in November 2013 without requesting any rental uplift. The cap ex addressed both internal and external standards, modernising throughout. It developed the back bar to include coffee, wine and a more rounded offer. A new menu was introduced and food was served all day. The evening drinking remained but the message to the consumer was that the feel of the building had been improved and fresh signage was introduced. Post investment, decline has been reversed and there is now 39% growth. That has enabled her to plan for a brighter future for her pub.
The basic point is that integrated pubcos that wish to sell will not invest £100,000, or even £84,000, if there is no guarantee that they will be able to sell their beer and if, after the money has been accepted and an investment has transformed the pub, the tenant will be able to say that they want to change the basis of the contract. The amendment would permit—not require—a situation in which if significant investment has taken place, of the sort that I have just described, the two sides could agree a period during which the MRO option would not be available. Without this, pubco investment will be significantly reduced, and I hope that my noble friend can give some reassurance on that point.
Amendments 84, 85 and 87 are drafting amendments to Clause 42(8). Subsection (8) is concerned with the 90-day assessment period during which an independent assessor reaches a judgment on the terms of the no-tie agreement. It is important to be clear what happens during that 90-day interregnum. It must be made clear that the tenant must comply with the existing contract until the new MRO contract comes into effect.
Finally—no doubt much to the relief of the Committee—Amendment 89 is paralleled in large measure by Amendment 83A in the name of my noble friend Lord Borwick, concerning the rather unattractively named SCORFA—special commercial or financial advantages. I will leave my noble friend to address that and how it will fit into the MRO world post the break of the tie.
I recognise that I have thrown a lot at my noble friend in the last few minutes, although I hope that her officials were already aware of my direction of travel. It is important that all parties to the debate get clarity on the Government’s position. I am talking not about clarity on the broad principle—we all understand the MRO option—but rather on the more granular aspects of how the policy is intended to operate and what the consequences are likely to be.
Lord Berkeley
In this grouping, my Amendment 69A is the next one that is not a government amendment, so if it is convenient for the Committee I will speak to that and try not to delay the Committee too long with comments on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. If I then have comments after the Minister has spoken, I am sure she will be willing to accept them.
I want to put on record that it is great shame that the Government have somewhat changed what was agreed in the House of Commons. I see the government amendments, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as putting the whole issue into the long grass, which is very sad. Rather than having the MRO option in primary legislation, which I thought was excellent—although obviously there is detail that we need to talk about—we could be left for many years with people opposing any secondary legislation that comes in and then debating it at that stage. Who knows what will happen then?
Amendment 69A is a probing amendment about why the Government, or the House of Commons, chose a maximum of 100 pubs rather than 500 pubs. I have had some useful discussions with St Austell brewery in Cornwall, which comes somewhere in-between. I have also talked to many of its tenants and others, and many who I talked to would be pleased to be able to renegotiate under the MRO. The family brewers, including St Austell, believe that they provide a much better and friendlier quality of ownership than the very big ones. I suspect that they are right in that.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
On Amendment 80, if it were a retail outlet such as a high street store, there would be no reason why a company should not sell its retail store to someone else. Why should a brewery be any different?
Lord Berkeley
It is a question of what would constitute selling and what would be transferring it to a company in which the brewery had 100% or 99% of the shares. It is a grey area. The noble Lord may be right but I do not see that as a reason for having his Amendment 80 or any of the others. We can go on debating this.
I still think that Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is trying to say that once the tenant has started the negotiation he has to finish it. That is very unfair on the tenant because, while he may have said that he wanted to start it, if he is not happy with the outcome it is surely reasonable that he would not have to conclude an agreement. The short answer is that he will not stay there long and will suffer severe financial hardship.
I could go on for a long, long time, but I have one last comment on Amendments 73 and 74. I did not really understand the noble Lord’s explanation to my noble friend Lord Snape. If his amendment would enable the tenant to buy his beer and other drinks at whatever price he chose from whomever he chose, why are we going through all the rigmarole of all these different adjudications? Just let him do it now. I am sure that I have it wrong, but it would be nice if at some stage the noble Lord could explain the amendment in words of one syllable.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I speak in favour of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots. First, given the in-depth knowledge that he has shown on the subject, I hope that he is a member of our Catering Committee because he would be an asset there. I shall speak briefly because this is complicated and there is a lot more to go. We need to spell out that if a tenant opts for a market rent only deal, there should be a completely new agreement between the tenant and the landlord, and that should take in everything, from investment to the length of lease—it is a new lease, effectively. We should spell out that there is freedom to renegotiate there.
On Amendment 80, I completely concur that, for the ongoing good of the business, it is important that an MRO should not be triggered simply by a sale or an administration. The Minister indicated that she saw things the same way, and I hope that we will hear that confirmed.
Lord Snape
My Lords, to respond to some of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I say in passing that although, at my request, he came up with some examples of landlords being happy with the tie, they did not seem to me typical of what takes place in the industry. I do not want to repeat to the Committee anything that I said on Second Reading, when I detailed some of the problems that my daughter and son-in-law have had. Their treatment by Enterprise Inns is a lot different from the cases outlined by the noble Lord when he moved his amendment. Similarly, on Second Reading, with the permission of a couple called Dawn and Michael Shanahan from the Bulls Head in Old Whittington near Chesterfield, I read out a letter showing how they had been treated, which, I am sure that the noble Lord would agree, is a lot different from either of the examples that he gave to the Committee this afternoon.
The fact that more than 70% of pubco tenants have expressed their unhappiness to CAMRA indicates that far more of them have been and are being treated as in the two examples that I gave on Second Reading than in the two examples that the noble Lord has given to the Committee today.
I thought that the noble Lord was seeking to intervene; he looked a bit restive. I thought that he was going to come up with even more examples of happy tenants, but there are not that many of them around. He has probably exhausted the lot of them with those two.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble Lord has provoked me enough. I was sent a book this thick by some of the pubcos containing responses from tenants. Have I leafed through it? Do I want to bore the noble Lord and the Committee by producing it? Certainly not, but a large number of tenants drawn from all around the country were explaining how satisfied they were with the way that the tie operated. The ALMR has written to Members of the Committee to say that the tie works for its members and that it supports it.
Lord Snape
The first question about that association, whatever it was he said, is: who is funding them in the first place? Let us leave that aside. The noble Lord tells the Committee that he has a very thick book of completely satisfied tenants. Again, is there some reason why CAMRA did not consult them? The figures are there. I will send the document across to him. Oh, he does not want it—he indicated dissent. If there is such a crowd of happy tenants up and down the country, CAMRA would surely have spoken to them. I hope that I take both sides of the Committee with me when I say that CAMRA is a trusted and respected organisation on these matters. The fact that it records a dissatisfaction figure of more than 70% indicates that the bulky document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, may not be as laudatory about the pubcos as he indicated.
Let us look at some of the amendments in the noble Lord’s name. It is impossible to read, from the Minister’s expression, whether or not she favours them. Sometimes it can be an advantage sitting on this side, as Ministers are not always as inscrutable as the noble Baroness. Given some of the obvious failings in these amendments, I cannot believe that the Government are about to accept them. The noble Lord has not told us why in Amendment 69 he wants to take out the parallel rent assessment, but I presume he—or those who have briefed him—has a good reason to do so.
Amendments 70 and 71 are concerned with the definition of a large pub-owning business as one with 500 tied pubs. I do not know whether the Minister can understand what the noble Lord is getting at, but I am afraid I do not and I find those amendments pretty confusing. I ask for clarification from the noble Lord on Amendments 73 and 74 because they seem to refer specifically and solely to beer, whereas we know that the tie includes lots of other products, including soft drinks. They are excluded under the terms of the amendment, presumably, and it would have been useful if the noble Lord could have expanded on that point.
On Amendments 75 to 82, it is interesting that the former editor of the Sunday Telegraph is in favour of denying MRO to existing tenants. She did not particularly say why but the newspaper has, sadly, sunk in its popular appeal since she left the editorship. It would have been helpful if she had given some reason why she feels that existing tenants should be denied MRO. If one combines those amendments with Amendment 69ZB, there would be neither code nor MRO for existing tenants. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is in favour of that too, because she did not tell us. I can understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and—I put this as delicately as possible—those he associates with might be in favour of excluding existing tenants from both the code and the MRO, but I am at a loss to understand why the Committee at large would wish to do so.
Amendments 84 to 87 are also in the noble Lord’s name. In Amendment 85 there is no time laid down for the period of negotiation between the tenant and the pubco. If a tenant is in financial trouble and the pubco knows it—and, of course, it would—dragging on the negotiations would mean that the tenant went under anyway, regardless of the final outcome. I am sure that was not the intention behind the amendments. If I have provoked the noble Lord to his feet again, I would be delighted to give way.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I understand that the noble Lord wishes to find fault with my proposals. The amendment relates to Clause 42(8)(e), which refers to,
“at the time of the three month assessment”.
The question is, where in the three months? All my amendment does is change this to, “at the end of the three month assessment”. All I wanted to do was to get clarity so that the tenant—presumably an MRO tenant—or the pub owner knows when the events actually happen. It must be in everybody’s interests to have clarity about the sequence of events and how everything fits together, whatever one’s view may be about the legislation as a whole. That is my only point.
Lord Snape
I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that I am out to find fault with his amendments. He should not be unduly sensitive. I was under the misapprehension that that is what Parliament is about: maybe I have got it wrong. I find fault with his amendments first because they do not do what he thinks they will—or at least I hope that they do not—and secondly because they are unfair, particularly to existing tenants. That is one of the reasons why I have taken the view that I have. I would like to know the Minister’s view on the amendment, particularly the question of denying the MRO to existing tenants. As far as Amendments 88 and 89 are concerned, if the Minister accepts them, she would be discriminating against existing tenants and I hope that she will reject them.
There is a considerable debate to be had on new Clause 42. I am not proposing to start that now. I hope that the Minister will reply to these amendments and bear in mind that as far as the general point of new Clause 42 is concerned, we would seek to have a substantial debate on its content aside from the amendments that we are currently discussing.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying how pleased I am to hear from my noble friend the Minister that the spirit and intention behind today’s debate in Committee is to have a general debate and to cover the large range of amendments. I wish, however, to speak to Amendment 82, which I call the exception clause to the MRO—or the clause to permit an exception, I should say, according to my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I support the amendment, which is in the names of my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Ridley and the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.
I declare an interest—perhaps a rather tenuous interest—as the scion of a brewing family. We owned Younger’s of Alloa, based near Stirling in Scotland, and my father—the late George Younger, the fourth Viscount—was a seventh-generation brewer. He started work in the vats before entering Parliament in 1964, still at the tender age of 32. His father—my grandfather—sold the company in 1961 to Tennent Caledonian. He was one of the first brewers—if not the first—to produce cans of beer with pictures of ladies on the outside, presumably with the intention of increasing sales. The Falkland Islands was one of the export markets.
Down to business. I support, as far as it goes, the intention of the Government in accepting the will of the other place to give tied tenants of large pub-owning companies the right to go free in certain circumstances. The devil is in the detail of the definition of “certain circumstances”. This requires further debate, which we are having today. I know that noble Lords are keen to ensure that the law ends up being robust. I believe that there should be a balanced market, in which large pub-owning companies have all the necessary reassurances that their support of and investment in pubs are viable, and tied tenants have a fair deal, however that might be defined, where there is enough flexibility for them to run their businesses and not be too restricted on purchase of supplies or price, for example.
I note that the intention is that the statutory code and adjudicator will address the imbalance of power in relation to the 13,000 tied tenants of the six pub-owning companies with 500 or more tied pubs. There is good intention behind the further protections given by the Government in the amended MRO clauses by the adoption of certain trigger points, which have already been mentioned by my noble friend the Minister: first, at rent review or five years after the latest one, whichever date is sooner; and, secondly, when the tenant renews their lease.
The two further trigger points that have been mentioned are: first, when there is a significant or unexpected increase in the price of the tied products supplied to the tenant; and, secondly, when an economic event occurs that is beyond the tenant’s control and has a significant impact on the tenant’s ability to operate the pub. I am aware that there will be a consultation on those last two triggers, which I welcome. But I am concerned that the Government may not be going far enough to reassure the pub-owning companies, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider a permit to have an exception from the MRO for a particular period of time in the case that a pub-owning company makes a significant investment in that pub. This is for the following reasons.
Pub-owning companies have to be shown that their investment will be secure, viable and provide a satisfactory rate of return over a period of time. In the south-east, for example, there have been investments of as much as £300,000 to £400,000 in pubs where the rate of return is calculated over a period of time—often a long period of time, well beyond five years. A trigger point, however well intentioned, creates a chilling effect. It may, at worst, stop an investment and, at best, it will cause the pub-owning company to lower the investment and perceived risk if the rate of return it needs to secure is over a shorter period because there is a trigger date looming. This is a clear unintended consequence which I am sure the Minister will have considered.
Having alluded primarily in my remarks to funds for developing or renovating pubs, which my noble friend Lord Hodgson also referred to, let us also consider another very important point for pubs: cash flow. Tied tenants are unquestionably grateful for the important financial support during fallow periods of sales, which typically occur for on-trade beer sales from January to late February and October to November each year. Without an MRO, the tied tenant is paying less rent, thereby lowering his annual fixed costs as he will be buying less beer from the company. Such fallow periods include periods when roads may be unexpectedly closed by the council or a snowstorm prevents custom. A trigger point that disfavoured the pub company could mean that there was less room for manoeuvre in negotiations.
Pub companies invest £200 million across the sector each year. Banks are not yet stepping up to the plate to support pubs sufficiently. They still perceive the pub sector as a risky bet when it comes to lending. A director of a finance company was recently quoted as saying that a considerable number of loan applications from viable SMEs were being declined by the high street banks because the application “fails to meet the criteria” or is “outside the bank policy guidelines”. We have all heard this in other, unrelated debates.
Lord Snape
Can the noble Lord tell us of any pubcos which are financially successful under the present arrangement? At present, business is as bad for the pubcos as it is for the tenants. No one is making a great deal of money.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for his comment, but I would like to make the point. The gist of my argument is that at the end of the day, the pub company has a choice about where it invests its money. It needs to be sure in investing its money—which it would obviously want to do to support each and every pub—that it is tied down to an amount for a particular period. The pubcos have their shareholders and their employees to think about in terms of that investment.
Lord Snape
I apologise for interrupting again. My point was in response to the noble Lord’s comment about the banks being reluctant to lend to SMEs. I presume he puts pubcos into that category. Is that not because the model has proved to be unsuccessful and, from a financial point of view, would amount to a very bad risk for the bank?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We perhaps need to talk about individual cases, but it is generally perceived that because of the crisis in 2008, banks have changed their lending criteria. Naturally enough, many pubs are small businesses and they are suffering in the same way as other non-pub small businesses. I am making a general point about the banks’ ability to lend.
Lord Snape
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord for the third time. To take two examples—Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns—the big pubcos have declared appalling financial results. They are selling off the pubs because they are in such a financial mess. It is not surprising in those circumstances that they find it very difficult to borrow money.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I note the noble Lord’s point. I would like to illustrate some of the amounts that these pub companies invest. I mentioned earlier that they invest £200 million across the sector each year. One of the larger pub companies has estimated that, had the MRO been in place without an effective opt-out, the £30 million of capital investment which has taken place in the last 18 months would not have happened.
To illustrate how this investment affects individual businesses, another pub company recently invested £245,000 in one of their pubs in Nantwich in Cheshire. This investment created 10 jobs and took the turnover from £145,000 per annum to £330,000. A similar sum was invested in a pub in Wigan, which again boosted turnover from £250,000 to £345,000 and doubled the number of jobs. These are just two examples to add to the ones given earlier by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, of how tied pub companies invest in their estates every year to the benefit of both parties through the tied contract.
I conclude by saying that I hope the Minister has listened carefully to what I have said about the investment angle for pub companies, while not forgetting that we are talking about the livelihoods of tied tenants as well. That is just as important in terms of being fair.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, has given two more examples to add those of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, of the happy tenants who have lots of money. He cited one company as investing £30 million in pubs which would not have invested if the MRO had existed. What assumptions is he making about the fair rent that would result from an adjudication under those circumstances? Is he assuming that the rent would stay the same or that it would go up to compensate for the profit that the breweries would no longer be making when they sell beer or soft drinks? The figure of £30 million is pretty meaningless without knowing on what assumptions it is based.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I take the noble Lord’s point, but I spoke in support of my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s amendments on the grounds that there would be an exemption from the MRO.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The issue is that every company has a target return on capital. If it is to make an investment, it wants to make a return on capital and the company will set a target. The problem is that if you are going to invest your £30 million, you want to know what your return on capital will be. One issue that relates to return on capital is what will be the contractual relationship. Therefore, before you make your investment, you want to know what the end play will be, because that means that you can be assured—if it all goes well; it does not always go well—that you will get that rate of return on capital. That is the background to the figure that my noble friend is giving. Companies want to be certain that they have targets for the return on capital which they need to meet.
Lord Berkeley
With respect, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”. I am glad that the cavalry has been brought in to help the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. The noble Viscount says that that £30 million would not be invested. “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”. We could do with some figures.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The truth of the matter is that every time an argument is produced to point out how pubcos operate as commercial enterprises, the noble Lord says, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”. Capital investment budgets are set to be achieved, with certain target rates of return required to justify them. Otherwise the value of the stock—or the value of the company, if it is a private company—falls. If you do not have a rate of return on your investment higher than the cost of capital, the value of your business is falling.
You need to know what you are getting into, what your contractual relationships are and how long they will last. You cannot be certain, because, with the best will in the world—taking the example of pubs—some pubs do not do as well as one hopes. It does not work because the location is not right, the tenant is not right or the arrangements are not right. The idea is to hit the target. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, he must understand that unless your rate of return on capital is higher than your cost of capital, you are destroying the value of your business.
Lord Berkeley
I am sorry, my Lords, but I will try just one last time. The rate of return could just as easily be calculated on the basis of the rent that the tenant will be paying once he has been through the process, because that will be fixed and the company will know it. That is the rate of return, whether the company likes it or not.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Having been listening to my debate, I should conclude. I should answer the question appropriately. The clause is intended to provide an exemption which would allow an unspecified time for agreement to be drawn up because of the perceived investment to be given by the pub company.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this huge group. I should point out that none of them applies to Clause 41, which, strictly speaking, is what the noble Baroness’s amendment relates to, but I have a number that apply to Clause 42: Amendments 69ZC, 71A, 72A, 74ZA, 74ZB, 87A to 87C and 89ZA. However, in view of the way this discussion is going, and my earlier points, I hope the Committee will forgive me for straying somewhat wider. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have no interests to declare, ancestral or otherwise, except as a consumer—and even then, not in January, which is probably why I am in such a bad mood.
The Committee probably should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for explaining the structure of the industry and how it works, and those situations where the tied arrangement has worked very well for both sides, but it was an explanation that was really from the point of view of the large pubcos. He also explained the context in which they work—the economic context, the social changes and so forth—and that the whole industry is under some significant pressure. But my concern in this area is for those small businesses—and they are small businesses—of the tenants who are in tied or partially tied accommodation. This Bill is called the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill; it is not called the big brewers’ restrictive contracts and exploitation Bill. Were it so, it might have been closer to what some Members of the Committee appear to be wanting.
The Minister and the Government have to recognise that the Bill we are dealing with, and Clause 42 as brought over from the Commons, is a result of a quite unusual political event and a quite unusual level of lobbying, if you like, on behalf of those small businesses we are talking about. Actually, in substantive terms, it is the first major defeat that this Government have suffered as a coalition. I think, therefore, that we should take seriously what the Commons have sent to us rather than trying to redraft virtually the totality of it, even though the Government, as the Minister has made clear, accept that MRO should be in there. I would also point out to noble Lords that this is not saying that this is the end of tied tenancies; it is simply putting those tied tenancies on a fairer basis. I know that there are those—I suspect my noble friend Lord Snape is one of them—who wish to abolish tied tenancies in total. But this is in a sense much more of a compromise position.
Lord Snape
I would be grateful if my noble friend would not portray me as being a raving left-winger on these matters. I am not seeking to abolish the tie completely; like most people, I just want a fairer system than we have at present.
Lord Whitty
In that case, my noble friend and I are on exactly the same point in the ideological spectrum—as ever. We are discussing these as amendments to the pre-existing text that we received from the Commons. Government Amendment 89A effectively rewrites that proposition from the Commons.
At Second Reading the Minister said on behalf of the Government that there were things that needed to be done to ensure that the proposition was going to be workable and did not have unintended consequences. I understand that, and that means there are parts of the noble Baroness’s amendment that I would be in favour of. But under the amendment as we now have it—and we have not had it for very long; the fact that we are debating it today puts us in some difficulty given that the consultation hitherto, as I said earlier, has been somewhat attenuated—the Government’s changes in detail do a number of things. They delay the implementation because whereas the proposition adopted by the Commons set the situation on the MRO in primary legislation, therefore bringing it into effect at the earliest point when the Bill came into law, we are, instead, reliant on the drafting of the code and the bringing forward of secondary legislation.
The Government’s amendments also change a number of the trigger points, thereby diluting the effectiveness of the MRO proposition. Amendment 89A changes the threshold because it confuses the issue of tied pubs with all tenanted pubs. The Pubs Code ought to relate to all relationships between the pubcos and their tenants, whether they are tied or not. The MRO relates to the tied pubs but the threshold of defining who this applies to should be the size of the company as a whole, which includes all sorts of tenancies. Restricting it to tied tenancies lays open the possibility of them ending one or two ties to get below the 500 mark. I do not suppose I could prove it in a court of law, but there are indications that some of the pubcos are looking to split their company structure so they would not hit the 500 mark for tied tenancies. We ought not to lay that temptation before them. The Government’s proposition fails to recognise that there is a distinction between how a Pubs Code—which I think we are all in support of—operates and the MRO option, which relates only to tied tenants. I hope, therefore, that my propositions do a number of things. They separate out the issue of the code from that of the MRO. The code is set out clearly in Clause 41 and, at the beginning of Clause 42, the MRO coming into effect is not dependent on the code. The amendments in my name would also change the definition of the threshold, although most of that comes up in a later group, in relation to Clause 66.
I do not like the procedure on this Bill because the Government have misjudged the mood, not just in the Commons and among those tied tenancies and other organisations which have pressed for this. They have succumbed unnecessarily to pressure from the larger breweries. There is no need for some of the changes to the proposition that we have received. There is, therefore, a need to reinforce those rather than go in the opposite direction, which the Government’s amendments are doing. What came to us from the Commons was not perfect, but the Government are proposing to make it worse. For that reason, we all need to take a step back and look at what we agree on in the original proposition, the amendments we are discussing today and the Government’s proposed complete redraft. We need to see whether we could, in discussion with all sides of the industry, come up with something closer to an agreement in time for Report or, possibly, send it back to the Commons and let them sort it out.
We are in an unfortunate position today. This is a complex group of amendments and none of us understands all the issues. Whatever comes out of this is going to be pretty unsatisfactory and not a good basis on which to go to Report at this point in a parliamentary Session. This does need sorting: it needs to be workable and I agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want to see unintended consequences. However, we need to be clearer as to what the consequences are that have led to the propositions in the Government’s redraft.
I hope that the Government take a step back and talk to everyone concerned. The easiest way to do that would be to withdraw all the amendments today. If the Government will not do that, we are probably in for a fairly rocky time between now and Report. If we have not met at least the overwhelming spirit of what the Commons decided, the Bill will be back in the Commons and we are in for ping-pong on the Bill. I cannot believe that the Government’s business managers really want that. There is a way to deal with this quietly and consensually. It may not work, but it might, and it would get the Government out of an awful lot of trouble. As usual, I am trying to be helpful to the Government, and I hope that they heed my words and those of my noble friends.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 82A and 83A and thereby take in my noble friend’s Amendment 88. Amendment 82A concerns the amount of time for the negotiation of the MRO. In the original Bill, it was stated to be 21 days, which I think is too short. The difficulty for identifying a time for any negotiation is that the time required at the beginning of the process, when it is new to both parties, will be different to the time to produce a market rent in a negotiation in, say, five years’ time, when everyone knows what the rules are. When the lawyers are helping both sides with their arguments, it could take substantially longer than 21 days.
My noble friend may say that that will come out in the detail of the Pubs Code and the statutory instrument, but how will that time be judged? Will it change from the beginning of the period and a few years’ time?
Amendment 83A concerns the problem that under the Bill and the government amendments, existing tenancy agreements would continue. So the lease would continue in all respects other than in the rental. That brings up the difficult subject of SCORFA—an acronym standing for “special commercial or financial advantages”, and is designed not to flummox the great people of Hansard but to refer to all the advantages given to the pub tenant, all the way down to providing glasses, ashtrays and beer mats.
If the lease is being changed to rent only, it is unreasonable to leave the landlord, the pub owner, in the position of providing those benefits when he is not providing the rent. My noble friend may say that all those points will be dealt with in the statutory instrument that forms the Pubs Code, but it will be subject to consultation. What if the result of that consultation is a mass of people saying that it should not be included? If so, will we have landowners subject to a lease that is not right, where one important clause has been removed?
Surely my noble friend will agree that a matter as reasonable and important as this should be in the Bill and bring forward government amendments to deal with the issue.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I worked for most of my life in a sector where we were often referred to as being in the last-chance saloon—the newspaper industry. It is perhaps a more appropriate analogy to make to the pub sector and its owners. Many attempts have been made to grapple with this issue. My noble friend mentioned four Select Committees. There have been unintended consequences in profusion as we have tried to deal with the issues over the past 10 or so years. We have to get it right this time and anticipate, where we can, any actions that could try to get round the intentions set by Parliament.
We are talking about small businesses. At its heart, what we are trying to achieve is to be in favour of free and fair competition. This means that ties must not create unfair pressures on individual publicans or give too much power to large companies. That is what this is about. When Parliament started to look at the whole beer industry over the last 20 or 30 years, it never anticipated the existence of pubcos. We can concentrate on them, but pubcos are already property companies that have overleveraged themselves—as, indeed, have many regional newspaper owners, as I know from experience. They are finding it difficult to survive and to invest. I will come on to that in a moment, because it is at the root of a lot of problems.
With their amendment, the Commons agreed to enshrine in law the principle that the tied licensee should not be worse off than a free-of-tie licensee. That is what the Commons laid down. I accept the concerns mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we do not want to go down a route where this is watered down and put into a consultation period of 12 months, and then find, as we emerge from the long grass, that it has been watered down even further. That is my concern. There are a number of weeks still to look at this. As we move to Report our task is not to water down what the Commons decided but to improve the workings of the code and the Commons’ intentions, to enable our pubs to be more sustainable, able to be improved and invested in, and to protect community institutions run by enterprising and hard-working publicans.
Over the last few weeks I have been pleased to visit a number of pubs owned by Punch and Enterprise. One visit was at the instigation of the management of Punch. I have to say that no lunches were involved, but they knew the way to my heart: they arranged for me to see the pub that is the principal pub of Portsmouth football supporters. I also visited some tenants on their own as part of my due diligence looking at aspects of the Bill.
I will deal with a number of particulars that are being raised in the amendments. First, let us look at the threshold. There is a change from the threshold being “all pubs” to 500 tied pubs. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, indicated, the concern there is that it creates a distinction that might encourage companies to move tied pubs out of their remit so that they can get below the 500 limit. The original definition was, I think, based on the size of the company and the power that they are likely to have in the marketplace. There was also a concern to protect the smaller, family-owned brewery companies and their tied pubs. We are concerned about this change because we fear that it will provide an incentive for companies to reduce their number of tied pubs.
We also recognise that, in the leasehold model, there is a lot of movement between tied and non-tied pubs, where exploitation of market power can emerge. That is why it was thought important, in the original Commons clause, to link the two, so that the 500 threshold was across the board and not just related to the tie. The other aspect—there is a division here that the Minister should confirm—is that we are assuming that the 500 limit will be confirmed and can be changed, if necessary by affirmative action, if the response is that it is used to contrive ways round the threshold. However, the actual figure will not be enshrined in the primary legislation. I would like confirmation on that.
There are further issues on definition. The proposal is fundamentally to protect tied pubs but once the market rent option is exercised the tenant effectively will not be able to access the protection offered by this pubco. Someone said earlier that the rights of tenants will be preserved, but if they move from a company that is covered by the 500 threshold to one where it is not, they will lose some of their rights. We need to ask the Minister what her current thinking is in ensuring that some ongoing protection continues if a tenant moves to the market rent option.
We are concerned about the removal of the sale and the administration trigger points, as these are precisely the avenues that anybody trying to get round the legislation will go down. I also understand the concerns, particularly with the complication on the administration side—we all know it is a complex process—but speed is of the essence. We need to look at what protection is available to the tenant in sale and administration. If a company decides to sell and move a tied pub into another company that is below the threshold they will lose the market rent option right. Tenants will lose a right by that move. Is there some mechanism that can continue that protection after the sale for those tenants in that situation?
Similarly, on administration, I understand the complications. I have worked in that area at times in my career when companies—not my companies—have been in administration. I know that speed is of the essence and the complication of the MRO is an issue. Again, if somebody is a tenant in a company that goes into administration and moves into a company that no longer has the protection of the threshold, will they lose their rights? I think they will at the moment, but if we are to change the triggers we must look at that when we consider the reformed clause.
Another area in which concerns have been raised is the parallel rents assessments. When a tenant has the opportunity to go down the market rent option, the whole point of the parallel rent assessment is that it improves the information for the tenant in terms of helping him to make a decision as to his direction. Doing away with that for existing tenants needs to be looked at.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. I understand that there are two stages. There is a 21-day period when someone is trying to get agreement on the market rent option. If he goes down that route he has 90 days for it to be set and organised. But if we turn the 21 days into 90 days there will be a six-month period of uncertainty, which clearly is not acceptable. In the initial negotiating period both parties might agree that they are making progress and are moving towards an agreement but they cannot meet the 21 days, so they could mutually agree to extend the period. That would be quite normal in a legal process in business. That is another area that should be looked at.
Something I noticed when I visited those pubco pubs was that some publicans had investment or were about to have investment. They are the tenants who are most likely to be pleased and probably in line with this, but not altogether. We need some protection for investment in the sector. As we go down the route of the market rent option it will have to reflect the investment that has been made in the pub.
I assume also that if the pub has had an investment, some agreement will have to be made on exactly how that would be funded. The tenant might well want less of an increase in rent and more on the wet rent because that is a marginal cost, as opposed to a fixed cost. These are quite complex issues but there is nothing stopping protection where the market rent option is a possibility; if there has been investment, it would normally be reflected in the market rent that is set.
With those comments, while I did not speak in our initial debate, I say that I am concerned. I had access to the order of the amendments only at about 12 o’clock today, so trying to prepare how the hell one was meant to reply to this debate was difficult when one did not know what the order was. A lot is required in working out what the final Clause 42 should have in it. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says but, as I imagine we have four weeks or so before we come back to this on Report, we will have to have a consultation on the detail so that we get this right.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I want to clarify one thing in response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about my dear and noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who is not in his place. He does in fact drink at the Crown; the alternative option is the Red Lion. They both happen to be privately owned, so we will leave that one there.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for helping us to focus on the context of this debate. There is little doubt that a small business Bill is the perfect location for these provisions. During the discussions we have had on supporting small business, all sides of the Committee have raised issues to ensure that small businesses are given the support to allow them to operate efficiently and to have the right level of protections and opportunities for commercial activity, employment, growth and development. In the area that we are addressing today, we are looking at issues of asymmetric information, imbalances of bargaining power, behaviour and commercial restrictions—all issues that we have discussed in different ways on parts of the Bill.
We believe that the Bill should be a key part of the UK’s growth requirements, to be achieved by allowing commerce and markets to flourish and addressing impediments to functioning and competitive markets. This is why we are keen to support it. Commercial change, innovation, transformation and adaptability are crucial for the UK. With all the good that there is within the UK pub sector—although there has also been some bad, which many colleagues spoke to so eloquently at Second Reading—it is a market that should see itself as being enabled by the proposed legislation and the measures that we are debating today. We certainly see the market rent only option in this context. It is a firm pro-business and pro-market principle that we are pleased to see in the Bill.
Labour has long argued for a market rent only option as the only way of guaranteeing the principle that tied tenants are no worse off than their free-of-tie counterparts. We have brought the issue to a vote in the Commons four times. Under the original Bill, licensees would merely have had the right to ask their pub company to show them how much their rent would be under a free-of-tie scheme. This was problematic, as all the information would be held by the pubcos; all the calculations would be crunched by their accountants and all the final estimates made by them. Even if they then revealed that the landlord would be better off free of tie, they would have had no legal right to demand this option.
The Government’s own response to a consultation on a statutory code, printed in June, concluded that,
“a mandatory free-of-tie option … is popular with many tenant groups and might arguably offer the simplest way of ensuring a tied tenant is no worse off than a free-of-tie tenant”.
However, for reasons known only to them, it took a new clause and a massive Back-Bench rebellion for the Government to come to what in our view was the right conclusion. Now that they are there, we are very pleased that they are working hard on how we can make this work. The proposed new clause puts the right principles back into the Bill. It delivers a mandatory free-of-tie option that allows publicans to buy their beer on the open market. The Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee concluded that this was the only way to ensure that landlords would be no worse off than if they were free of tie, as it would force pubcos to offer tied tenants the best deals.
We are in a somewhat complex position. We have had amendments tabled very late and I saw the impact assessment only on my way into the Committee today. It is not simple and straightforward, and the lack of time to adequately identify where we are on all these matters has generated a great deal of examination and commentary. Some aspects were expected, but there is a great deal of concern about the approach in detail. I look forward to listening to the comments and explanations that the Minister is going to give. I expect she will have quite a bit to do today. We should make it clear that although we are supportive of the Government’s approach—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very important point about what will be in the legislation and what will be in the code. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and we are all concerned about it. If there are two sides to the argument, both sides are suspicious that consultation will mean that they lose out one way or the other. Have the Opposition reached a view on how much can be in the code and how much in the Bill, or are we still working that out?
Lord Mendelsohn
As I am pressed, there are a number of details where that balance is the issue we have to address. Perhaps we need some more comments from the Government in explanation of the current provisions. We are also looking for the direction of travel to help give us a real sense of what should and should not be.
As I said, although we support the Government’s approach, we take the view that some of their drafting has lost the strength and essence of the Commons amendment. We are keen to ensure that what is passed is workable and sensible and we are happy to work together on this. However, to be fully satisfied, we need to see an evolution on Report, in a couple of important respects. We are keen for an indication that the Government would show some willingness to consider changes. There is a very important need to provide detail and direction. There are some issues which should be dealt with in the Bill but others whose place is in secondary legislation. We will be looking for a strong indication of the direction of travel to provide us with the right assurances that we will be looking at the right sort of areas and issues at the next stage. There is also a requirement for clarity in what we would describe as “dual-use clauses” where the drafting suggests that a measure could be used for two diametrically opposed purposes. In that regard, it would be useful if the Government would give an indication of how it is used for one and not the other.
We understand the concerns of the many different parts of the industry that variously have particular and shared issues with the Bill as it stands. We appreciate their need for greater clarity to ensure that they can make decisions and reasoned evaluations. We have a great industry in this country and we expect that the legislation will make it greater. We have met with a number of companies and I have been impressed with their management. There will be some costs and adjustments to make, and listed companies with short-term expectations—hyped by banks’ analysts—will be put under particular pressure. As my noble friends have said, a number of business models were dubious to begin with.
Many of the managements of the companies I have spoken to will fare very well indeed under the new provisions. They are a very capable group, readily able to innovate and develop new, efficient and sound commercial operations, relationships and models. They are, indeed, doing so in the face of a number of factors which have hugely affected the industry over the last decade, including the amount of beer that is bought in supermarkets, the change in consumer tastes, substitutional competition and other sorts of regulation. It is right that their concerns are properly addressed: we may not agree with some of them but we are certain they should be properly considered and clarity provided as far as possible. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out her thinking on the future of the industry.
We would appreciate a fuller understanding on the issue of investment. Pubcos have come to us to say that they will be discouraged from making investments in their estate. We have tried hard to get a full estimate of whether that investment is income-generating or is just for maintenance, because these alternatives offer different returns on capital. This addresses my noble friend’s point that the property element of this is very different to the other commercial aspects. We have not had sufficient clarity on that but we take the point that we need to address this question.
For example, if a pub company were to redecorate a pub and install new aspects at a cost of £50,000, it would be reasonable to expect a return on that investment over time. The company’s view would be that it would be unfair for the tenants to go to a market rent only provision six months later. They say that this would discourage them from making the investment. They suggest that the pubco should be able to make it a condition of their investment that a contract of around five years would come into force and supersede the old one, so the tenant could go MRO only where the code had otherwise been breached. They would like this assurance in the Bill. Can a pub company reach an agreement with a tenant to establish a new agreement in return for an investment and therefore postpone a rent review for five years? Is that one of the provisions of the Bill? Could we provide some certainty on whether they have the scope to do that? Perhaps the Minister could address this matter in detail.
It would also be helpful to have clarity on allowing breweries that qualify as large pub-owning companies to require tenants taking the MRO option to continue to stock certain of their products. Organisations such as CAMRA have said that they are comfortable with this provision as a means of ensuring that the brewing pub-owning companies can continue to distribute their brands. Companies, understandably, are wondering what parameters are available to them now, and what is likely to be in delegated legislation. It would be useful all round if the Minister gave us a better sense of the Government’s direction of travel. For example, have they considered giving brewer pub companies the right to require that a tenant does not sell direct competitive products? Can the Minister provide a broader understanding of the nature and level of legal advice that the Government have taken on this, and of their expertise in evaluating the European competition considerations?
Similarly, what certainty do the Government intend to provide for brewers in Amendment 91ZA? Is it to ensure that they will have the right to require that an MRO tenant must stock their required beer and cider products? What is their evaluation of the argument that the brewers need the certainty that they will be able to require and enforce a stocking requirement as an integral part of the MRO lease offer? What are the Government expecting a stocking requirement to cover? Is it to specify the individual products to be sold, whether draught or bottled; does it include minimum purchase obligations, if necessary, to ensure incentives are made to sell its products and not those of a direct competitor; and would they require a tenant to prove that the stocking obligation has been met, given that the tenant is not required to purchase the specified products direct from the brewer or approved wholesaler?
There are some other areas worthy of consideration. We would appreciate some detail on the code and the adjudicator. The industry is interested in whether the Government’s view of the role and function has evolved since it was first introduced when there was no MRO provision, and whether it is likely to widen in scope in secondary legislation. It would also be very helpful if the Minister were able to indicate what lessons the Government have learnt from the current operation of the Groceries Code Adjudicator—which is not without some criticism—for how they will establish the Pub Code Adjudicator and the drafting of the code.
We are delighted that the MRO is now in the Bill, but we are also very aware of a need to strike a balance in the final legislation. Using the primary legislation to try and close every feasibly conceivable loophole while protecting tenants could put a straitjacket around the industry. Our amendments are designed to ensure that the legislation delivers on the intentions that we support but is not so restrictive as to cause harm to an industry we all want to see thrive. Some of our amendments are probing in nature to make sure that we have a clear sense about some of the detail. In this House we need to answer two questions—what should be in the code, and who it should cover—before sending the Bill back to the Commons. That is what these amendments intend to clarify.
Amendment 89AA is a probing amendment. This clause examines the provision that tied tenants can trigger an MRO only when changes specifically impact on their business as opposed to pubs in general, including managed houses, hotels and free houses. As it is currently written, if there was suddenly a global increase in, say, the price of barley, which was passed on to all licensed traders, the tied tenant could use this unforeseeable event as a trigger to go MRO if the price increase was passed to them. Is it the Bill’s intention that an MRO option could be triggered in such circumstances? What is the Government’s view of how “unforeseen events” would operate? Would this include actions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does it mean unforeseen at the time of contract, or does “unforeseen” apply to things that would ordinarily be put in a risk register to establish potential risks that could happen to a business? Do “unforeseen” and a risk register become mutually exclusive? Does an unforeseen event have to have a particular impact and effect on all kinds of alcohol sales? Is this drafted so that if, for any reason, those in tied pubs were to be charged excessively more than free-of-tie and other tenants, tied tenants should be allowed to react against this specific treatment? We would be grateful for any indications on this.
We believe that Amendments 89AB and 89AC will remove ambiguity from the Bill and ensure that the trigger points can be activated only when all these specific criteria are in place. We are looking for an explanation of how the Government arrived at the current drafting.
On Amendment 89AD, we feel that there is a problem with the Government’s use of “level of trade” as a trigger point, which merely refers to how many pints a pub is selling and not to the deeper situation. For example, if a pubco increased its supply prices and the tenant felt that they could increase the price at which they sell a drink to the public because of local competition, their level of trade would remain static. However, their overall profitability could be fatally undermined. The amendment would ensure that the overall level of profit would be the key factor.
On Amendment 89AE, the idea that a transfer of title should be used as a trigger point was originally placed in the Bill for very good reasons—for example, in the case of a tenant who agreed to a tied contract for five years with a large pub company, but who found after two years that they were now the tenant of a smaller pub company that was not covered by the code if their pub was sold. However, if this power is given carte blanche it could stifle the pub sales market, which would not be sensible for the overall health of the sector, particularly where smaller companies could revive pubs in their local area.
Likewise, it would not be right for publicans to be stuck in a tie when their circumstances have significantly changed and they no longer have any of the protections of the code. This amendment would make it clear that transfer of title alone is not enough, but if such a transfer detrimentally affected a pub, the landlord should be able to assert his or her rights. We would be grateful for some understanding of how the Government arrived at the current drafting.
Amendment 89AF is in response to concerns raised with us by publicans and those in the industry. There is a feeling that there are ways that companies that we would all accept should be covered by the code could get around it as it is currently written. One such way is that a business owning 2,000 pubs could split itself into five smaller concerns, each of which would own fewer than 500 pubs, but to all intents and purposes the same ownership structure would exist. There may be myriad ways that lawyers—some clever, some just expensive—could exempt their clients from the code. However, as noted, we do not want the code to be so long and onerous as to paralyse the industry. We therefore believe that it would be right to create this power, which we hope will never need to be used, to act as a powerful deterrent against such egregious behaviour and ensure that the spirit of the code is always fulfilled.
In general, we are concerned that some of the drafting could create a situation where there may be ways to avoid the Bill’s intentions. We take these concerns very seriously. We do not feel in a position to prepare any amendments that would not be without flaws at this stage, but we would be very keen to work with the Government to ensure that any potential risks are addressed. We are keen to hear some assurances from the Government that they will look very carefully at these matters and their general approach to avoidance, and how they think those assurances could be met in the operation of the legislation, the code and the adjudicator. In particular, we are concerned about how the triggers will work and whether they will provide sufficient protection to small businesses. We want to be assured that the protections are there to stop triggers being used to game the legislation.
We also make a general point to urge that the new code is swiftly implemented via secondary legislation within 12 months of the enactment of the Bill. In short, we need to ensure, as the Bill progresses, that it secures the best of the existing model, reforms what is needed and eliminates bad practice. We understand that that is where the Government are on this. Some reassurances would be very helpful.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me for being so forward and will find the following suggestion useful. We think that the right way forward is to let the Government have their amendments today and return, after discussions with all parties, with amendments to those amendments to strengthen them in the light of these discussions. We hope that we can get a clear assurance on that and a strong commitment that that is what we will see in the Bill on Report. That would be useful reassurance at this stage.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in a helpful discussion. When we saw the grouping we knew that it would be a marathon. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I make a lengthy 10,000 metre reply, so that the various questions that have been raised are answered.
I shall respond first to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on timing, and secondly, to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, on his suggestion. I want to reassure the noble Lord that Clause 41 places a clear duty on the Secretary of State to introduce the Pubs Code within 12 months of Royal Assent. As government Amendment 89A sets out, this must include the MRO provision. The Government are completely committed to getting on with things and to swift implementation. I am also completely committed to open discussion in this House between now and Report. I will try to answer the points in this debate, but if I fail I would urge noble Lords to talk to me before Report, and I am sure that there will be further collective discussions.
I enjoyed the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, because he put today’s discussion into the context of small business policy where there is much consensus. I sense that he is trying to make progress. I agree that we should try to get the framework right today, if noble Lords agree, once they have listened to me, by agreeing the government amendments. Then we should discuss the issues and possible changes ahead of Report, including whether we have the right balance between the core Bill and the subordinate legislation, as he mentioned. We have thought about that quite a lot. I do not want to lose this important Bill, which would be a very serious unintended consequence, and timing is tight.
Before turning to the individual amendments, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who took the Floor for a long time, for bringing his knowledge of the industry to this important debate. He spoke of the impact of social change on pubs, which is an opportunity and a concern, and described a nuclear option, which is exactly what we want to avoid.
I now turn to Amendments 69ZC, 74ZB, 87A, 87B, 87C, 89ZA and 102B. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his comments. We have certainly tried to listen to the other place and come up with provisions that achieve the objectives agreed, and to ensure that there is no avoidance in the system of the kind he described. These amendments set out the detailed definition of the market rent only option in the Bill. One effect is that the MRO will come into force on Royal Assent, before the Pubs Code Adjudicator existed. Market rent only and the protections it brings can work properly only if it is introduced with the code and with the adjudicator.
Clause 42, introduced in the other place, says:
“The Pubs Code shall include a Market Rent Only Option”,
so it would still require secondary legislation. The code must be introduced within a year, and under our Amendment 89A it must include MRO.
Secondly, and importantly, the amendment would not allow us to consult on the MRO process. As I have already said, given that it was introduced into the Bill only at a relatively late stage, it is incomplete in its design and it is important that we have some public consultation to ensure that the process works as intended. Following consultation, we will introduce the code by secondary legislation through the affirmative procedure.
Much of the detail of the triggers for MRO is more appropriate for secondary legislation. Clause 42 as drafted provides no detail on the terms of the new commercial tenancy and what an MRO-compliant tenancy would be. We wish to consult to get a stronger sense of what this constitutes and, similarly, what constitutes a “significant” increase in price and,
“an event outside of the tenant’s control … that impacts significantly on the tenant’s ability to trade”.
Companies and tenants affected by market rent only need the opportunity to comment on the process, not just the authors of Clause 42. The Government are committed to ensuring that MRO is robust and workable.
Turning to Amendments 75 to 78, 82A and 83 to 88, I am not convinced that these amendments are necessary. To respond first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, the market rent only clause introduced into the Bill in the other place outlines some of the process involved in obtaining a market rent only assessment and taking up the offer, but it does not set out a complete process of the kind he is seeking. The Government will consult on the detail of the process and set this out in secondary legislation. I have explained that there is a drop-dead date for the whole process.
Our intention is to follow the outline process in the Mulholland clause. So after the tenant requests a market rent only option, the first step will be for the pub-owning company to offer a market rent, which the tenant will accept or which will provide the basis for negotiation between the two sides. If the tenant and pub-owning company cannot agree a market rent only agreement within a certain period of time, the tenant and pub-owning company will jointly appoint and jointly pay for an independent assessor to determine the market rent for the pub.
Our amendments allow the code to stipulate that the existing agreement between the pub-owning company and tenant will prevail until the market rent only procedure concludes. To answer my noble friend Lord Hodgson, there is a power in government Amendment 89B to set out in the code that existing contractual arrangements remain in force until such time as the procedure comes to an end and the new market rent only contract starts.
If in the end the tenant opts for a market rent only agreement, this will constitute a new agreement between the tenant and pub-owning company. The terms of the agreement will need to be clear to the tenant before he accepts the offer. To be clear, at this point the pub-owning company can remove from the MRO agreement any special commercial or financial advantages—SCORFA—that the tenant was entitled to under the tied agreement. As I said earlier, we intend to consult publicly to ensure that the process works as intended.
On my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s Amendment 88 in particular, the only requirements for a lease to be MRO-compliant are set out in Clause 43(4). Other than this, it is up to the pub company to decide what the MRO lease or licence looks like. The pub company will be free to offer a new lease or tenancy without it being considered to be discriminatory.
Turning to Amendments 79, 81 and 89, in addition to consulting on the detailed process for MRO, we will consult on the detailed definitions of the trigger points for an MRO assessment. These will be set out in the statutory code, which is subject to affirmative resolution. Under our amendments the tenant would be entitled to the MRO option: at rent review; if the tenant renews their lease; when there is a significant price increase for tied products which was not reasonably foreseeable; and if an event occurs that is beyond the tenant’s control and meets the descriptors set out in the Pubs Code. The headlines would rightly be in the Bill but we need to set out the details in secondary legislation.
I confirm that the MRO trigger at the point of renewal applies to tenancy agreements that are protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act or which have a specific right of renewal clause in their tenancy agreement. Those tenants who are contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act will have the protection of the parallel rent assessment in any negotiations on a new lease at their existing pub. The trigger if there is a significant price increase which was not reasonably foreseeable at the beginning of the tenancy or at the point of a rent assessment would not include circumstances when a pre-agreed discount period ends.
By contrast, Amendments 79 and 89, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Can we therefore take it that the trigger points will not include the sale of a pub, provided the tenant’s position is protected, or a pubco going into administration?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, that is the proposal set out in the Government’s amendments.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Will the Minister confirm whether she is looking at any protection for people who, when a company is sold or goes into administration, move from a company that is covered by the threshold to one that is not?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I hope I will cover that to the noble Lord’s satisfaction in a minute. I return to Amendments 79 and 89, which propose that only an unfair price increase would trigger the market rent only option. Our view is that this sets the bar unrealistically high. The purpose of this trigger point is to afford the tenant some protection if the pub-owning company increases the prices of its tied products significantly and unexpectedly, as this may have a large impact on the balance of risk and reward between the two parties. Similarly, the trigger of events occurring outside the tenant’s control is intended to protect tenants when the assumptions underlying their projected income and turnover change dramatically. We envisage that these events would include situations in which local economic factors impact on trade, such as the sad closure of a local factory. However, that would not include macroeconomic events such as a recession, or a change in the tenant’s personal circumstances.
Amendment 81 seeks to define events outside the tenant’s control by reference to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. However, that definition would not account for cases such as a change in local competition, which could have a significant impact on turnover. Public consultation on the specific phrasing of these triggers will help the Government to ensure that the trigger points are appropriately defined. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, we expect to refer to the definition in the 1988 Act, but may need to expand on it. I have set out our thinking so far on the detail of the triggers and will come on to talk about administration and insolvency. We will consult on these but I am also happy to discuss further the ideas offered by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, before Report, if that would be helpful.
My noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Howard of Rising have tabled Amendments 69A, 70 and 71 to set the threshold for the market rent only option at 500 tied pubs. I agree with them, and Amendment 91ZB would deal with this very point. As I think the Committee understands, this is intended to bring the threshold for MRO into line with the rest of Part 4 of the Bill. The Government do not have sufficient evidence of a problem in the free-of-tie pub sector to justify intervention there. Regulation of this market would result in pub tenants with commercial leases being treated differently from, and receiving additional protection to, other tenants with commercial leases. This difference is not justifiable on the evidence.
Conversely, Amendment 69A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to amend the threshold to 100 or more tied pubs. Noble Lords will be aware that, after considerable debate in Committee, the other place voted to remove companies with fewer than 500 tied pubs from the scope of the Pubs Code and adjudicator. Those other companies expressed significant concerns about the requirements that complying with a statutory code would have placed on them. The Government listened carefully to the points raised and have decided to accept the will of the other place in terms of the cut-off.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the representative body for companies with fewer than 500 tied pubs, the Independent Family Brewers of Britain, has committed to continue funding the current industry dispute resolution services and to keep the industry framework code up to date. This will provide important protections for the tied tenants of family brewers, and seems a better approach than extending regulation to smaller operators such as St Austell Brewery in Cornwall—which he mentioned—or J W Lees in Manchester.
I also reassure the noble Lord that the Government have provided protection against avoidance of the code through changes in group structure. Clause 69(2) provides that any part of a group undertaking will contribute to the calculation of tied pubs for the purposes of the threshold. That means that the Pubs Code will apply to all parts of the group undertaking.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Again, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, and I am grateful for the detailed response that she is giving. The example that she is giving about investment does not deal with the fact that beer is being sold. The beer companies want to sell their beer—25% to 30% of their beer is sold through their tied houses, their estate. If the legislation does not allow that, it knocks away a reason for investing. It is not sufficient to get a return on the capital—that is, the rent—it is also selling a product that they produce elsewhere in the group. That is, provided—to meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Snape—that the tenant is free to buy it anywhere if he can buy it cheaper.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord for raising that point. There is a link to the stocking requirement, which I shall come on to talk about, as he suggests. I am not suggesting that investment is the easiest thing to deal with, because we all want investment in this important industry.
Perhaps I can mention a couple of final points before I move on from investment. One is my noble friend Lord Younger’s point about cash flow, which is a good point. If a tied tenant expresses an interest in choosing MRO, the pub company can make the argument about the benefits of the tie—for example, in managing tenant cash flow. That freedom will still exist. At that point, the tenant can choose to remain in a tied agreement. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for entering the fray on this issue and suggesting a way forward on the question of securing pub company investment in pubs. I am happy to look at that further.
Further, enabling tenants to forgo the MRO in exchange for a promise of investment may risk intimidation of a pub in difficulty. That will probably not occur often, but it was a concern that we considered in trying to balance these things.
I turn to Amendment 89AA. I believe that it is designed to help to define a significant price increase in relation to a price increase that would trigger an MRO. It is important to get that definition right. It needs to be fair to pub companies and tenants alike. That is why the Government propose to consult on the definition and set the detail out in secondary legislation. I confirm that reference to wholesale price lists will be used in our consultation proposals for that definition.
Amendments 89AB and 89AC amend the MRO trigger for circumstances outside the tenant’s control that affect trade. The noble Lords opposite wish to confirm that all four of the conditions set out in subsection (9) of the proposed new clause in government Amendment 89A must be met for this trigger to be engaged. I can confirm that the current drafting of the clause delivers this effect.
Amendment 89AD relates to the same change of circumstances trigger and proposes to replace,
“an impact on the level of trade”,
with,
“an impact on the level of profitability”,
as the measure for that trigger. We consider that a focus on the tenant’s ability to trade addresses the key issues that affect the fair balance of risk and reward between pub company and tenant. The government amendments ensure that where changes in local economic circumstances affect tenant income, the protection of the MRO trigger will apply. To focus instead on profit would bring in issues such as rates, energy prices, wages and salaries. These issues could further impact on the income of the tenant but there is likely to be minimal impact. The amendments also introduce more complexity in terms of definition and measurement of a significant impact.
I believe that through Amendment 89AE, the noble Lords opposite are seeking to confirm that on the sale of a pub the other triggers for MRO would still apply. Where the new owner of the pub is covered by the code, then this is the case. Where the pub company purchasing the pub is below the threshold, the tenant will not have the MRO option but will have the protection of the voluntary industry code. This is consistent with the Government’s acceptance of the will of the other place to remove family brewers from the scope of our measures.
Amendment 89AF would introduce a power for the Secretary of State to provide an MRO trigger on transfer of title or administration in two specific circumstances. The first is if avoidance of MRO was the “sole or significant” reason for transfer of title or administration. The second is where,
“fewer than 500 pubs … are part of a group or have similar ownership to other companies”,
which own more than 500. I will deal later with the detail of the Government’s reasons for removing the transfer of title and administration trigger, but first I will focus on the specifics of the Opposition’s amendment.
We think it is extremely unlikely that the serious step of administration would be used to avoid MRO. No company considers insolvency lightly. Where a company is in financial difficulty, it will seek professional advice from an insolvency practitioner. It may be advised to restructure the business, which could involve selling off some parts of it. However, entering administration to avoid MRO would not achieve the objectives of administration, which is to rescue the business. For this reason, an insolvency practitioner would not recommend administration. It is also hard to imagine that pub companies would sell off high numbers of pubs purely to take themselves outside the scope of MRO and the code. Most of the pub companies in scope have over 1,000 pubs, so that would be a drastic step. I reassure noble Lords that where a tied pub is sold to another company covered by the code, MRO protections would continue to apply.
The amendment tabled would also provide a power to bring companies with fewer than 500 pubs into the scope of the code where they were part of a group or had similar ownership to other companies that cumulatively own more than 500 pubs. We share the noble Lords’ concern about the potential for gaming—for example, through the break-up of a pub company to avoid the threshold—but I confirm again that the Government have provided this protection in Clause 69(2). I am afraid that we are not clear whether there are companies with fewer than 500 pubs that have similar ownership to companies with more than 500. Nor, if there were, is there evidence that they should be brought into scope with reference to a concept of similar ownership.
Amendment 80, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, seeks to remove two of the trigger points in the MRO clause so that tenants will not have the right to MRO if their pub is sold or the pub-owning company goes into administration. The Government’s amendments should address my noble friend’s concern. In the case of the transfer of title trigger, the Government consider that other, more proportionate protections exist for tenants when their pub is sold to another owner, as any new owner would be bound by the tenant’s existing contractual rights. If the sale makes little difference to the pub, there is no problem. If it makes a significant difference to the trading position, another MRO trigger is already available—the trigger for circumstances outside the tenant’s control. The inclusion of the transfer of title trigger would have the unintended consequence of making the sale of pubs as going concerns less appealing to potential buyers, leading to fewer pubs and fewer pub tenancies. For these reasons, the Government wish to remove this trigger from the Bill.
The Government’s amended clauses also remove the trigger when a pub-owning company goes into administration. During administration, the company in administration may continue to operate. Tenants will continue to have their existing obligations towards the company in administration, and the company will continue to have its existing obligations to the tenants, acting through the administrator. If any of the other triggers for MRO are met during this period, such as if the company brings in a significant price increase, the tenant will still have the right to MRO. The primary aim of administration is to rescue the company, and this preserves jobs as well as value. Giving all the pub-owning company’s tenants the right to MRO at this critical point would be likely to reduce the value of the pub company’s estate. Pub-owning companies below the threshold are unlikely to buy the company’s pubs if the tenant could opt for the MRO option during the course of the sale. This would reduce the chances of rescuing the pub-owning company and could ultimately push the company into liquidation. Clearly, this would not be in the interests of the tied tenants, employees and suppliers of the former business and the creditors.
I want to clear up something which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Snape. He expressed concern that the Government are trying to deny existing tenants the right to MRO. This is not the case. We have merely sought to remove two of the triggers to avoid unintended consequences that are detrimental to tenants. I should be happy to discuss this further with the noble Lord, as we are in the same place on objectives.
Lord Snape
I thought that it was the wicked noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who was seeking to deny tenants this particular protection, not the Government.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Perhaps I can move on to further amendments.
The market rent only amendment introduced in the other place made provision to allow brewers who own tied pubs to require any tied tenants of theirs who elect to exercise MRO to continue to sell the brewery’s products, so long as the tenant may buy them from any source. Amendment 91ZA, which I am bringing forward today, provides in Clause 65 that stocking requirements, which satisfy the conditions in that clause, do not constitute a tie, so they can be included in an MRO offer. Under such a stocking requirement brewers can require their pub tenants to sell their products, limited to beer and cider. This focuses the measures on what pub-owning companies tell us are the products that concern them. Under Amendment 91ZA, the tenant must be able to buy this beer or cider from any source and be able to sell beer and cider produced by other companies.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for Amendment 69. I agree that the MRO provisions largely remove the need for the parallel rent assessment. However, the MRO option is available only to tenants with an existing tied agreement with their pub-owning company. As prospective tied tenants do not have the right to an MRO offer, we intend to retain the protection of the parallel rent assessment for them. This means that prospective tenants may request a parallel rent assessment, following rent negotiations with their pub company, upon paying a fee of £200. Together with the transparency provisions of the Pubs Code, this will ensure that prospective tenants can make an informed decision on whether a particular tied deal is fair and right for them. We also intend that those tenants who have contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act will have the protection of the parallel rent assessment in any negotiations on a new lease at their existing pub. This is because those tenants do not have a right to renew their lease and so will not have the right to the MRO option when they negotiate a further deal. I agree that the parallel rent provisions are no longer required for existing tied tenants who now have the MRO option, and Amendments 69ZA and 69ZB, which I have tabled, would deliver this.
I apologise for the marathon, but when I said that the Government were committed to MRO I really meant it. The government amendments before us are designed to make it workable. Unless we amend the clause, we risk ending up with an Act that is so anomalous and open to legal challenge that no Government, whatever their make-up, would be able to implement it effectively. Surely this is not the outcome that noble Lords are seeking. I urge the Committee to accept these amendments so that we have a legally robust foundation on which to build the continuing discussions ahead of Report. In the spirit of the discussion, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who has the first amendment, whether he is now content for us to move the government amendments.
Lord Berkeley
Before we get to that, could the Minister please clarify what she said, quite a long time ago in a very interesting speech, about the timing of the introduction of the MRO? That has been changed in her amendments; the Bill says a maximum of one year. What is the actual timing? That is one of our big worries—that this could get kicked into the long grass.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord for raising that point. The confusion may arise because it is within 12 months of Royal Assent.
Lord Berkeley
If it will help the Minister to deal with this, I could speak for a little longer. I thank her for her comments generally in her necessarily long speech. She gave me a lot of comfort that what the Government are trying to do is the right thing. She prayed in aid the will of the Commons a number of times, and that is right. Of course, timing is one of those issues. I will be very pleased to hear what she has to say.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Before the noble Lord sits down and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, takes the Floor, the answer is 12 months—but that is 12 months after the Bill comes into force. Apparently it will take two months for the Bill to go through to Royal Assent, so the maximum is 14 months. However, the message that I was trying to impart to the Committee is that we are determined to get on with this, push ahead and find workable solutions in that time.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister is procedurally correct to say that I have the first amendment. She has the first amendment in this group, which she can move at this point. Although mine is the first amendment on Clause 42, it is not the first one in this group. If she is asking whether she has said enough for me to roll over in relation to her own amendments, the answer is probably, “Almost, but with great regret”.
She has said that she is prepared to talk to all the parts of the industry involved, and she has done that in a very generous way. However, when she went through this clause by clause, there seemed to be fairly clear opposition to all the areas of concern that had been expressed by me, the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Snape. If she is prepared to say that all these things are open for discussion before we get to Report, I suppose that the sensible thing for me to do would be to say that I did not object to her clause. While I was clear on the conciliatory tone at the beginning, when it came to any individual item it seemed to be the firm position of the department to oppose it. However, it is not really my position to object at this point.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Okay. I welcome the lecture on procedure and apologise for not getting it right. As a new Minister, I am learning. The answer is yes, we are very open to discussion. What I was trying to do, I thought, was to be helpful in going through our thinking about why the various provisions were set out in the way that they were. I have already indicated that there are one or two places where I can see that the points made today would lead to further discussion. The answer is that we are open-minded and are keen to find a workable way forward, and are happy to do that in discussion in this House. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(a) ”
“(b) ”
Lord Berkeley
“( ) require pub-owning businesses to publish wholesale prices charged to their tied pub tenants.”
Lord Berkeley
I hope we can deal with this group of amendments a bit more quickly than the previous group because there are only two of them: Amendments 68T and 68U. I think they are quite important.
Amendment 68T comes from the Federation of Small Businesses research which found that 27% of licensees believed when they signed their agreement that the price they would be paying for beer and probably other drinks was going to be lower than the price they would have to pay in the open market. They claim that they were not given adequate pricing information as prospective tenants. CAMRA analysed the prices that licensees paid in 2013 and found that pub companies’ prices were 50% to 70% higher than wholesale prices. That is pretty incredible, and certainly reflects some of the comments I have heard from tenants—that they are lucky if they can cover their costs on beer, and they have to work 24 hours a day to make any return on food.
CAMRA hosted a round-table session for pubcos and licensees and I have a couple of quotes here. The first is from the tenant of a pubco-tied pub in Burnham—I do not know which Burnham; it does not say—who says:
“Price wise the difference is absolutely crazy. John Smiths is £133, but you can get it for £82 wholesale. Kronenbourg is £170, you can get it for £100. It’s not little amounts—it’s lots”.
The licensee of a pubco-tied pub in Berkshire said:
“If they’d said to me, ‘You do realise that you can drive to Rebellion brewery and buy your beer at £70 for 72 pints but we’re going to charge you £150’, then how many people would say, ‘Hang on a minute, that’s not right, is it?’”.
Those are two unhappy tenants. We have heard about a lot of happy tenants today from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and a few other people. I think it would be a very useful thing if the pubcos were required to publish the prices that they charge tenants. That is Amendment 68T.
Amendment 68U is about guest beers. I agree with CAMRA that it would be very useful to see all tied pubs of any description have the right to have a guest beer. It should be defined as a beer that is either cask-conditioned or bottle-conditioned in order to ensure access to the smaller companies, and improve consumer choice. It would allow the tied tenants to stock a single cask from anywhere in the world at a freely negotiated price.
There has been a growth in small brewers in pubs. They obviously make enough money, otherwise they would not be doing it. I think that it would be a really good idea to have the ability to have one guest beer in every pub. If the tenants were allowed to buy that beer from whomever they wanted and at whatever price, it might also demonstrate to the pubcos that charging 70% extra for their beer was not the way to make friends either with their tenants or their customers. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
In the situation envisaged under Amendment 68U, could the guest beer be provided by the brewery that owns the pub?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Under Amendment 68U, can the guest beer be provided by the brewery that owns the pub?
Lord Berkeley
Of course it could, but to some extent that defeats the object, because if it is a tied pub, the brewery is already supplying the beer. It would be for the tenant to decide; that is the point. If the tenant decided to do that and to have a monopoly with one brewery, that would be fine.
Lord Snape
I do not object, and I do not think my noble friend does either, to pubcos insisting that their tenants sell their own beer. His amendment states that they can buy that beer from any source, rather than from the pubco through the tie. I think I am correct. I do not know whether the examples he gave of the excessive price difference that tenants have to pay—the 50% to 70% that CAMRA revealed—are common, but I do not think even the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, could defend that sort of gap. Could the noble Lord emphasise that this is not about preventing pubcos from insisting that the tenants sell their beer but about the source of that beer and the price that the tenants pay?
Lord Berkeley
My noble friend raises an interesting issue. It is quite reasonable that a pubco that has a tied pub with tenants requires the tenants to buy the beer from them. That is the reason we are going through this—so that tenants can get out of it if they do not like it. While they are in it, the fact that they are buying beer at a certain premium—50% to 70%—provides part of the profit to the pubco, along with the rent. We can debate which. It has always been my understanding that if the tenants choose to go down the route of getting away from being tied, then presumably the calculation of the rent—we talked about this earlier—will in part take into account the loss of profit to the pubco in no longer being able to sell the beer at this inflated price to the pub.
There is a balance to be struck here. The amendment would allow the tenant to buy another beer from somebody else at whatever price and it would not necessarily affect the relationship with the pubco. It could do, but that is for negotiation. I hope I have clarified that.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for some excellent amendments. It is important to understand this in the context of the Bill. Amendment 68T addresses one of the big issues we have with information in commercial sectors, which works terribly to the disadvantage of small businesses. We think that very serious consideration should be given to this. Amendment 68U considers the opportunities to create market access for small businesses. That would be very useful and have many beneficial by-products, and would certainly trigger a great deal of capacity for small businesses to thrive in a sector with dominant market features.
I encourage the Government to look very sympathetically towards these amendments. There are issues with Amendment 68U. I did a quick calculation of what it might cost the industry; I do not think it is that much but I would be very interested if the Government came forward with whether or not they think there are any difficult parameters to it. I am not convinced that there are. It would be useful if the Government were to come forward very positively on this.
My noble friend Lord Whitty made a very important point in the previous group of amendments: it is nice to hear that matters will be taken seriously, but there was a great deal of anxiety on this side as we went through that group. As we get to other groups of amendments, such as the one beginning with Amendment 96ZB, we will look for greater assurances that these matters will be taken seriously. However, on small businesses, this is a very neat and useful group of amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for these amendments. In the spirit of collaboration, perhaps I can explain why we see them as problematic and see whether he agrees.
Amendment 68T would require pub-owning companies to publish wholesale prices. Even if that requirement was limited to alcoholic drinks, it would make public the details of a commercial financial arrangement between two parties to the world at large—including the pub owner’s customers, if I have understood the amendment correctly. It is important to stress that in this Part of the Bill we are regulating the relationship between tied tenants and their pub companies. At no point in our consultations has the need to publish wholesale prices emerged as a requirement to address unfairness. To do so would be an additional piece of regulation for the sector on top of the regulation we are introducing. In a few cases, pub-owning companies that we expect to be covered by the code already publish their wholesale drink prices online. Others publish those prices on a site with access restricted to their own tenants. Others do not publish them at all. On beer prices, tied tenants will tend to pay higher prices for their beer than from an outside wholesaler. That is integral to the tied deal. We recognise that transparency is important, and the Pubs Code already provides that transparency where it is needed—in the relationship between the tenant and the pub-owning company. As I said, the Pubs Code will require the wholesale prices to be provided to the tenant, as well as the current and relevant price lists.
Turning to Amendment 68U on guest beer, when the Government consulted on the issues and evidence that preceded the drafting of these clauses, we included questions about guest beer. The reasons for rejecting that option were clearly set out in our response to the consultation. Some will remember that I come from an all-male family of very keen beer drinkers, so I sympathise with the point, but while there was considerable support for the right to stock a guest beer, there were concerns about the potential for this to undermine the tied model by reducing the alignment of interests between the tenant and the pub company. This was because many tenants would select a draught lager as guest beer, which would typically be the biggest-selling beer. The proposal in the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to address this concern by stipulating that the guest beer should be limited to a brand of cask-conditioned or bottle-conditioned beer. I understand that. Unfortunately, this raises potential competition law issues. We are advised that restricting the guest beer to a particular type is likely to be contrary to EU competition law.
I hope that that background shows that the Government have considered the noble Lord’s proposition seriously and that, in the circumstances, he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister and to my noble friends for their responses. On Amendment 68T, I think that putting the price of beer charged to a tenant in the public domain may be going a little bit over the top, but if it is published on a website and available to the tenant that is fair enough. However, this comes to the imbalance between a small business—and tenants are, after all, very small businesses—and the pubco. The fact that these people did not understand that the price of beer may not have been what they thought shows something about the unbalanced and bad relationships that some of these pubcos clearly have with some of their tenants. I am not blaming anybody but they are small businesses. Maybe we could have a think about that and have a meeting to discuss it before Report.
Amendment 68U deals with guest beer. I spent the morning at DG Comp in Brussels today. I cannot say I was talking about beer but I know the people there well and I can always check on that. There are important issues here but perhaps we could have a discussion about this too. I would like to see guest beers in some of the tied pubs and I think many others would too. What beers they are would depend on what kind of beer you like drinking. That is enough of that, at this time of the night. I am grateful for the Minister’s response and look forward to further discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, this amendment is the first in my name relating to Clause 42. Clearly, I cannot press it today if the Government do not agree with it but I hope they understand that, in the discussions that the Minister has promised us, we will wish to return to all the issues that relate to the distinction between the Pubs Code provisions and those of the MRO. Subject to that, I will not press the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Pubs Code: market rent option
(1) The Pubs Code must require pub-owning businesses to offer their tied pub tenants falling within section 67(1)(a) a market rent option in specified circumstances.
(2) A “market rent option” means the option for the tied pub tenant—
(a) to occupy the tied pub under a tenancy or licence which is MRO-compliant, and(b) to pay the market rent in respect of that occupation.(3) The Pubs Code may specify—
(a) circumstances in which a market rent option must or may be an option to occupy under a tenancy; (b) circumstances in which a market rent option must or may be an option to occupy under a licence.(4) A tenancy or licence is MRO-compliant if—
(a) taken together with any other contractual agreement entered into by the tied pub tenant with the pub-owning business in connection with the tenancy or licence it—(i) contains such terms and conditions as may be required by virtue of subsection (5)(a),(ii) does not contain any product or service tie other than one in respect of insurance in connection with the tied pub, and(iii) does not contain any unreasonable terms or conditions, and(b) it is not a tenancy at will.(5) The Pubs Code may specify descriptions of terms and conditions—
(a) which are required to be contained in a tenancy or licence for it to be MRO-compliant;(b) which are to be regarded as reasonable or unreasonable for the purposes of subsection (4).(6) Provision made under subsection (1) may, in particular, require a pub-owning business to offer a tied pub tenant a market rent option—
(a) in connection with the renewal of any of the pub arrangements; (b) in connection with a rent assessment or assessment of money payable by the tenant in lieu of rent;(c) in connection with a significant increase in the price at which any product or service which is subject to a product or service tie is supplied to the tied pub tenant where the increase was not reasonably foreseeable—(i) when the tenancy or licence was granted, or(ii) if there has been an assessment of a kind mentioned in paragraph (b), when the last assessment was concluded;(d) after a trigger event has occurred.(7) The Pubs Code may specify what “renewal” means in relation to a tenancy or a licence for the purposes of subsection (6).
(8) In subsection (6) “pub arrangements”, in relation to a tied pub, means—
(a) the tenancy or licence under which the tied pub is occupied, and(b) any other contractual agreement which contains an obligation by virtue of which condition D in section 65 is met in relation to the premises.(9) In this Part a “trigger event”, in relation to a tied pub tenant, means an event which—
(a) is beyond the control of the tied pub tenant,(b) was not reasonably foreseeable as mentioned in subsection (6)(c),(c) has a significant impact on the level of trade that could reasonably be expected to be achieved at the tied pub, and(d) is of a description specified in the Pubs Code.(10) In this Part “market rent”, in relation to particular premises at any time, means the rent which the premises might reasonably be expected to fetch at that time in the open market, on the assumption that condition B in section 65 continues to be met.”
Lord Snape
I will be extremely brief, as the Minister has dealt with most of the points that arose from the amendments. There is a nagging feeling that what we are going to approve now is not what the House of Commons actually wanted. The fact is that—surprisingly, at this stage of a Parliament—the Commons defeated the Government on a fairly basic principle with regard to this Bill.
At Second Reading, the Minister accepted on the part of the Government the will of the Commons and said, basically, that the Government would adopt the principles that the Commons had advocated with regard to pub codes and publicans. With respect, that is not what we are getting today; what we thought was there in the Bill has now become a consultative period and what will amount to secondary legislation. I put it to the Minister, and to the Committee at large, that at this stage of this Parliament what we are doing is not what the Commons wanted us to. I can see that questions will be asked at that end of the building about our procedures here.
We have only a short time before the general election on 7 May, after which there will be a new Government, of whatever political hue or hues. That will mean there is a considerable amount of time before consideration takes place and the Minister’s undertakings to the Committee today are brought into force. I put it to the Minister that before Report we should look again at the two Clause 42s, the old one and the new, and see if there are parts of the old one that really ought to be incorporated into the new one, if only to ease the feeling outside this place that whatever happens over the next year or 14 months will water down the agreements that we thought had been reached as a result of the Commons decision. It is unusual, to say the least, that a Government should be defeated on something like this.
I address my closing remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in particular: he should not think that the decision was arrived at because of pressure from CAMRA or any other body. I think that many Conservative Members of the other place looked at what was happening to their own local in their own town or village and decided that that was why they felt Greg Mulholland’s amendment ought to be accepted. I hope I can get some assurances from the Minister that there will be some discussions with other people before Report so that we can see some of the watering down that we perceive in the difference between the two Clause 42s being rectified.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Once again, the trade is under pressure and the noble Lord assumes that it is all due to the tie. I wish it were that simple. The fact is that there are real difficulties for our pubs, for the reasons that I have explained. Trying to put more pressure on one particular part of the industry will not help it, I fear.
Lord Snape
Again, I accept that, but the noble Lord must accept that when Back-Benchers rebel in the way that Back-Benchers rebelled in the other place on a piece of legislation such as this, those rebels share a great many concerns. I put it no higher than that. I asked the Minister for an undertaking that she will look again at the differences between the two clauses and see whether we can toughen up new Clause 42 in the way that I believe the House of Commons intended in the first place.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for raising that point. First, I emphasise that we have accepted MRO; I do not renege on anything that I said at Second Reading. The detail of legislation has to be right. Let us by all means meet; let us meet soon; let us look at new Clause 42 alongside the old Clause 42 and engage on the differences and why we have done things, in good faith, in the way that we have. I would be very happy to agree to that process and I am grateful for the discussion that has taken place today. We are trying to do the right thing here.
Lord Snape
I thank the Minister for that undertaking, and for the way that she has conducted the Committee so far. I did not even object to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, being present in the same room; we might teach him something about the pub trade that he does not know, although that is difficult to imagine.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Market rent option: procedure
(1) The Pubs Code may—
(a) make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with an offer of a market rent option (referred to in this Part as “the market rent option procedure”);(b) confer functions on the Adjudicator in connection with that procedure.(2) Provision made under subsection (1) may, in particular—
(a) make provision for the tied pub tenant to give notice to the pub-owning business that the tenant—(i) considers that circumstances are such that the pub-owning business is required to offer the tenant a market rent option, and(ii) wishes to receive such an offer;(b) require the appointment of a person (referred to in this Part as an “independent assessor”) to determine the market rent of the premises concerned in a case where the pub-owning business and the tied pub tenant cannot agree on that market rent;(c) require that appointment to be made by the pub-owning business and the tied pub tenant acting jointly or (where they cannot agree on a person to appoint) by the Adjudicator;(d) require the Adjudicator to set criteria which a person must satisfy in order to be appointed as an independent assessor;(e) specify that the determination of the market rent by the independent assessor must be conducted in accordance with provisions of documents specified in the Pubs Code;(f) where any document is specified for the purposes of paragraph (e), refer to the provisions of the document as amended from time to time.(3) The Pubs Code may make provision for—
(a) the tenancy or licence under which the tied pub is occupied, and(b) any other contractual agreement entered into by the tied pub tenant with the pub-owning business in connection with the tenancy or licence,as they are in force when a notice is given by virtue of subsection (2)(a), to continue to have effect until such time as the market rent option procedure has come to an end (regardless of whether any of the agreements would or could otherwise cease to have effect before that time).(4) The Pubs Code may, for the purposes of subsection (3), specify the circumstances in which the market rent option procedure is to be treated as having come to an end.”
“Market rent option: disputes
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer functions on the Adjudicator in connection with the resolution of disputes relating to the offer of a market rent option.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision concerning the resolution of disputes about whether—
(a) circumstances are such that a pub-owning business is required to offer a tied pub tenant a market rent option;(b) a proposed tenancy or licence is MRO-compliant;(c) a determination of the market rent of a tenancy or licence made by an independent assessor has been made in accordance with the Pubs Code;(d) any other requirement of the market rent option procedure has been complied with.(3) The regulations may, in particular, confer on the Adjudicator the function of determining the market rent of a tenancy or licence in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) Nothing in sections 45 to 49 applies in relation to provision made by virtue of section (Pubs Code: market rent option) or (Market rent option: procedure) but the regulations may include provision which is similar to that contained in or made under those sections.”
“( ) Any proposed changes to the Pubs Code must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and consultation.”
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, after three and a quarter hours on the first set of amendments, I shall be exceptionally brief. I propose Amendment 90 and will speak to Amendments 92 and 96A. They are all concerned with the process by which any future changes to the Pubs Code will be brought about. At this stage they are probing amendments.
As we have found in our discussion over the past few hours, the operation of the Pubs Code is not without its controversial aspects, and this is a chance for the Minister to explain to the Committee how she sees those changes being reported on. Amendment 90 is concerned with the operation of Clause 43, concerning any review of the Pubs Code. It would insert the words:
“Any proposed changes to the Pubs Code must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and consultation”.
It is a pretty declaratory amendment, and I should be grateful to hear from the Minister a bit more about the detail of how she thinks that it will operate.
Amendment 92 concerns Clause 66, which defines a pub-owning business as being a landlord of 500 or more tied pubs. Can that figure be changed? When we get to Amendment 91D, I think that my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising will have something more trenchant to say on the subject than I have, but I think that it is important to learn how the Minister thinks that that figure could be changed, if it was to be.
Finally, Amendment 96A substitutes an affirmative order for a negative resolution procedure for the permission for the abolition of the Pubs Code under Clause 63(1)(c). As I said, at this stage, they are all probing amendments, but it would be helpful to the Committee if my noble friend could explain how she thinks that the changes to the code and ancillary aspects might take place in future. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that the Pubs Code will be the subject of further formal consultation following Royal Assent. Furthermore, it will be a statutory instrument made under the affirmative procedure, and any future changes to the code will also be subject to that procedure. On Amendment 92, I reassure my noble friend that any change to the threshold for pub companies to be covered by the code must also be made by affirmative resolution, and must follow a review and full consultation.
On Amendment 96A, Clause 63 provides that the adjudicator can be abolished if, following a review, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the role of the adjudicator is no longer deemed necessary. It is only in the event of the Pubs Code having already been revoked and not replaced by the affirmative resolution procedure, as I have said, that the adjudicator would be abolished by the negative procedure. In those circumstances, the removal of the adjudicator is of course consequential on the abolition of the code, which would have been debated in both Houses. The adjudicator’s role is to enforce the Pubs Code; if Parliament has debated and agreed the decision to revoke the code, it seems entirely reasonable to abolish the adjudicator by negative procedure. I hope that this reassures my noble friend that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I thank the Minister. I accept her explanation of all three amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Lord Berkeley
“Definition of market rent
The market rent shall be determined on the basis of the likely turnover and profit of the business of the pub, and shall not take into account any value to the pub owner of a change of use of the pub.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, this amendment concerns how the adjudicator takes into account the various financial factors relating to a pub when considering what its market rent should be. We have a lot of pubs where I live in Cornwall, some of them very lovely ones on the waterfront. I do not know how much money they make but there is a feeling that if they were sold for desirable waterside residences, of which there are already an enormous number, they could probably fetch a much larger amount of money than they earn for the owners at the moment as pubs.
That may or may not matter, but there is an issue here of what the role of the pub is in a small community. It acts as a kind of community centre. It may be where people congregate at different times of the day. It keeps village life going. It would be a great shame if the value of a pub on the open market, for retail or as a house, made it in the interests of the landlords to sell it and try to change its use.
There was another example in the Guardian last Saturday, in a nice article on pubs generally, given by someone who works for a company called Paramount Investments:
“In north London if I am selling a pub as a development opportunity I might be able to ask £700,000-£1m for something that as a pub I would only be able to get £350,000-£450,000 for”.
It gives other examples in Marylebone and other places where property values are very high, as they are in London. The problem is wider than London and Cornwall; it could be in many places where the property value is high. In this amendment, which obviously is a probing amendment so the wording might not be quite right, I am trying to propose that in assessing the rent no allowance should be made for a change in value due to a change of use that could be achieved if the pub were no longer a pub. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment and I am looking forward to visiting some of his local pubs in Cornwall before long. To be brief, subsection (10) of the proposed new clause in government Amendment 89A makes it clear that a market rent is,
“the rent which the premises might reasonably be expected to fetch at that time in the open market”,
on the assumption that the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises remains the main activity or one of the main activities of the premises. It is clear that the market rent is for the premises as a pub. I hope this reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Berkeley
I am very grateful to the Minister. The amendment came through after I went through all this. I am very grateful for her explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“( ) regulations under section (Market rent option: disputes),”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 90C. We come to Clause 60 about levy funding. This brings us to the age-old question of who is going to pay for the regulatory structure now being set up.
Clause 60(1) says:
“The Adjudicator may require pub-owning businesses to pay in each financial year a levy towards the Adjudicator’s expenses”.
Pub-owning businesses are, of course, defined elsewhere in the Bill as having 500 or more tied pubs. I think the word “may” is a euphemism. “Will” require is undoubtedly the right way to put it—who else is going to pay?
I recognise that any pubco with fewer than 500 tenants falls outside the code, although I share the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, over the logic of why a tenant of a pubco owning 500 tied pubs should be treated any differently from a tenant of a pubco owning 450 tied pubs. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a very fair point as far as that was concerned. But I can reassure him because the answer is that in quite a short period of time it will not be outside the code. It is inevitable that the MRO option and the Pubs Code generally will roll out over the whole pub sector. It may be unofficial but no small pubco or brewery will be able to resist the demands of one of its tenants who thinks that his rival on the high street who is owned by a large pubco has gained some competitive advantage. The small pubco or small brewer may resist for a bit, but in fairly short order they will have to concede or risk having some seriously disaffected tied tenants, on the basis that the tenants will say that if the brewer has nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.
The code will become the standard for the industry, not just in the way the MRO option has to be offered but in a range of other factors that make up the tied relationship under the code. My argument is that those who use the code and are able to take advantage of it ought to pay for the system it establishes. So Amendment 90B leaves out “may require” and inserts the words “must require every”, and Amendment 90C changes the definition of those required to pay the levy to include all companies or breweries that operate tied pubs.
The levy, which will presumably be levied on a per-pub basis, would not cost the smaller companies much. The bulk of the costs of the new regulatory regime will be borne, quite rightly, by the larger tied estates. However, there is an important point of principle that those who benefit from a regulatory regime should contribute, however modestly, to its cost. I beg to move.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, these amendments relate to Clause 60, which will enable the adjudicator to levy funds on pub-owning businesses to contribute to the adjudicator’s expenses, with the Secretary of State’s consent. Amendment 90B would change “may” to “must”, making the power a duty. We have had many similar debates on a number of subjects during my time in your Lordships’ House. I remember with affection the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, trying to get us to put “must” into various banking Bills, with no success. As I said then, and as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, realises, “may” in reality often means “must”. I assure him that in this case the amendment is not necessary.
The amendments would together require the adjudicator to impose a levy not only on the pub-owning companies in scope of the code but on any pub-owning company with tied pubs. I hear what the noble Lord says about the code becoming the industry standard for everybody, but that is by no means clear at this point. It is certainly not a requirement of the Bill. To the extent that pubcos not covered by the Bill did not use the code, this amendment would go against the “polluter pays” principle. The Government are clear that funding the adjudicator through a levy on pub-owning businesses covered by the Pubs Code is the right approach. The conduct of the large pub-owning businesses has led to the need for the adjudicator, so it is appropriate that they should cover the costs. This approach is in keeping with the funding of the Groceries Code Adjudicator by the large retailers in scope of the Groceries Code.
It would be unfair for companies such as the family brewers, whose tied tenants would not have the protections of the Pubs Code—at least initially—nor the ability to refer disputes to the adjudicator, to contribute to the levy. The representative body for some of these smaller companies, the Independent Family Brewers of Britain, has committed to continuing the current voluntary arrangements. This includes funding industry dispute resolution services to continue to provide protections for their tied tenants, so the amendment would require them to pay twice. The Government intend to fund the set-up costs of the adjudicator—but, once it has been established, it is only right that the expenses are met by that part of the industry whose conduct has led to the need for the adjudicator. The existing drafting of Clause 60 provides for this.
The amendments would also require the adjudicator to impose a levy every financial year. This would be the case even if, however unlikely, the money was not required that year—a situation which could arise if there was sufficient money left unspent from the previous year. It is therefore right to allow this flexibility for such circumstances. I hope that I have been able to persuade my noble friend that he should not press his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, my noble friend has brought us back to the extraordinary aspect of the parliamentary draftsmen, where “may” equals “must”. Who else in this country would believe that “may” equals “must”? He is quite right to remind us that this is one of the quirks of parliamentary draftsmanship. If, as he points out, the polluter should pay—and if the code becomes widely used by smaller companies below the 500 limit—all I would like to know is whether there is a possibility that, at that stage, the cost of the code could be extended to cover the people using the code, because that is the “polluter pays” principle that he referred to. I hope that the Government will think about that, but, in the mean time, and particularly given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(5A) But condition D is not met if the contractual obligation is a stocking requirement.
(5B) The contractual obligation is a stocking requirement if—
(a) it relates only to beer or cider (or both) produced by the landlord or by a person who is a group undertaking in relation to the landlord, (b) it does not require the tied pub tenant to procure the beer or cider from any particular supplier, and(c) it does not prevent the tied pub tenant from selling at the premises beer or cider produced by a person not mentioned in paragraph (a).(5C) In subsection (5B), “beer” and “cider” have the same meanings as in the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 (see section 1 of that Act).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(1) A person is a “pub-owning business” for the purposes of this Part—
(a) in the period beginning with the day on which the Pubs Code comes into force and ending with the following 31 March, if immediately before the Pubs Code comes into force the person was the landlord of 500 or more tied pubs;(b) in any subsequent financial year, if for a period of at least 6 months in the previous financial year the person was the landlord of 500 or more tied pubs.(1A) For the purposes of calculating the number of tied pubs of which a person (“L”) is the landlord, any tied pub the landlord of which is a person who is a group undertaking in relation to L is treated as a tied pub of which L is the landlord.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the tied model has long been part of our history. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said, properly operated it can be beneficial to both pub company and tied tenant. However, as the Government made clear in their consultation response, the evidence has accumulated of problems of abuses of the tied relationship. In an online survey carried out in parallel with the Government’s consultation, 91% of more than 700 tenants identified the beer tie as the biggest challenge that they face. In the government amendments that I am moving we are focusing the market rent only option on the tied model, consistent with rest of this part of the Bill. All of this part will then apply to pub-owning companies which own 500 or more tied pubs.
In contrast, the MRO option inserted into the Bill in the other place would apply to companies with 500 pubs of any kind and one tenanted or leased pub. This would include free-of-tie pubs. As I have already said, the Government do not agree with that approach. There is some evidence of problems in the free-of-tie sector. Some free-of-tie tenants, for example, feel that their property insurance is too high. That is a common issue with commercial leases right across sectors. In the pub sector, by contrast, we have a large body of evidence of problems with tied pub agreements. The Government therefore wish to focus regulation where there is evidence of significant problems, not on the free-of-tie sector. I hope that the Committee will be content to support these amendments. I propose again to listen to noble Lords before responding to the other amendments in this group.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to it pre-empts Amendments 91A and 91AZA.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 91D in this group. Its purpose is to remove uncertainty and so give smaller breweries a stable background in which to run their businesses. Helping small business is after all the purpose of the Bill. For these smaller breweries—indeed, for any pub company—to be successful in a declining market, it is essential that they make significant investment in their pubs. This necessary investment is not practical if they do not know under what rules they are operating. My noble friend mentioned changing the figure of 500 by affirmative resolution, but while change by regulation or order goes some way towards parliamentary examination it is, for practical purposes, a rubber stamp. Between 1950 and 2014, only 11 resolutions were rejected in the other place and only five in your Lordships’ House.
For that reason, if the Secretary of State can change the 500-pub definition to a different number by regulation, that will create uncertainty and severely restrict, if not halt, the investment necessary for the survival of the smaller breweries—which, by the way, generally speaking, have been increasers rather than closers of pubs. If noble Lords think that it is overpessimistic to say that investment will dry up, I remind them that under the last change in the rules governing the ownership of pubs many famous names, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson alluded to earlier, such as Whitbread, Bass, Scottish & Newcastle, Courage and Watneys have been absorbed by multinationals. It would be against the spirit of what we are trying to achieve today if a consequence was to contribute to the demise of small breweries.
Any change to the number of 500 should be subject to primary legislation. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment seriously so that those smaller breweries can continue to invest and create the prosperity necessary to maintain that part of the pub sector and help stem the decline of pubs.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group which go in exactly the opposite direction of the noble Baroness’s amendments.
We could keep the question of definition to talks between now and Report. I do not want to go over the arguments that we had earlier, but to define the owners, the pubcos, to which this applies in reference solely to tied pubs runs the danger of those pubcos altering their tenancy arrangements so that they fall below the threshold. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that this provision is not intended to hit the family and small regional brewers. We know that the large companies have a range of arrangements with their tenancies and are defined by the totality of their portfolio. It is relatively easy, given the turnover of tenants, for the companies to switch from one form of tenancy to another. They would have a motivation to do so, in order to fall below a tenancy threshold related to tied accommodation alone.
This is one of the issues on which we should have further talks. It is possible that we would have a different tied-specific definition, but that would require other obligations being put on the pubcos so that they would not change the designation of their portfolio to get around this threshold. I suppose that it would be difficult to draft such clauses, but there is a real danger of them gaming this situation. We know that some companies are already contemplating breaking their structure up.
We need more talk about what the definition covers. In a sense, this is the wrong way to go about it, but I would hope that the noble Baroness would not press the amendment and would rather make it subject to the talks to which she has committed for the coming period.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I have taken common cause on various things but he will not be surprised to know that I cannot take common cause with him on this tonight. A managed pub, as I explained at some length in my opening remarks, has an employee. It is a totally different relationship. To say that pubcos could switch their estate from being tied to being managed would mean changing the whole basis of the employment. The fact is that they are employees with salaries and bonuses and fringe benefits. It is not possible to undertake the sort of gaming that the noble Lord is describing—in terms of switching from managed to tied—which is why managed pubs can safely be left out. The question of what the tie means is something which we have been discussing tonight, but managed pubs form no part of this because they have employees with all the applicable rights and responsibilities.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, indicates why this needs more discussion. He is right on managed pubs—I absolutely agree—but leased pubs do switch between leased and tied. That is why I was raising my point. The Bill looks very much at the tied part of the sector, but there is movement here which needs to be looked at. To say that any change in the number—once we have decided what that number is—should require further primary legislation and be subject to affirmative resolution is wrong because, as we have seen over the last couple of decades in this sector, people adjust to new legislation and they also sometimes try to avoid its objectives. The Minister, with suitable consultation through the affirmative procedure, needs to be able to make changes as necessary. The number could well be up or down, but it needs to be made appropriately. The prime issue is leased and tied pubs, not managed ones.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, in this group is my motion that Clause 68 stand part of the Bill. This is an interesting clause, because it is called “Power to grant exemptions from Pubs Code”. If this is read one way, one could assume that every pubco will seek exemption by being specified. This is the usual business of what “specified” means. The word is mentioned eight or nine times in this short clause and then, at the end, it says:
“In this section ‘specified’ means specified in regulations”.
We have not seen the regulations, which is, I am afraid, quite normal in this House and has been for many years. What does “specified” mean? There are various exemptions, such as,
“the dealings of a specified pub-owning business …with their tied pub tenants… of a specified description”.
Does it mean that if they sell fish and chips rather than food they are going to be exempt? Does it mean that if they invite too many Members of your Lordships’ House out to lunch they are going to be exempt? Henry VIII would be proud of this clause and I am sure the Minister is equally proud of it. However, before we get much further we ought to have some explanation of what it means. Who would be exempt and under what circumstances? Why should there be any exemptions? I am sure the Minister will be able to give me some good explanations about why it is very important to have this clause in the Bill.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I have only a few points to make on these matters as the issues have already been covered quite well. However, I want to stress that these are highly important to our consideration of the Bill and we will look closely at the evolution of the Government’s thinking on them. We stand ready to work with the Government on these amendments and are content to move forward with them in the Bill, on the basis of there being discussion at a later time. However, we would be very concerned if there were no further changes.
We are concerned with how the thresholds are framed. We accept that the Government are focused on the pub-owning companies and we are highly supportive of that. We do not like the formulation that uses the phrase “tied pubs”. We believe there is an overwhelming case to use the terms we proposed—“tenanted” and “leased”—and we would like to see these in the Bill. We have some sympathy with the Government’s predicament on getting these definitions right, but we hope they are willing to show some flexibility on it. There is considerable concern that the situation can be gamed and that the provision of a power to the Secretary of State to vary the number of 500, and to grant exclusions, could be a serious and significant weakening of the Bill or a measure to ensure that anti-avoidance measures can be made more effective.
It is very important that there is a much clearer statement about what the dual-purpose clauses are and that what we put in the Bill is consistent with the work of the other place. It would be very useful if the Minister could give us much greater reassurance on that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends and to noble Lords for their amendments. We are, of course, happy to meet with noble Lords to discuss how these amendments work, the needs of small business and anti-avoidance. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, that reform should be about the tie. There is a difference in Committee this evening but a number of concerns have been expressed. These include the lack of draft regulations which, I am afraid, reflects the fact that MRO was a late amendment to this important Bill.
Having said that, perhaps I could talk a bit about the powers and then quickly address the amendments so that the Committee can understand where we are coming from, ahead of any discussions. First, any use of the power would need to be on the basis of strong evidence to justify the exclusion of a type of agreement or type of company. Without this evidence, it would be open to challenge. For example, if it were used to exclude one or two pub companies, it could be seen as a discriminatory use of the power and would lead to a high risk of successful legal challenge. Any attempt to undermine the principle of the legislation—that is, by exempting all pubs—would be an improper use of the power, as it would be subverting the will of Parliament.
Amendments 91AZA, 91BA and 91CA would include the free-of-tie market in the scope of our provisions. As I set out in my opening remarks, the evidence of the past 10 years, from the BIS Select Committee and the government consultation onwards, shows that the problems in the pub industry relate to abuses of the tied relationship. We do not have evidence of a problem in the free-of-tie or managed market.
Amendments 91A, 91B and 91C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seek to lower the threshold to capture pub companies with 100 or more tied pubs. I have probably covered this ground adequately in our earlier discussions, and in the interest of time, if the noble Lord is happy, I will not repeat the points.
I should probably talk about the need for Clause 68; that might be helpful. It is an important clause, as it is the means by which we can ensure that the definition of a “tied pub” does not inadvertently capture a restaurant or hotel premises. We are already aware of a fish and chip restaurant chain that may meet the definition as set out in Clause 65, and it is possible that there could be other such cases. We would be happy to talk through that concern. We all think that we know a pub when we see one and we think we know the difference between a pub and a fish and chip shop, but increasing food consumption in pub, gastropubs and so on has made separation by legal definition more complex. Clause 68 provides a power for the Secretary of State to exempt a particular type of tenant or premises from the Pubs Code by secondary legislation so that only pub premises are in scope.
The noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Whitty, were concerned about pubcos turning tied pubs into free-of-tie pubs by coming under the threshold. The evidence that we have of abuse is in the tied market. As I said earlier, if pub companies turned pubs into free-of-tie pubs, their ability to exploit their tenants through the tie would be gone.
Lastly—and I am sorry because he spoke first—my noble friend Lord Howard championed small operators, which I was glad to hear, and queried the power of the Secretary of State to amend the threshold by way of secondary legislation. The Government are clear that the threshold we have proposed of 500 or more tied pubs is the right one, because it is designed to ensure that the Pubs Code and the market rent only option are targeted at the part of the market where we have a problem. However, legislation needs to be capable of responding to changes in the market that may come about in the longer term—for example, if new pub ownership models were to emerge that merited exclusion from all or part of the code.
I hope that we can agree the government amendments so that we have a base for further discussion ahead of, and on, Report. In view of the explanations I have given, I hope that noble Lords will not move their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I must advise that if Amendment 91AD is agreed then Amendments 91B to 91CA will be pre-empted.
Amendments 91AA to 91AD
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(b) who is party to negotiations which have reached the stage of a provisional trading agreement for the prospective tenancy of a premises which are, or expected to be, a tied pub ahead of any final terms of the agreement being agreed.”
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, Amendment 93 could be called, in shorthand terms, the “shopping around clause”. My noble friend the Minister may have spoken to this earlier; I hope that she will be able to reassure me in fairly short order that my amendment is no longer needed with the new provisions.
Clause 67, to which this amendment refers, defines inter alia the term “tied pub tenant”. It does so in respect of prospective tenants at subsection(1)(b), which says,
“who is a party to negotiations relating to the prospective tenancy of or licence to occupy premises which are, or on completion of the negotiations are expected to be, a tied pub”.
That is a very loose definition. An individual might make a casual inquiry—even by telephone—about taking on a tied tenancy but may be without any serious intent, at least initially, of eventually signing up. However, the pubco does not know that when the telephone call is received. As such, under this wide definition in the new regime, it will have to go through considerable administrative procedures at some cost at this early stage.
My Amendment 93 would narrow the definition to people who are getting close to signing up and making an arrangement by inserting the words,
“who is party to negotiations which have reached the stage of a provisional trading agreement for the prospective tenancy of a premises which are, or expected to be, a tied pub ahead of any final terms of the agreement being agreed”.
This has the effect of requiring serious administrative effort to be made only once the tenant has shown himself to be of serious intent. It in no way weakens his position; it merely ensures that he is likely finally to take on a tenancy before he qualifies as a tied pub tenant, with all that that implies under the code. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I hope that I can reassure my noble friend Lord Hodgson on this point. Evidence from the Government’s consultation in 2013 and correspondence we have received from tenants shows that many such prospective tenants appear to have been given insufficient information, or have even been misinformed, by large pub-owning companies about the pub that they are negotiating to take on. The Pubs Code will ensure that prospective tenants receive the information they need to make a considered decision on whether the deal they are being offered is fair and right for them.
I completely understand the concerns that my noble friend raised. As he said, we clearly need to avoid the situation where any casual enquirer is entitled to all the code’s protections. That would be unnecessary and onerous for the pub companies. At the same time, we need to ensure that prospective tenants receive the information promised by the code early enough in their negotiations with the pub company to influence their decision. That is why we have carefully phrased Clause 67(1)(b) to restrict these rights to those who are,
“a party to negotiations relating to the prospective tenancy”.
If there have been no negotiations, there would be no right to the details. The pub-owning company would not be in breach of the Pubs Code for failing to supply them. We will consult on the code before it is finalised, which will allow us to ensure that we will draw the line in the right place, in a way that takes account of the procedures that different pub companies use to recruit and take on new tied tenants. I hope that that gives my noble friend the reassurance that he seeks.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am grateful to my noble friend. His remarks make clear that the Government have hoisted on board the danger of considerable administrative cost and effort for casual inquiries, which is the thrust behind my amendment. I should just like to get reassurance from outside that the “party to negotiations” carries the weight that he implied in his remark. If it does, I am more than content and, for the purposes of this evening, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Amendments 94 and 95 once again concern Clause 67, the definition clause—in particular, the definition of a tenancy in Clause 67(2). Amendment 94 would remove line 43, the words,
“includes a tenancy at will”,
from the provisions of the code. A tenancy at will is essentially a short-term informal agreement which imposes no timescale on either side. It would therefore seem illogical to impose the relatively heavy-duty encompassing arrangements of the code in such circumstances, which either side can abrogate at any time. For the same reason, Amendment 95 would exclude from the code short-term temporary agreements by the wording:
“The definition of tenancy … excludes temporary agreement where the tenant has occupied the same pub premises for less than twelve months”.
There are many reasons why individuals take on a pub under temporary agreements. For example, earlier I referred to the hard work and long hours required to run a successful pub. Some people find the experience not entirely to their liking and give up. Others, perhaps more wisely, decide to give the experience a try for a few months to see how it fits with their lifestyle and whether they really enjoy it. They do so under a temporary agreement. It surely cannot be logical to apply the administrative burden of the new regulatory regime in such circumstances.
There are those who argue that that will provide a loophole to evade the new regime—the noble Lord, Lord Snape, will no doubt be on his feet in a second. I accept the existence of that suspicion. The answer must be to draft the code or the primary legislation so that temporary agreements cannot last more than 12 months and that one temporary agreement with the same premises and tenant cannot follow another. That will give people the opportunity to dip their toe into the water and see how they like it, without having to go through a lot of administrative hassle. That is a simpler, better and less costly way to encourage tenants to come forward and see whether they like it without having to take on all the administrative requirements of the code. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I enter the debate with some trepidation after the way that it was introduced. I, too, will be very brief. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for making my speech for me. He underlined the dangers of the amendment. Tenancies at will are where part of the problem lies. I go back to my daughter and son-in-law’s experience. They think that it must be wonderful to have a tenancy on a country pub with ivy round the door, great customers and all the rest of it. Of course, they will be treated very well by the pubcos. They will be looked after; their delivery will come on the proper day; lots of things will be done on their behalf. After a year, once they sign up, they will find out the reality of the situation. It is at that stage that many problems arise, despite the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, so I hope that despite his honeyed words, the Minister will resist the temptation. I say to him: nice try but it will not wash, I am afraid.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his amendment on tenancies at will. I was very glad also to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Snape, given his great experience in the industry.
I agree with my noble friend that tenancy at will agreements are important in enabling pub companies to cover short-term gaps, to keep pubs trading in between tenants. They also allow the company time to complete due diligence on a new longer-term tenant. Temporary agreements can be useful to a prospective tenant as a trial run, prior to committing to a longer-term agreement. I have known ex-senior civil servants who have taken on pubs and found them quite a challenge.
In the other place, my honourable friend Jo Swinson committed to consider calls to exempt genuinely short-term agreements from the Pubs Code. These calls came from pub companies and some tenant groups. I can announce today that the Government will use the power in Clause 68 to exclude from the code tenancies at will and temporary agreements that do not extend beyond a certain limited period. This is to ensure that agreements that are meant to be temporary do not run on for long periods of time as a way of avoiding the code. This does not require an amendment to the Bill but, as part of the consultation on secondary legislation, we will consult on the length of agreements that should be exempted.
We have heard different views from stakeholders as to the length—including 12 months, as proposed by my noble friend—but we have also heard calls for six and nine months. Therefore, we will consult more widely on the length of any exemption period before bringing forward regulations. I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am very grateful to my noble friend for that commitment. I am not stuck on 12 months. All I think we should be trying to provide is a means for people to test out the possibility of becoming a tenant and, therefore, a reasonable period of time. It could be six or nine months; I am quite content about that. The important thing is we should have a regulatory-light opportunity for people to try it out and then if they decide that they want to make it their career, they get the full protections anticipated under the code. In those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The definition of “tenancy” in subsection (2) excludes franchise agreements whereby no rent is paid by the franchisee and their share of the profit is unaffected by the price paid for tied products.”
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the franchise of pub operations. I have remarked repeatedly during the past few hours that the point of weakness of the tie is where the interests of the two parties—the pub owner and the tenant—diverge.
That tension occurs in two places in particular. The first is the rent being charged for the tied premises. The belief or allegation is that landlords are insufficiently deterred from increasing the rent charged. I would emphasise that pubcos have an interest in avoiding pubs closing, particularly those that have an integrated model because they need the outlet for their beer, but undoubtedly the tension exists and, as I said, I do not doubt that some bad cases have occurred. The second point of tension is in the pricing of the goods that the tied tenant is obliged to sell. Again, the allegation is that the pub owner will push the sale price as high as possible. Again, there are arguments why this is not in the pub owner’s interests. Again, let me recognise that the conflict of interest exists.
Some pubcos, particularly integrated pubcos, have sought to address these twin challenges. They have done so by creating a business model based on revenue-sharing. Under such a model, both parties have an interest in maximising turnover. This business model is exactly like a franchise for McDonald’s, Pizza Express or Costa Coffee. Indeed, the agreements have been accredited by the British Franchise Association.
How does it work? The franchisee receives the property, fixtures and fittings, capital investment, and repair and replacement of the fixtures and fittings of the building. All his bills are paid, including rates and utilities. The only bills not paid are council tax and staff wages. He also has services such as training, marketing and business support—the SCORFA arrangement we talked about earlier—and he has products to sell. For this, the franchisee—the operator of the pub—takes a share of the income at the cost of a business fee of about £5,000, compared to the £250,000 that you have to pay for a McDonald’s franchise, for example.
The cost of the products to the franchisee is irrelevant because they are paid a percentage of the revenue of the pub. The goods are delivered to the site and the franchisee holds them on behalf of the franchisor—the brewer. The products are held on the sale-or-return basis. At no time does any cash change hands in respect of payment for the products. The franchisee and franchisor take an agreed share of the total income. The franchisee has the ability to set the retail sales price for the beer in the pub being operated. The pubco effectively supplies everything, with the franchisee then dictating the price to sell it at. The pubco shares the income and, on top of this, the franchisee also receives a profit share. Under the agreement, the percentages and shares of the profit are set out in the contract and cannot be altered.
It appears that this revenue-sharing franchise-type arrangement will still fall within the provisions of the proposed code, so Amendment 96 seeks to insert a new subsection into Clause 67, which is concerned with the definition of tenancy. It proposes that:
“The definition of ‘tenancy’ in subsection (2) excludes franchise agreements whereby no rent is paid by the franchisee and their share of the profit is unaffected by the price paid for tied products”.
This approach in the wording ensures a community of interest between the franchisor and the pubco. If the Government do not accept this amendment, or one like it, they will be singling out the pub trade for very discriminatory treatment. If the argument is that the franchisee has to sell a certain type of product, that is true—but if you hold a McDonald’s franchise, you have to stock Pepsi and are forbidden to sell Coke. Members of the Committee might liken it to walking into a Costa Coffee and asking, “Please can I have a Starbucks?”.
This revenue-sharing arrangement ends the possibility of divergence of interest between pub owner and tenant. It provides a useful model for future pub developments and I trust that the Government will either be able to reassure me tonight that it is not intended to include these or make the necessary changes on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
I really cannot imagine how anyone would want to take a franchise like this. It is a variation on the old zero-hours contract, which we talk about. It could be a franchise with zero income and the hours being 24/7. Why should anybody want this contract? I will be interested to hear what the Minister says, but the pubcos must love it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for this amendment on franchises and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his intervention. Pub franchises are of course covered by these measures because they fall within the definition of a tied pub in Clause 65. I understand my noble friend’s argument that a pub franchise agreement based on a share of turnover, rather than a tied rent, can lead to a better alignment of interests between a pub company and a tenant.
However, there are other aspects of the pub company and tenant relationship that can lead to unfairness, in the same way as for more traditional tied pubs. The Pubs Code includes transparency protections for tied tenants to ensure that they are clear as to what they are signing up to. We believe that these protections and others in the code should be available for all tied pub tenants, including those with a pub franchise agreement. I can, however, provide some reassurance to my noble friend. If, as he says, price increases make no impact on the tenant in a franchise agreement, the MRO-only trigger for pricing will never apply to a franchise agreement. Should a franchisee exercise the MRO option the pub company will still be able to benefit from the stocking requirement, so the tenant could still be required to stock its beer and/or its cider. The pubs company’s obligation to provide services as part of the franchise agreement would of course fall away.
I am, however, afraid that we believe that to exempt franchises would leave a loophole in the legislation. Tied pubs could be converted to franchise pubs to gain exemption from the code. If pub franchise agreements seek to reduce some of the risks of the tied model for tenants by revenue-sharing, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson explained, we would welcome that. One would expect such agreements to be less likely to fall foul of the Pubs Code. In turn, one would expect those tenants to be more satisfied and less likely to request the MRO option. This is not a reason, however, for removing franchise agreements from the scope of the legislation where we remain uneasy about opening up a loophole. I appreciate my noble friend’s amendment but I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, on a rather sour note, I am afraid that that was a very disappointing response. To say that it is a loophole, this arrangement with revenue sharing does not come within the tied tenancy arrangements, as envisaged. The tension in the tie is the rent you pay and the price you pay for the prize.
Lord Snape
I have never heard of one but I am sure the noble Lord can tell us.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
There are probably 400 or 500. The idea is that it is a very easy way for a tenant to start in the pub trade and he shares the risk as he has a revenue-sharing arrangement. Unless the Government say that they will require McDonald’s and others to offer other people’s products, there is no argument for discriminating against pubs that are franchises as long as they have franchises that match what happens in McDonald’s, pizza franchise companies and the coffee companies.
It is just a way of driving the pubs into a corner and finding ways that they cannot live with. The arrangements are used frequently by many other industries, and if pubcos are to prosper they must be able to use similar new developments and not be trapped in what is essentially a framework that has existed for hundreds of years. It was an innovative idea by pubcos to get away from the problems that have bedevilled us all this afternoon. I shall come back on this strongly as it has been too quickly and too easily brushed aside. But, for tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
““independent assessor” has the meaning given by section (Market rent option: procedure);
“market rent” and “market rent option” have the meanings given by section (Pubs Code: market rent option);
“market rent option procedure” has the meaning given by section (Market rent option: procedure);
“MRO-compliant”, in relation to a tenancy or licence, has the meaning given by section (Pubs Code: market rent option);”
““product or service tie” means a product tie or a service tie;”
“service tie” means any contractual obligation of a tied pub tenant to receive a service supplied by—
(a) the landlord of the tied pub or a person who is a group undertaking in relation to the landlord, or(b) a person nominated by the landlord or by a person who is a group undertaking in relation to the landlord;“stocking requirement” has the meaning given by section 65.”
“( ) In this Part, references to “rent”, in relation to a licence to occupy, are to be read as references to the fee payable in respect of the licence.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Fines on summary conviction in England and Wales: transitory provision
(1) Subsection (2) applies to any provision of this Act that provides that a person guilty of an offence triable either way is liable on summary conviction in England and Wales to a fine.
(2) In relation to an offence committed before section 85(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force, the reference to a fine is to be read as a reference to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
(3) After section 1131 of the Companies Act 2006 insert—
“1131A Fines on summary conviction in England and Wales: transitory provision
(1) In relation to an offence committed before section 85(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force, in the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), “a fine” is to be read as “a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”.
(2) The provisions are—
(a) section 156A(7)(a);(b) section 167D(5)(a);(c) section 279D(5)(a);(d) section 853L(2)(a).(3) In relation to an offence committed before section 85(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force, in the provisions mentioned in subsection (4), “a fine” is to be read as “a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum”.
(4) The provisions are—
(a) section 790F(2)(b)(i);(b) section 790R(3)(b)(i);(c) section 1028A(11)(b)(i);(d) section 1032A(12)(b)(i);(e) paragraphs 7(1)(b)(i), 13(4)(b)(i) and 14(3)(b)(i) of Schedule 1B.””
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Lord Mendelsohn
“( ) The Scottish Government may lay before Parliament legislation to extend provisions under Part 4 to Scotland.”
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I guess that the least welcome comment would be, “It may be a one line clause but I have seven reasons for it”.
This is a very simple provision. Many Scottish Members of the other House, including members of the nationalist parties, voted to pass the code on the basis that the Scottish Parliament would have an off-the-shelf code to implement in their own jurisdiction should they so wish. This amendment ensures that this option stays open.
It is right that it should be for Holyrood to decide. It is a devolved matter for which they have responsibility. While it does not form part of the legislative consent memorandums under consideration by the Scottish Parliament on the measures in the Bill that the Scottish Government may be looking at, it was felt worthwhile to make this provision possible so that it would be plausible for them to do so in the circumstances that they so wished. There are many in Scotland who have reported that there may be some interest in this, and, again, that is not a matter for us. I am very pleased to see the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in his place. He and many others have been attuned to what is discussed there. If we amend this sensibly and well, we will be in a position to have something which, in the circumstances that the Scottish Parliament would think this is the right thing, they would be able to use. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay
I am very much hoping that my noble friend will be able to reassure us that there are and have been instructive discussions with the Scottish Government on this point and that the dialogue with the Scottish Government has not come too late in the day for a co-ordinated cross-border approach, either via a Sewel Motion in this Bill or via parallel legislation introduced in Holyrood. Reassurance on these points is important in the context of this Bill, but it also has a wider importance.
Just last week, the Government published the document, Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement, in which they stressed that it was essential that there was effective intergovernmental working and close collaboration between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments. That statement restated an important recommendation from the Smith commission report, published in November 2014. That, in turn, restated a central recommendation of the Calman commission in 2009, on which I sat. This is the reason for my interest in my noble friend being able to reassure us that there has been timely, constructive dialogue between London and Edinburgh on this Bill and on this particular point.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment and for giving me the opportunity to say something about the application of these measures in Scotland. I am delighted to hear from my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I have discussed this matter with him and the noble Lord, Lord Reid, outside the Committee. The measures in Part 4 of the Bill apply to England and Wales only, of course. This is because regulation of tied pubs is a devolved matter in Scotland and it is for the Scottish Government to make their own legislation. Should they decide to legislate, they would not need any additional powers to be conferred by the UK Government.
My honourable friend Jo Swinson has recently written to the Scottish Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism encouraging the Scottish Government to consider bringing forward their own legislation in this area. My officials stand ready to assist as necessary. We understand that the Scottish Government have been engaging stakeholders from all sides of the debate and are considering whether there is evidence for a similar intervention in Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord will, therefore, accept that his amendment is not required.
Before I sit down, as this is the final day of the Committee, I should like to take a brief moment to put on record my thanks at the end of what—for some of us—has been a dry January, which has rightly ended with us talking about beer. First, I would like to thank all the patient Chairs of our Committee and those behind the scenes: Hansard, the clerks and the doorkeepers who have helped ensure our debates run smoothly and finish on time. I am also very grateful to my noble friends Lord Popat, Lord Newby and Lord Nash, on this side of the House, for their support in steering this Bill through Committee, and to my noble friend Lord Stoneham for being so loyal an attendee.
Furthermore, I would like to thank officials from the nine government departments who have been here to support the Government: BIS, the Treasury, HMRC, the Department for Education, UK Export Finance, DCLG, the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Justice and DWP. We even talked about Gibraltar on the day that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, went missing and I would like to congratulate him on the refreshing new perspective he has brought to our work. I would also like to say how glad I was to see the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, back today. I know he has been ill and we have had great collaboration with him and his colleagues.
Most importantly, I thank the noble Lords opposite, and all noble Lords who have been involved in the Committee, for their contributions to our debates. We have scrutinised the Bill in full, with some good and thorough debate. I have welcomed the spirit of co-operation that has been apparent even today. This is a vital Bill because small businesses are the engine of Britain. This Bill will help them innovate, grow and compete in many ways—from prompt payment to access to Government contracts. I look forward to noble Lords’ support for the Bill in its remaining stages to ensure that it reaches the statute book this spring.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. On our amendment, all I would say is that between now and Report we will have some indication of where the Scottish Government are going, and we may well return to it in due course. At this stage, we would be very interested to hear her response.
I say from this side a strong thank you to the Chairmen, doorkeepers, officials, Hansard, and everyone else who has helped with these proceedings, and to colleagues for being such an interesting group in getting to grips with the Bill.
This is done in a spirit of co-operation. There are many occasions in politics where we are at daggers drawn, and many on which we find common cause. Sometimes we are in the middle. This is one where we are rather more towards one pole than the other. Our biggest criticism of the Bill is that it does not go far enough, but it would be churlish to say that that is a reason why we should not give it a great deal of co-operation. In that regard, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Popat, and the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their contributions to the debate. I hope that in the weeks we have, on some of the more interesting issues, we can continue that spirit of co-operation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“( ) Section 13 (electronic paying in of cheques etc) comes into force—
(a) on the day this Act is passsed, for the purpose of enabling the making of regulations under section 89D of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (as inserted by section 13); (b) on 31 July 2016, for all other purposes.”
House of Lords
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Schools: Faith Schools and Free Schools
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the conditions which must be met before a new state-funded faith school or free school is allowed to be established; who sets and agrees the conditions; and how the conditions must guarantee a broad and balanced curriculum for pupils.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, the department sets out clear conditions in guidance and application guides for the establishment of all schools. All state-funded schools, whether faith-designated or not, must deliver a broad and balanced curriculum. This is a requirement of education legislation or of their academy funding agreement. Ofsted inspections place a clear emphasis on assessing whether schools are providing a broad and balanced education.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response, but is he aware that a recent Ofsted report described a free school as follows:
“any teaching or learning going on at the school is purely incidental … Student achievement is weak … Standards are low …one of the worst schools”,
that they have inspected, and criticised bullying and discrimination? It seems evident that there must have been some lack of organisation in setting up that school. Is it worth risking children’s achievement and well-being for an educational whim?
Lord Nash
My Lords, we have a rigorous approach to setting up new schools. They will not all work. We have closed a couple of free schools, with a total number of 200 pupils. Although that is very serious for those pupils and their parents, that compares with getting on for a quarter of a million new free school places that we will introduce under the free school UTC and studio school programme. Of the 87 pre-warning notices that this Government have issued to academies, more than 60% have been to sponsors approved by the previous Government, so it is clear that setting up new schools is not entirely straightforward.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend has been a great proponent of British values. Does he agree that respecting and understanding other religions might find a route in ensuring that faith schools had a percentage of pupils from other faiths?
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the network of Sikh organisations responsible for the inspection of Sikh faith schools. The teaching of gender equality and respect for other faiths is obligatory in Sikh faith schools. Does the Minister agree that any school that fails to do that should be treated as a failing school?
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, spoke of the dangers of reacting to an educational whim. Will my noble friend assure me that he will not react to the educational whims of that extraordinary group of people who my right honourable friend Michael Gove rightly described as “the Blob”? They are an obstruction to education.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that much of the recurring criticism of these schools is about the failure to deliver education on religion which encompasses all religions and those people who have none at all?
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, given the concerns recently raised by some free faith schools which have cropped up in recent years, is it not time to have a bit of an evaluation of faith schools and their place in our society rather than rolling out even more?
Lord Nash
Faith schools and church schools are an essential part of our school landscape. Church schools represent 34% of all schools and 25% of all pupils are educated in them. Church schools consistently outperform other schools and have a superb record of community cohesion. We want to provide parents with diversity and choice.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, does the Minister agree that “faith school” covers a variety of different kinds of institution? Church of England schools are not faith schools in the narrow sense of providing an education for people of just one faith. In places such as Leicester they provide a rounded education for the whole community, including many of other faiths who value highly what they have to offer.
Baroness King of Bow (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the only way to establish a faith school—like any new school—is via the free schools programme? Some of the problems that we have seen with faith schools are therefore evident more widely—namely, lack of oversight and lack of qualified teachers. As with the Al-Madinah free school and others, that lack of oversight and the presence of unqualified teachers have damaged the education of children in communities in Derby, Durham and Crawley, where free schools have had to close. I know that the Minister will say that many free schools are excellent, and he is right: free schools, like state schools, can be outstanding or inadequate. However, I hope he will agree that that is not the point. The point is that, unlike state schools, free schools can employ unqualified teachers and avoid robust scrutiny. When will the Government better protect and scrutinise the education of children in free schools?
Lord Nash
I point out to the noble Baroness that a faith school can be set up through the VA route, although very few are established in this way. I think I have already pointed out that our record of failure in establishing new schools is rather better than that of the previous Government. I am delighted that we are back on unqualified teachers because, if that is all we have to argue about, it clearly shows cross-party support for our education reforms. In fact, there are fewer unqualified teachers under this Government—only around 3% are unqualified. I am surprised that the Labour Party wants to restrict people from RADA or the Royal College of Music who may be able to teach for only a few hours a week in a primary school. I find it particularly surprising that the shadow Secretary of State for Education—it should be borne in mind that he is himself an unqualified teacher, went to a school which has many unqualified teachers, and failed to answer Jeremy’s Paxman’s question nine times—is quite prepared to send his own children to a school with unqualified teachers.
Asylum Seekers: Women
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to consult Asylum Aid about ways to improve protection and fairness for women asylum applicants and support provided for those who have suffered gender-based harm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has a proud history of offering protection to those who need it, male or female. Home Office officials regularly meet with Asylum Aid and recently discussed Asylum Aid’s Protection Gap campaign and other practical steps that can be taken to further improve the management of asylum claims from women.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the positive points in the noble Lord’s brief reply. Will the Government extend childcare to all women’s interviews, especially in London and Liverpool, where it is not available? Will they provide training on gender violence to interviewers and interpreters, as is already done for the police? Finally, will they explain to women applicants why choosing a woman interviewer or counsellor can be of benefit to them?
Lord Bates
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and respect his long interest in this area and his work with female refugees. On his first point, we are very much open to reasonable suggestions as to how childcare could be improved. There are some practical difficulties on some of the sites, particularly in central London. As for having female interviewers, that is a very good step and we want to make progress on that. There is some practical difficulty over interpreters. I will get back to the noble Lord on his other points, if I may.
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
My Lords, what steps are being taken to ensure that the children of detained asylum seekers have access to a rounded education, including attending the local schools?
Lord Bates
There was a change in policy as a result of legislation that went through your Lordships’ House, which said that children cannot be detained in immigration centres. Where they are in centres because their parents are there, they are more likely to be put into places such as the Cedars, which is a family-based centre where education is available on-site.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, Women for Refugee Women’s recent report highlighted how women held in Yarl’s Wood detention centre were continually humiliated by male staff while they were dressing, showering and using the toilet. Given the ongoing reports of unacceptable treatment of women for some years in this establishment, is it not time to put a stop to women in these circumstances—female asylum seekers who have been raped, trafficked, tortured and subjected to FGM—being held in detention centres?
Lord Bates
We are very clear that all female asylum seekers should be treated with dignity and respect. It is also true that when the Chief Inspector of Prisons visited Yarl’s Wood and produced his report, he found that it was a safe and respectful place. We have seen the report that was prepared. It contained some very disturbing accusations and we have asked its authors to share the sources of that information with us so that it can be properly investigated.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord has tried to be positive in his response but these allegations are extremely serious. As the noble Baroness said, they often concern women who are fleeing sexual violence. The Government’s response to the allegations was to expect contractors, in this case Serco, to maintain the highest standards. Will the Minister accept that saying it does not make it happen? When the UN investigators are not permitted to go into Yarl’s Wood to see for themselves, that is something of a disgrace. Will the Government commit to a thorough, fully independent investigation into the circumstances at Yarl’s Wood as a matter of the utmost urgency?
Lord Bates
Certainly, as we have said, if the information is supplied to us, it will be investigated very thoroughly indeed. The circumstances there have been subject to regular investigations by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons. In relation to the UN rapporteur who asked to visit, that was a very last-minute request. We had set up a very detailed programme, including meetings with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Home Secretary, and had offered other meetings. We are open to further approaches in due course in the future.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that in a number of instances the women who made these very serious complaints have been deported before they can speak properly to the investigators? Surely, that is not something that the Government condone.
Lord Bates
No, it is not, and that is why we want the information to be brought to our attention as soon as possible. We cannot act if it is not shared with us.
Care: Budget
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Clinton-Davis
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to cut the care budget and, if so, by how much.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, social care budgets are set by each individual local authority. This allows councils to work with their residents to decide how best to make their spending decisions, based on local priorities and needs. In 2015-16, the better care fund will provide £5.4 billion of investment into better integrated care, from 1 April 2015, based on joint plans that have been developed locally.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
Does not the policy which the Government have declared in the past hit, in particular, the old and the vulnerable? Is it not a fact that £1 billion is being removed from the care budget, revealing that the Government are determined at all costs, whatever the price paid by poorer people, to reduce the role of the state and to punish those who cannot hit back? Why instead do the Government not deal with the bankers in the same way? Are they not primarily responsible for the position we are now in?
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I can speak for local authorities but not, regrettably, for bankers. The Government have made care a priority, which is why we have given an extra £1.1 billion to help protect social care services this year, on top of the additional funding in recent years.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, whatever the size of the care budget, I think everybody would agree that the majority of caring responsibilities fall on the caring families. Over the course of the next Parliament, some 10.5 million people will start being carers. Is the Minister confident that the budget will be sufficient to provide them with the information and support they so desperately need?
Baroness Jolly
A lot of work has gone on in preparing local authorities to give assessments to carers for their needs and support, in exactly the same way as they assess the people they care for. The cost currently being factored in for that is £104.6 million—£31.3 million on assessments and £73.3 million on the provision of support.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, a couple of days ago, Age UK published its scorecard, which shows that, despite rising numbers of older people and rising demand for services, the amount spent has fallen dramatically over the past few years. In fact, it has gone down by over 40%. There are some shocking figures, for example that half of the people who struggle to get into a bath or to wash do not get any help, and that one in three of those who cannot go to the toilet without help are not getting any help, and preventive services are going down. In the light of that, does the noble Baroness not think that, nationally, it is time for the Government to come in with some direction?
Baroness Jolly
The Government have been trying very hard to give direction. One issue that we have been trying to direct is integrated care, joining up care services. However, public finances are in a precarious position. The deficit is still projected to be over £100 billion. The report from Age UK is a very good and interesting read, but I discussed it with officials this morning and we could not follow some of the figures and ways of working from its results.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, will the Government extend the better care fund into future years in order to transfer resources from the NHS to social care, so that the number of people having to go into hospital can be reduced?
Baroness Jolly
Certainly, that is the Government’s aim, and we legislated to establish the better care fund, providing £5.4 billion from this year through to next year. Quite what happens thereafter will depend on the result of the election in May.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness seriously saying that the Government are not responsible for the funding cuts to local government and the consequent impact of a reduction in social care services? On the better care fund that she referred to for the next financial year, I refer her back to the King’s Fund quarterly monitoring report, which we discussed yesterday, which showed that 83% of NHS trust finance directors were not confident that the fund will be able to reduce pressure on A&E services. The better care fund is destined to fail.
Baroness Jolly
I think the noble Lord will expect me to disagree with him on that issue. A lot of work has gone in with local authorities, with the CCGs and with NHS trusts to try to ensure that that work succeeds.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that local authorities and health services that have already combined their services are still struggling. Indeed, on the radio today they said that they are doing their best but they cannot give the kind of service they want. I give only that example, but the noble Baroness will know of many others. Yesterday I asked her—and I ask again—how she can hold local government services to account on quality when they are all saying that, without proper funding, quality will fail. Can the noble Baroness answer that question today?
Baroness Jolly
I am sorry that I failed to respond to the question yesterday. Quality, of course, is monitored by the CQC. Certainly, it looks at all local authority and other care providers and, indeed, the NHS. As I said earlier, the Government make decisions about how much funding to put into community local government, the whole pot then goes down to local authorities and it is local decision-makers who decide how much money goes into which budget.
Lord Lexden (Con)
In this week that marks the 50th anniversary of Churchill’s death and state funeral, would we not do well to reflect for a moment on a few simple, eloquent words of his on this subject? In 1951, he wrote:
“The care and comfort of the elderly is a sacred trust”.
Must we not do all that we can in our time to meet that great man’s standard?
Baroness Jolly
I think that is highly laudable. However, the situation that we find ourselves in is that over the past five years we have had over 1 million more over-65s, and unfortunately that adds hugely to the care bill. So, I regret that we may not be able to meet some of Winston Churchill’s demands.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, at the beginning of last month, I led a debate on the lack of a governance framework for social and health care. Has the noble Baroness taken time to think about what I said? She offered me a meeting but that has not transpired.
Baroness Jolly
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Howe is not here because he and I discussed that issue together when he returned from his trip, and it was on his list of things to do, so I will contact his office about it. As regards governance, where local authorities and NHS trusts work together, one of the first things that they put down, if you like, is how the governance should operate between the two organisations.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
One of the complaints that the Minister must have heard is that her Government—who apparently are not responsible for bankers—are micromanaging what happens at local level, because they determine not only the size of the grant but spending targets. There is a terrible mismatch between those areas of the country which need to spend more than other areas and the targets and grant that those authorities are given. I cite my own city of Preston, and Lancashire, which are losing money and are areas of deprivation. Does the Minister agree that it is no good the Government saying that it is up to local authorities when they are controlling everything from the centre and that they should not wash their hands of it in public?
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, for as long we have had money distributed among local authorities and the NHS, there have been debates about the fairness of how it has happened. I live in a poor rural area and certainly we say much the same sort of thing.
Chilcot Inquiry
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Truscott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what lessons they have taken from the conduct of the Chilcot Inquiry to inform the conduct of future inquiries.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Government are committed to learning lessons from the conduct of all public inquiries, including the Chilcot inquiry. Under the Inquiries Act 2005, each statutory inquiry is required to summarise lessons learnt for its successors; others are strongly encouraged to do so.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the Chilcot inquiry has proven itself wholly incapable of completing its work in a timely manner? Does he further agree that in future public inquiries should be judge led and time limited?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There is no necessary relationship between those inquiries which are judge led and those which are time limited. The noble Lord will recall that the Saville inquiry took 12 years. The question of timeliness is very difficult. I think that part of the problem for the Chilcot inquiry has been that the number of documents to be examined, then considered, then declassified and then in some cases to be negotiated on over access with an allied Government was much larger than was originally anticipated. It would probably have helped if a larger staff had assisted at that stage in the inquiry.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the terms of reference of the Chilcot inquiry covered everything that happened both politically and militarily between 2001 and 2009. Is not one of the lessons to be learnt that more consideration should be given to the breadth of terms of reference of future inquiries?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I entirely agree with that. It is a huge inquiry, which is one reason why it has taken so long. Perhaps the noble Lord has seen Sir John Chilcot’s letter of 20 January in which he said that they had served longer on the inquiry than any of them had anticipated. It has been longer than they expected. One of the issues for the inquiry on historical child abuse currently being set up is that the number of cases over a very large number of years that it is being asked to cover is almost daunting for an inquiry of that sort.
Lord Hurd of Westwell (Con)
Can my noble friend give the House an assurance that when the report is finally published it will contain an adequate section explaining precisely what have been the difficulties and obstacles in the way of producing the report earlier?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, it is an independent inquiry, but I will ensure that that gets back to the inquiry itself.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, we are told that one of the reasons for the delay in publication is the issue of the Maxwellisation letters. Last week, the Government in their reply washed their hands of all responsibility and said that this was a matter for Chilcot. If it is correct that, after all these years, some of those letters have been sent out only in the past month or so, it would be utterly disgraceful. Is the committee still sitting, on how many days a week, and are the costs rising by the day?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Maxwellisation process is unavoidably a lengthy one. Noble Lords who served on the post-legislative scrutiny committee on the Inquiries Act last year—a particular special committee—raised the question of the length of time it took to carry through this process. There are issues of fairness and equity in making sure that those who may well be sharply criticised by a report should have the right to see those criticisms and comment on them before publication. That is the process that is now under way and, unfortunately, it does take some time.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trimble; he may not be, but I am. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government understand that the delays in publishing Chilcot—whether justified or not—are eroding public confidence in the report and in the inquiry process itself? Even allowing for the fact that this is an independent report, is there really nothing that the Government can do to impart some urgency and immediacy to this matter?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I have no doubt that the members of the inquiry are fully aware of the urgency. If I had been advising them, I would have put a limit on the amount of time to be taken to respond to these Maxwellisation letters. That is one of the issues that remains. But certainly one of the lessons learnt will be that we need to ensure that inquiries do not take as long as a number of inquiries—not just this one—have taken in recent years.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, is not the reality of the matter that public confidence in the report and its outcomes is being undermined, not by the delay in publishing the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, claimed, but by the unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations that people are making?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the purpose of inquiries is to restore public confidence, but it would be highly desirable if this report had been completed and published by now. There have been a number of reasons for the delay, and this is not the first time that an inquiry has taken, sadly, a lot longer than was originally hoped.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, in reply to an earlier question, the Minister referred to the numerous documents that had to be sifted and I am sure that he was absolutely right. Does he not agree with me that this is where having a good-quality counsel for an inquiry is essential? Am I right in thinking that Chilcot decided that he could do without such a person?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not so sure that the quality of the counsel in this case was important. As I understand it, it was the sheer volume of documents that had to be sifted, a number of which were discovered to be relevant at a later stage of the inquiry, and then the whole question of what could be released. This is a very new kind of inquiry in terms of the amount of highly classified material—much of it relating to discussions with other Governments—that will be released.
NHS England: Major Incidents
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, as you know, I am always happy to come to the House to discuss the NHS. However, today I feel that we have been brought here to discuss a local operational issue which, regrettably, the Opposition have tried to spin as part of their policy to ‘weaponise the NHS’.
As I said to the House earlier this month, a major incident is part of the established escalation process for the NHS, and has been since 2005. It enables trusts to deal with significant demands, putting in place a command and control structure to allow them to bring in additional staff and increase capacity. It is a temporary measure taken to ensure that the most urgent and serious cases get the safe, high-quality care they need.
The decision to declare a major incident is taken locally, and there is no national definition. We must trust the managers and clinicians in our local NHS to make these decisions and support them in doing so by ensuring that there is sufficient financial support available to help deal with additional pressures. The document that has been questioned this morning by the Opposition health spokesman was issued by the local NHS in the West Midlands. That was done to help their CCGs work with local NHS organisations to deal with the unprecedented pressures they have been facing this winter. As the chief operating officer of NHS England, Dame Barbara Hakin, said this morning, this was a local decision and neither the responsibility of Ministers nor the result of pressure by Ministers.
Let me finish by praising the NHS for coping well with the unprecedented pressures. Performance against the A&E standard improved to 92.4% last week, which is testament to hard-working staff, and this Government will support them, not try to turn their efforts into a political football”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, and I echo her thanks to the staff of the NHS and other agencies who are coping with such pressure at the moment. The noble Baroness said that there is no definition of a major incident. Can she tell me why there is no national definition of a major incident, given that the NHS is a national service and that we need comparators between different areas of the country? Can she also tell me why a head of operations at a major trust who received the NHS England guidance said it was designed,
“to effectively stop trusts from calling a major incident”,
and that consultants’,
“hands will be tied in most cases if they wish to call a major incident for capacity reasons”?
That sounds rather like news management by NHS England. Finally, can she confirm that, when the previous Government left office, the 98% target was being met?
Baroness Jolly
I shall take the noble Lord’s questions in reverse order. The 98% target was being met—up until probably the middle of November, we were hitting our target—but, from the middle of November through the cold Christmas and New Year season, demand was really very high. In 2013, NHS England produced guidance on such issues that would, clearly, have gone to all CCGs, trusts and interested organisations. It is up to local trusts, following the guidance, to make their own decisions about how appropriate it is to call an emergency. The noble Lord has an advantage over me; I have not seen the West Midlands document, so I am not sure exactly how that trust interpreted the guidance. I have not seen the document, so I cannot follow the trust’s interpretation, but from the Secretary of State’s Statement, he probably finds it difficult to follow.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, does the 2013 guidance that was issued to all trusts still stand? Is the purpose of that guidance not only to enable individual hospitals to signal to their CCGs that they are having a problem coping but to alert other hospitals in the surrounding area that there is a capacity issue which has to be dealt with on an emergency basis?
Baroness Jolly
I think that is right. The document produced in the West Midlands is the only one of its kind. Other areas have not done the same, so they would be relying on that document. Decisions like this affect the whole health economy, so not only would CCGs be involved but directors of public health, any other acute trusts within the area, community trusts, partnerships trusts, ambulance trusts and primary care organisations. It is an effort on behalf of them all to support a hospital or an A&E department that is in trouble.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, is the pending ambulance strike a major incident? What information is being given to the public?
Baroness Jolly
I think that the last ambulance strike was dealt with quite effectively with the support of the military, who were driving and operating ambulances. My understanding is that the strike has been called off.
Lord Christopher (Lab)
The noble Baroness said she has not seen the document, but are the Government happy that such guidance should be given? I would have thought that declaring a major incident was a matter of judgment and common sense in the locality. To be issuing guidance seems a very risky thing to do. My second question bears upon the other side of the coin. Can the noble Baroness explain the logic of minor injuries clinics being open only in the afternoon? It is difficult to arrange to be injured only in the afternoon.
Baroness Jolly
No, I am afraid that I cannot explain the logic of that, but it does sound really rather bizarre, so I guess that you need to talk to the trust concerned. As to the guidance, that is of a very high level—it is just to give pointers to trusts about how to proceed.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that Ministers did not express the view that it was too easy to call a state of emergency for NHS trusts. Can she give us an absolute assurance that special advisers did not convey such a message to those who might make those decisions?
Baroness Jolly
I was not party to any of the conversations in the department at that time. However, the safety of patients is absolutely paramount. Although emergencies like this one were called, they lasted only for hours rather than for days and days and effectively they allowed the local trust, which was in difficulties, to call in staff and talk to surrounding trusts to ask for their support to deal with what was a fairly time-limited situation.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister help the House: is it right that one of the matters to be considered is the possibility of reputational damage to the trust if it declares an emergency? That is nothing to do with clinical decision-making locally. Consulting the duty officer of NHS England before declaring an emergency is nothing to do with local clinical decision-making either. Perhaps the Minister can help the House.
Baroness Jolly
As I have said, patient safety and quality of care have to be absolutely paramount. Certainly, under the old system, if an NHS trust decided that it needed in effect to blow the whistle, I imagine that one would have informed somebody in the old strategic health authority that that was happening. I imagine that a trust would out of courtesy inform the person with whom they normally work in their local branch of NHS England.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)
Amendment 103A is the first in a series of amendments relating to Part 5 of the Bill, which relate also to the Prevent strategy and its partner, the Channel programme. Part 5 seeks to make statutory for participants in these two programmes actions and duties that have until now been voluntary. That switch from co-operation to co-option raises a whole range of issues for those involved. The universities in particular are very unhappy, about both the threat to their autonomy and the conflict that this creates with their duties under other legislation to promote debate and safeguard freedom of speech.
The provisions in the Bill and its accompanying guidance also pose problems for other educational institutions: schools, further education colleges and sixth-form colleges, which provide for the younger—and arguably more impressionable—adolescent age group. Generally, there is considerable concern that these provisions may backfire and, far from helping to improve the present position, may well serve to make matters worse. To date, all these educational institutions have co-operated voluntarily and willingly with the Prevent strategy, accepting and developing it to suit their specific circumstances within the framework of their safeguarding policies. They worry that making these duties obligatory and pushing through this legislation with relatively little consultation will not only leave teachers and administrators with a considerable bureaucratic burden, but will also alienate those on whom those burdens fall as well as those whose activities it seeks to monitor.
In this context, Amendment 103A is a probing amendment; I am not suggesting that this wording is in any way appropriate. Essentially, it seeks to draw attention to the lack of clarity in the terminology used in the Bill and, in particular, in the draft guidance, which was issued alongside the Bill. The Bill itself is very careful to use the term “terrorism” and the duty specified in Clause 21(1) is,
“to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.
Clause 33 states that,
“‘terrorism’ has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000”,
which is a definition that has been around for some 15 years, so presumably the courts are reasonably happy with it. The definition of “terrorism” in the Terrorism Act 2000 relates to the “threat of action”, which involves violence against people and property, endangers lives, constitutes a serious risk to health or safety, or seriously disrupts an electronic system. It is less clear, and more subjective, what “being drawn into terrorism” —the words used in the Bill—means. The difficulty arises from the draft guidance that was issued.
The guidance makes it clear that the purpose of the legislation is,
“to exclude those promoting extremist views that support or are conducive to terrorism”.
In turn, paragraph 5 of that guidance defines terrorism as,
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
Further, those caught by Clause 21(1) are required to assess how far their students or pupils are at risk of being drawn, not only into violent extremism, but,
“non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism”.
An article in Times Higher Education suggested that that could apply to those using non-violent techniques such as sitting in a road to block the passage of equipment to be used for exploring fracking. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out, the terminology is so vague as to leave much discretion in the hands of the police and other members of the local panels being set up under Chapter 2 of this part of the Bill, whose task it is to decide whether those reported as being drawn into terrorism, or vulnerable to being so drawn, should be put on a support programme. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Association of School and College Leaders, whose briefing to us pointed out that the lack of legal certainty over definitions of terms such as “extremism” will make it extremely difficult for schools and colleges to know whether they risk being in breach of this new duty. The association remarks:
“A number of members had received the Prevent training in their schools and colleges, and while some found it helpful, others found that it was so vague in respect of what to look for that they felt even less confident about the duty after going through the training”.
It seems very difficult for us to impose these duties on such a wide body of institutions if there is such uncertainty over what this duty involves. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 103B in this group is in my name. Widespread concerns have been expressed about Prevent becoming a statutory duty, and it has been suggested that Clause 21 be left out of the Bill. My preference would be for it not to become statutory, but I recognise that the Government have thought about that carefully and come to a view. I declare an interest as one of three joint presidents of London Councils, the umbrella organisation for the London boroughs. Like others, it is concerned.
I have two main, and rather different, points to make about the amendment. It would mean that the duty would not apply to any of the specified authorities—those listed in Schedule 3, and any more that are added,
“unless the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report regarding the operation of the duty”.
I shall come back to the term “operation” in a moment.
My first point is to ask whether imposing the duty is appropriate to all specified authorities, and for all the functions of those authorities. My second point is about funding, particularly in the case of local authorities. As my noble friend has said, authorities will have a statutory duty, as set out in Clause 21, to “have due regard”—and in talking about activities leading to terrorism, she has identified an important issue. My amendment would require each authority to be considered separately. The authorities are different, and they operate differently. That is why I have used the term,
“the operation of the duty”.
The scheduled authorities range from local authorities through a great variety of educational institutions, the police, prisons, health services and health service providers. Even if the duty is appropriate for a higher education institution—we will be paying a good deal of attention to that aspect today—is it appropriate for a primary school or a nursery school?
Of course, preventing people being drawn into terrorist activities is immensely important. However, I wonder whether our great arts institutions, which get a lot of public funding—although not as much as most of them would like—have more opportunity than a nursery school does to deal with this issue. A nursery school may have a responsibility, but it is a responsibility to make kids aware of the difference between violence and talking about things. That is much more important than closing off the issues.
I do not think it is enough to say, as I suspect the Minister may suggest, that there will be a proportionate light touch, because having the duty creates work and bureaucracy, and requires record-keeping. The Secretary of State will have the power to issue directions and, in the case of educational institutions, Ofsted will apply them. As has been suggested to me by some of those concerned—especially by those from the Muslim community, although my concerns are not limited to that—the records may then show that there is disproportionate criticism of schools in areas with a large Muslim population. That will give the alienating message—I believe “alienating” was the term my noble friend used—that we are concerned about.
I suspect that others will talk about the principle of applying a statutory duty to local authorities, as distinct from a function and a power, as has been the case, and would be the case. I want to ask my noble friend about services that are contracted out by local authorities, as many services are. If an authority is in the middle of a contract, it cannot change it; it certainly cannot change it unilaterally. How should it deal with that? New and renewed contracts would have to tie organisations into the new duty. That is in part why I have used the term “operations”, because I am unclear how this will work in practice.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that a great many of your Lordships are involved in higher education and universities. I am a very committed member of court at Lancaster and Newcastle universities and an emeritus governor of LSE, having been a governor for 30 years.
This amendment obviously relates very closely to the next group. Therefore some of the things that I will say on this amendment will have application to the next group.
I beg the Minister and his colleagues to treat this matter very sensitively and not to come to any absolute conclusions before they have heard the existing reservations. The concept of the autonomy and freedom of the university is fundamental to our concept of higher education, and to the model of our university lives which is held out to the world and makes it so attractive to students, including postgraduate students, from all over the world. Whatever the Government’s intentions, they must be very careful that what is proposed will not be widely perceived as formalising matters to the point of turning the university into an agent of government. How can we have statutory responsibilities of this kind without beginning to suggest that universities must act for the Government in this respect?
Of course we want the co-operation and good will of the universities in this matter and of course there is a desperately dangerous situation in which we live, and I accept that those dangers are not diminishing. However, this makes the battle for hearts and minds more important than ever. It makes the winning of a real commitment to freedom and to the things that we stand for and are trying to defend in our society more important to leaders, not only in this country but across the world. Within a university, that is best achieved in the context of free discussion and debate. That is the whole point. This matters because unacceptable extremist ideas can be approached face on and argued out. Sensitive potential recruits for extremism can see that there is a better way. Do we feel that we are engaged in a battle for hearts and minds or do we not? If we see that that is the only lasting hope to win this battle, everything else that we do is just putting fingers in the dyke. The fundamental issue is to win the good will and the conviction of people across the world to a better way. That can happen very much—I will not say best, as that is a big claim—within our universities. This is a tremendously important issue that concerns the whole fundamental concept of the university, how it is seen and the atmosphere in which it operates.
When the noble Baroness introduced the amendment, she referred to the rush and to the failure to have proper consultation. I forget which American statesman said that the difference between an academic and a politician is that an academic argues for a conclusion while a politician has to argue for a decision. I see the potential hazards of this business of consultation in this sphere. However, if there are anxieties—they do seem widespread—there has not been adequate consultation, and that is a serious matter. Whatever is proposed, it will be strongest if it has the good will of the universities rather than all the reservations and anxieties that have been expressed by them.
For all these reasons, I commend the amendment of the noble Baroness and ask the Minister—I do not want to embarrass him but he is a thoughtful and considerate man, and I have great regard for him—to think very carefully with his colleagues before insisting upon their proposals exactly as they are.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am slightly bemused by this grouping because it contains two very different amendments. Both seek clarity but the second amendment, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raises the issue of whether the operation of the various duties can be delivered, given the resources that have been made available.
The material produced by London Councils highlights my concern that the Government are underfunding what they want to do regarding counterterrorism. The concerns of London Councils are simply that, given the duties being placed on those councils—which will be magnified across the country in other local authorities—the sums of money that the Government propose to put aside for counterterrorism are inadequate. I am also aware that the money being made available to the police service is considered by many to be inadequate.
In a Written Answer sent to me today, the Minister tells me that it would be completely inappropriate to say what sum of money has been made available for the counterterrorism police network. That is a slightly puzzling Answer because the reality is that the sums of money flowing to the counterterrorism network, in practice, go though the Metropolitan Police accounts and end up in papers put before the London Assembly. The figures are ultimately in the public domain, although they might take a while before they emerge.
My understanding is that the counterterrorism police network has suggested that implementing what the Government expected would—given the current stage of threat—require something like an additional £30 million a year. Again, my understanding is that the sum of money being made available—although I appreciate that the Minister can neither confirm nor deny this because of the position he has taken—is rather less than that. In fact, my understanding is that it is less than one-third of the sum required. Therefore, clarity about whether it is practicable to operate and bring these matters to fruition is important, which is presumably the purpose of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also seeks clarity on what people are trying to prevent. I have a feeling that she is widening the definition of what authorities are required to prevent. Asking them to prevent people being drawn into terrorism is one thing; asking them to prevent people being drawn into,
“activities which may lead to”,
terrorism broadens the definition beyond all recognition.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I should point out to the noble Lord that I said that it was merely a probing amendment and that the wording was not appropriate.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am not criticising the noble Baroness and I appreciate that all Liberal Democrat amendments are probing amendments, because that is the nature of their position.
The point that I am trying to make—it would be helpful if the Government could clarify this—is that although there is a definition of terrorism, I suspect that the definition of activities “leading to” terrorism is much broader. That could draw some things into the definition because people then have to make a subjective judgment as to whether something is an activity that under certain circumstances, not necessarily present, might lead to terrorism. Some clarity from the Minister on that would be useful.
However, that does not alter the general point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, highlighted, which is the importance of public authorities having a clear understanding of what they are required to do and what they are supposed to be preventing.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to both these amendments, although it may well be that much of what I have to say relates to amendments that will follow. However, I have some general points that will also relate to the debates we are going to have later today.
When the Government bring forward something on a statutory basis, there are two very clear questions that we need to ask: is it absolutely needed, and are we sure that what we are implementing works? The concern that I have in relation to the former of those questions—and I am sure that it will be dealt with in future amendments—is whether we are absolutely clear that it is necessary to introduce Prevent on a statutory basis into the various statutory bodies that we are speaking of in this Bill, including nurseries, schools and universities.
However, I want to focus more on whether we are sure that what we are implementing is working at present. There have been concerns about the Prevent and counter-radicalisation programme for a number of years. There has been a view that it is being done badly, and reports going back as far as five or six years, from 2009 onwards, have consistently argued that the quality of Prevent work is questionable. Indeed, in some cases it has been said that the Prevent work itself has further alienated communities rather than deradicalised them. In those circumstances, it is important for a full review of Prevent to be done before we place it on a statutory footing.
The second concern in relation to Prevent is that, up to now, it has been ideologically rather than evidence based, and the basis on which Prevent work is done has been much questioned. There have been reports from the intelligence service’s behavioural science unit as to whether the linear theory of ideology leading to extremism and then violent extremism can actually be supported. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, is not in his seat today, because I think he would have been able to shed more light on that.
The third issue is definition, which has already been referred to today. What definition of extremism are we working to? A definition has now been provided in the guidance, which has been labelled the Prevent definition, but noble Lords may be aware that there are a number of definitions of extremism currently in government working documents. For example, the definition in the extremism task force paper after the tragic killing of Drummer Lee Rigby is different to that in the Prevent guidelines. It is incredibly dangerous to be stepping into the realms of a statutory basis for a Prevent programme that is going to rely on a definition of extremism that is not entirely defined and clear within all government departments, considering that many of the these statutory bodies will be accountable to different government departments.
My final point is that one of the challenges in relation to Prevent, and indeed in relation to what we are trying to do through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, is how far British Muslim communities are on board. How far are they taking ownership of this work and how far do they feel that this work is genuinely being done to tackle radical violent extremists? Noble Lords may be aware that there was a sliding scale within government to define how far somebody was beyond the pale. If you were so extremist, we would not speak to you; if you were slightly more extremist, we would not take you as partners; if you were slightly more extremist than that, we would not fund your organisations. Nowhere is that made public. Nowhere are we aware what that would look like. Now we are talking not just about groups, organisations and individuals whom we do not engage with or take as partners or fund, but individuals who are not going to be allowed to speak, for example, on any university campus. It is important that we make sure that a proper consultation takes place with the British Muslim communities as to how this will work in practice.
The reason why I raise this is that, as noble Lords may be aware, at the weekend I wrote an opinion piece about what I described as a policy of disengagement— not just by this Government but by the previous Government—with British Muslim communities. More and more individuals and organisations have been defined as beyond the pale and are no longer engaged with. My concern is that a programme, which clearly requires the support of the communities within which it will mainly be operating, is being put in place without clear engagement or consultation with those very communities. The programme will be working in an ever closing space and without a very clear evidence base. For that reason, I have concerns.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, first, I apologise to the Committee that I have not spoken before. However, I was present at Second Reading for the majority of the opening speeches, and I was present in the Chamber for much of the Committee stage on Monday, as I am today. I should like to speak briefly in support of the two amendments in the names of my noble friends, and I very much support what my noble friend Lady Warsi has just said.
I wonder whether, when he responds, the Minister could shed some light on why early years education has been included at all. I do not think that anyone has mentioned it yet, but I find the inclusion of early years education here very puzzling. Are we really looking for signs of radicalisation among nursery school children? I do not think that we have had a proper explanation of this and I would welcome one from the Minister.
There is a danger of alienating British Muslims in what is being proposed in relation to further education and university establishments. British Muslims are very well represented in universities, with some 50% now attending higher education. Is targeting universities and placing Prevent in the setting of a statutory duty really the right way to go about supporting the education and aspirations of young British Muslims who are keen to move on in their lives and careers and to integrate, or does it risk alienating whole communities, as has been mentioned by noble Lords around the Chamber? I have real concerns about that. There is also a danger in drawing conclusions about things that are said in universities. We all know that things are said in all sorts of wild situations—there can be debates on all sorts of subjects—but can that be equated automatically with radicalisation? Are we clear what we mean by that?
It is worth going back to something that I consider to be very important. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the best way of tackling radicalisation and potential terrorism is by engaging with the British Muslim communities and other communities, working with them on an equal footing at the grass-roots level and not by employing a top-down approach. I fear that some of what is being proposed risks alienating people and driving them away, rather than encouraging them to engage in the way that we would want. To date, we have not had any evidence of any consultation or of how Prevent has worked historically. Those of us who have been involved in working with communities in the UK know how much in previous years—under this Government and the previous Government—the Prevent agenda polarised communities. It became a byword for the state spying on communities, not engaging with them, as my noble friend Lady Warsi has just said. It could be counterproductive. We need more evidence of engagement and consultation. We need to know how these so-called panels are going to work and whether they will be inclusive—not top-down and government led but community-led panels that will produce results.
I would appreciate it if my noble friend could respond to some of these points because they are at the heart of what we are trying to get to. If we cannot and will not engage but we go for the top-down approach—which may look very good in the headlines—will it work in practice? Will it achieve what we want it to achieve in terms of preventing terrorism?
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
I, too, hesitate to speak, not having been able to take part in the Second Reading debate, but I have taken considerable interest and have listened to much of the debate today. Today I am rather inspired and I hope that the Committee will forgive me for making a few comments, particularly about Prevent. I am inspired by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hussein-Ece and Lady Warsi, and would like to comment as someone who was involved in some of the Prevent work post-9/11 with Tony Blair’s Administration.
It is interesting and insightful to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, talk about her experience of how community organisations have been dissected into what, who and where it is acceptable to speak and consult. The Labour Government had a good track record in beginning the debate and consultation with the community—widely, not just within the confines of discussing radicalisation with the Muslim community but making sure that they worked across all the different communities, including the churches, synagogues and Gurdwaras. They worked with all the communities to ensure that Prevent was being discussed as something that was of mutual interest for everyone. Of course that was a long time ago, and the Labour Party lost its way particularly after—I do not know if I dare to mention her name—the right honourable Hazel Blears took responsibility for Prevent. We slightly lost our way in terms of consulting the communities.
I want to say something about the work that was done on Prevent because of the kind of discussion that we are having now about whether there should be statutory duties to report young children, and then moving on to those of a greater height, age and experience at university. I was with about 20 university students at the weekend. They were asking what the Government were suggesting. It is becoming difficult to even be allowed to think; they were saying, “Think now before it becomes illegal”. You can imagine the kind of discussion and concern that has erupted, particularly among university students. I worry about what we do in terms of preventing radicalisation and taking that to such an extent that free discussion and free thinking are completely against the law. I urge the Minister to rethink, as was suggested.
Right across our land, some extremely good work has been done over the past 10 to 15 years to prevent so-called radicalisation. That kind of work has been completely ignored by the current coalition Government, which is disappointing. Now we have very little dialogue with any of the big organisations that not only represent the Muslim community but work across it. I urge the Government to rethink before we embed Prevent, which is dreaded and hated with equal measure. To say that it will become the law of our country is unbearable and unthinkable. There is an enormous place for discussions with the community.
I have also read the article written over the weekend by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, in which she commends some of the points made in the letter sent by Eric Pickles to Muslim organisations. Overall the principle of the letter and the comments made in it are probably okay, but the context is not: it was targeted at 1,000 mosques, which I do not think is exactly appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, mosques are not where many of the radicalised movements have erupted. Also, the letter ignored many of the good organisations that are working in this country; their comments and contributions are not being taken on board, and they are not being consulted. That does not bode well for this important legislation, which will impact on a very specific, targeted community. We have to be very cautious about digging in our heels in our response. It has already been said that we should not jump into passing hasty legislation just because of one or two incidents. This is the time for reflection.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I want to make a couple of brief comments on Amendment 103A. I echo my noble friend Lady Warsi’s comments about a review of the Prevent strategy, for all the reasons that others have spoken about. We also need to look at where different approaches have been taken. I think I spoke at Second Reading about Watford, but what I did not say is that Watford took only the community money; it did not take the surveillance money. Actually, Watford was the one place in which, on the Sunday after the Paris shootings, the traditional march in honour of the birth of the Prophet became a march in honour of those who had died. Members of the community other than those of the Muslim faith joined in that march. That is where community work through Prevent is at its best. My worry is that we have not seen a proper survey of Prevent, although it has been in operation for the best part of a decade.
I return briefly to Amendment 103A. My noble friend Lady Sharp said that the reasoning behind this probing amendment might seem slightly contradictory, but it seeks to get to some word definitions. There is a further problem around definition: the Bill itself talks mainly about “terrorism” while the statutory guidance talks about “extremism”, but the balance between the duty on extremism versus terrorism is quite distinct. I certainly cannot marry up the clauses in the Bill with some of what is set out in the guidance. I would be grateful if my noble friend could help with this as well.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not having taken part in the Second Reading of the Bill, but I was out of the country. I wish to speak to this amendment because I was the leader of Sheffield City Council at the time when the Prevent strategy came in. I think that we may be going down the road of repeating past mistakes. When Prevent was brought in, it was not statutory but it was driven by a lot of central guidelines. It became clear to me and many council leaders that these central guidelines were not appropriate to our communities. The community of Sheffield is very different to the community of Bradford just down the road. The complexity of dealing with something like radicalisation requires a deep and thorough understanding of the community and context within which people work. Statutory guidance will mean that flexibility will go and straitjackets will come in because someone at a top-down level will decide that they know, from Whitehall, what is best for every community in this country
The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, made a very strong point. Until we know what actually works, how can anyone write evidence-based statutory guidance? Work has been done on this internationally. Rik Coolsaet, an expert at the University of Ghent, who used to be the adviser to the European Commission on Radicalisation, said very clearly that we do not yet know internationally what does or does not work on a deradicalisation strategy. Exactly what is going to be evidence-based in the statutory guidance? I asked a Written Question, which was responded to on 26 January:
“how many public bodies as defined in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill do not meet the provisions of the Prevent duty guidance consultation document, according to each category of public body”,
but the Minister was not able to answer. The Government do not know. This is a really important point: if we do not know exactly what is happening out there already, if we do not have an evidence base for what works, how can we say to public bodies, which understand the context of their locality far better than anybody else, “You have to do this to prevent people from radicalisation or extremism”?
Furthermore, it is important to understand that where the best international examples exist—noble Lords have already given two examples, particularly that of Hayat—it is not on a statutory basis nor via a statutory body but it is a community, bottom-up approach that is dealing with this, in not just a sensitive but an effective way. While I do not for one minute doubt the genuine and important reasons why the Government have started on this road, I believe that it will have unintended consequences that will not help the problem but could mean that statutory bodies at local level will have to deal with a greater and more difficult problem. I therefore ask the Minister: what evidence base will go into the statutory guidance which will help, and can he guarantee that it will be contextualised for the different and varied communities around this country?
Baroness Brinton
I would like to add to that last point and ask the Minister for an evidence base post-2009, because much has happened in the university and college sector since that date. It would be helpful to know this, given that his letter to those of us interested in this issue referred only to incidents before 2009.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to these amendments, because the main debate on guidance will take place under the fourth group, where we have nine amendments relating to guidance and direction on Prevent. I noted the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that she did not intend it to be a perfect amendment. What she highlights—and what has come out of this debate—is the lack of clarity. I think that will come out through a number of debates today on the groups looking at the specified duties that the Government have placed on Prevent. There is a lack of clarity in how it works in practice and what the full implications are; that is where some of the confusion will lie. I think the Minister will respond to some comments now, but I think similar issues will be raised when we have the debate on guidance in the fourth group. I know it is difficult to arrange groupings, but I was sorry in many ways that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, degrouped her amendment from that main one. I can understand that, because of the specifics of what is in effect a sunrise clause, although we have not perhaps discussed the reason for that in quite the same way.
I will make a brief comment on Prevent rather than speak in detail, because I want to speak about it in the later group, as I said. Criticisms have been raised of Prevent, but we need to be positive, see what works and ensure that we can make it better in the future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, said, in the point that I did agree with her on, it was a Labour Government who set up Prevent and we are committed to it. However, we are committed to making it successful and effective; there is no point in something that causes alienation in communities when the whole purpose of it is to have engagement with communities and cohesion across communities. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on these specific amendments. I am sure that our debate today, on a range of issues, will tease out a lot of the detail that is missing from the legislation and the Government’s explanations so far.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by apologising to my noble friend Lady Sharp for not being in my place for the first minute or two of her remarks. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Ashton for briefing me on the remarks that she made, which I will try to address. I will put some general comments on the record in relation to these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has mentioned, I dare say we will return to this in subsequent groups, but there are some particular issues here which I take it are about trying to get definitions and workings on the record. I will then deal with some of the specific issues which have been raised.
I will outline the broad objectives of the Government’s Prevent programme. Prevent aims to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism, and deals with all kinds of terrorism. It targets not just violent extremism but non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and popularise views which terrorists exploit. Prevent activity in local areas relies on the co-operation of many organisations to be effective, but currently co-operation is not consistent across the country. We have seen people being radicalised sufficiently to want to travel to Syria and Iraq from many places which did not realise that radicalisation was an issue for them. New threats can also emerge quickly, and the steps which authorities take to comply with this duty will enable them to be spotted, and acted on, quickly. The new duty created by Chapter 1 of Part 5 will improve the standard of work on the Prevent programme across the country. This is particularly important where terrorism is a concern, but all areas need to understand the local threat and take action to address it. We will issue guidance setting out the type of activity that specified authorities should consider in fulfilling this duty.
I turn now to the individual amendments. Amendment 103A is a probing amendment that seeks to focus the scope of the duty on preventing people from being drawn into “activities which may lead” to terrorism, rather than simply “into terrorism”. The process of radicalisation is complex, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned; it is not simply a case of taking part in certain activities. There will be background factors, such as an individual’s failure to integrate, disrupted childhoods or growing up in an extreme subculture. There could be influences which push an individual towards a terrorist group such as family, friends, extremist ideological material et cetera. Individuals need to be receptive to the terrorists’ messages: for example, they may be disillusioned with previous beliefs or be naive and lack ideological knowledge to counter the terrorist ideology that they are being exposed to.
The effect of the amendment would be to apply the duty only to activities which may lead people into terrorism. The duty, as currently drafted, includes these activities in its scope, but this amendment would limit it to cover only these activities. These activities would need to be defined, but this will be difficult, if not impossible, to do, because the activities themselves may not draw people into terrorism—as I have said, it is a combination of factors which draw people into terrorism. The Government are determined to make the implications of the Prevent duty as clear as possible for those affected. This includes being clear about what is expected of specific authorities under the duty, so comprehensive guidance, on which we are currently consulting, will set out how we expect authorities to comply with the duty. Amendment 103B would prevent the duty applying to specified authorities until a report on the operation of the duty had been laid before Parliament.
Baroness Brinton
If universities are already implementing much of what the Government rightly think needs to happen and even if some of us are not stepping fully up to the plate, where does that place the absolute need that the Government identify for a duty on universities, which is much harder on every single institution and every member of staff, not just in universities but in colleges and schools? Would it not be better to arrange for it to be one of the things that HEFCE or OFFA looked at as part of a universities contribution each year?
Lord Bates
The point that the noble Baroness makes about HEFCE is a very good one. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, it may well be the body which reviews this matter. It is important at this point that we get the terminology correct. It is a duty to have regard to the guidance available. That is quite distinct from being as prescriptive as some people have suggested we are being.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, to whose work on the Prevent programme I pay tribute, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece talked about the lack of work with local communities to target radicalisation. Challenging and tackling extremism is a shared effort. The Government have a role in leading this and ensuring that communities where extremists operate and organisations working against extremists have the capability to confront it themselves. Through Prevent, we are supporting community-based projects in 30 local authority priority areas where we fund a dedicated Prevent co-ordinator, alongside work with communities and partners in a further 14 supported areas where we support projects only. More than 180 projects have been approved since 2011, reaching more than 55,000 people. This year, we are supporting more than 80 projects. That is an example of what we are doing at the moment.
A number of noble Lords have referred to nurseries, which I acknowledge is an issue. My noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece and others were concerned about the message being sent. I understand that the Government have a job to do in getting the message across in a balanced way. Nurseries, schools, universities, FE colleges and prisons all have guidance in place to safeguard those in their care—that is a given. Such protection might be from child sexual exploitation; for example, in a nursery, something may give rise to a belief that some abuse is happening. Most people will have in place some system of guidance and say, “What do we actually do with that bit of information when it comes to our attention. Who do we pass it on to and how do we act upon it?”.
Baroness Uddin
Does the Minister agree that social services’ statutory guidance on responding to child sexual abuse or exploitation has evolved over decades, and that, even then, there has been malpractice or things that have gone drastically wrong and we have not always been able to protect children? How does the Minister envisage this new phenomenon of identifying those who may give some indication of predisposal to radicalisation? How does guidance take on board the identification of someone in a nursery or a school? If somebody said, “Actually, I hate Muslims”, is that person prone to radicalisation? If they were to say, “I hate Christians”, is that being prone to radicalisation? At what point is an investigation triggered? I speak as a former social worker in a child protection office. I know the trigger mechanism when someone is said to be vulnerable and what happens: a whole series—a whole plethora—of professionals are called in. We know that that is not an established practice at the moment, so how does he envisage managing this?
Lord Bates
In many ways, that is demonstrating what the Government are seeking to do in putting this on a statutory footing. We are saying that, at the moment, all that is being done is on a patchy basis. It is not formally and independently evaluated, a point that was made to the effect of, “How do we actually see how this is working? Which part of the Prevent budget is actually well spent?”. Of course, we do not know the answer to that at present. It is hoped that, if it is on a statutory footing, we are saying to all universities, “Listen, we want you to raise your game to the standards of the best, and where there is some evaluation of how institutions are performing against that criteria we will be able to measure the effectiveness of it”.
I am conscious of the time that I have been speaking; we are going to be returning to these issues in subsequent amendments, but let me deal with some of the issues of definition, because that was particularly what we wanted to focus on here. When we talk about extremism, we are talking about,
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
Calls for the deaths of members of the British Armed Forces are also included. My noble friend Lady Warsi was no doubt part of the process that actually generated these definitions. With due deference to her, I appreciate that they are terribly difficult to arrive at, but that is the basis on which we are working.
When we talk about terrorism, we are talking about an action that endangers or causes serious violence, damage or disruption and is intended,
“to influence the Government or to intimidate the public and is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause”.
Again, definitions will always be a matter of argument and dispute, but those are the definitions of extremism and terrorism by which we are working.
On radicalisation, we are talking about,
“the process by which a person comes to support terrorism and forms of extremism leading to terrorism”.
Safeguarding is,
“the process of protecting vulnerable people, whether from crime, other forms of abuse or being drawn into terrorism-related activity”.
To complete the definitions, which I want to put on the record, vulnerability,
“describes factors and characteristics associated with being susceptible to radicalisation”.
Baroness Warsi
I can perhaps help my noble friend. I do not dispute the definition of terrorism, the definition of radicalisation or the definition of vulnerability. I completely agree with him that those are the definitions that—certainly the one on terrorism—have been tested for many years. The definition that matters in this debate is the definition of extremism. There are many definitions of extremism that currently exist within government. If somebody were to stand up and say, “I am going to blow myself up and cause you harm,” it would be pretty obvious that they were a terrorist, and not the kind of person whom we would want speaking at a university. The grey area is the area around extremism, which is the one that needs to be properly defined with a single definition and some clarity as to what that means. At the moment, the definition as it stands in terms of British values, for example, includes opposition to the British value of democracy. There are many people who oppose democracy; there are people who have alternative views on that: does that mean that they are never allowed to express those views in universities, as part of an open discussion on these issues? That is where the grey area is.
Lord Bates
I accept that, and there will be ongoing work, but I wanted to put on record the current working definitions. They have to be kept under review. When we are talking about extremism, of course, we recognise that at present Universities UK—which covers 75% of higher education institutions—actually has an extensive document, running to some 50 or 60 pages, that provides guidance to universities on how they should deal with people with extremist views, particularly extremist views from right-wing, racist ideologies that need to be tackled. For example, the National Union of Students has a “no platform” policy for extreme right-wing organisations on campus and has a system of guidance by which that policy is implemented.
Lord Judd
I am sure the Minister will agree—this is not either/or—that it is a matter of winning the war and not just the battles, although the battles are crucial to winning the war. That is the point about the university context. It is the whole environment, the whole perception and the whole atmosphere that matter. Will the Minister accept that some of us are genuinely afraid that if this is got wrong and it is perceived as too heavy-handed, to say the least, it could press people towards extreme views?
I always have in mind a conversation I had with a police officer working on the front line of this issue. He said that this battle is crucial among militants with street credibility who may even have toyed with nasty things, but have not done them. Those are the people we have to win back, and if we are pushing them away from us so that there is no communication and no possibility for dialogue and winning back, how are we helping our war?
Lord Bates
Of course, many of us subscribe to the view that one of the greatest forces against extremism is the freedom of speech that exists within universities so that people’s radical views can be challenged, and should be challenged, in an open way. Nothing being brought forward today says that the Government are going to tell any university who it should invite to speak. Nothing is going to tell any university who it should have on its faculty or in its student body. That is for the university to decide. All we ask is that at a time of national alert on issues of terrorism universities have due regard to their responsibility to the challenges and vulnerabilities of their institutions and the students who are in their care. That is where we are coming from on this. On the great sweep of what the noble Lord said, I fully endorse it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
The Minister just, for the second time during his winding up, referred to the phrase “having due regard” in Clause 21 of Part 5 as if to placate those who are concerned by the directions which are still out for consultation. Is the reality not that Clause 25 gives the Secretary of State power to make directions with regard to any of these matters and then to follow that up by a mandatory order? If that mandatory order is breached there are serious punitive consequences, so is it not a trifle inadvertently misleading to refer again and again to this merely having “due regard to”?
Lord Bates
My noble friend has great legal expertise in the terms being used here. We are saying that, clearly, if you put anything on a statutory footing—even to “have due regard to” the guidance—then there must be a consequence should you fail to have due regard or are found not to have due regard; and that that must be specified in the legislation. That is all we are doing here. I am sure we are all of the view that such a measure would be used only in extreme circumstances. We fully expect that all universities will do what the best universities are doing already, which is to have their systems and procedures in place for this. As I have said, I am very conscious that we will be returning to this in further groups; but in the mean time I would be grateful if my noble friend might consider withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, before my noble friend responds, I had degrouped that amendment from my, rather than from anybody else’s, amendments. In replying, my noble friend the Minister has relied a great deal on Clause 24 on guidance. However, that does not seem to me to justify the ability of Parliament to consider, authority by authority and function by function, the application of this duty, which is a much more significant duty—on that I am very much with my noble friend Lord Phillips—than the words “due regard” in everyday speech might suggest. If I were to see Hansard by the time we reach Clause 24 today I might think that my noble friend had given me quite a lot of material to press my amendments to that clause, because he has said an awful lot that supports what I am arguing should go on to the statute book. We will come to that, but I wanted to make it clear that my point is about Parliament’s role in this; it is not about consultation on guidance.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment and other noble Lords who have participated in this very interesting debate. It was supposed to be a relatively minor probing amendment to clarify the definitions and to make the point, which I think still needs to be made, that where there is not clarity in definition, it leaves a great deal to the judgment of those expected to implement these duties. That in itself poses problems, both for those in the process of implementing them and those who, perhaps further down the line or on the panel, will have to make assessments about those seen to be vulnerable to terrorism. And what does “being drawn into terrorism” mean? There are problems here for those who need to interpret the legislation.
We have had a much wider debate than just about definitions. It has been a very interesting debate about, as I said in my introduction, whether the Prevent strategy should be statutory. I am very much of the view taken by my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lady Hamwee, that in fact the subsequent clauses—24, 28 and 30—make the whole business of being statutory fairly rigorous.
The effectiveness of the Prevent programme, whether we need to review it, whether it is sensible that the programme should be statutory, or whether we should not continue to rely on the voluntary participation of the institutions are all questions that we will undoubtedly come back to, both later today and on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(f) an academic function of a university or other further and higher education institution”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendments 105, 107, 109 and 115 on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. The amendments give effect to the recommendations made in our pre-legislative scrutiny report. Amendments 107 and 109 would exclude higher education institutions from the new statutory duty to,
“have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”,
although I suspect that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would do so rather better. Amendment 104 excludes,
“an academic function of a university or other further and higher education institution”,
from that duty. Amendment 105 makes it clear that the Prevent duty is subject to the duty contained in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to uphold freedom of speech, covering staff, students and visiting speakers. Amendment 115 requires that when issuing guidance and giving directions, the Secretary of State should have regard to the principle of academic freedom as contained in the Education Reform Act 1988, which includes a duty,
“to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions”.
These amendments may be technically deficient, but as they are for now probing amendments, I trust that the Minister will bear with me.
Recommendations stem from the JCHR’s conclusion that,
“because of the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom in the context of university education, the entire legal framework which rests on the new ‘prevent’ duty is not appropriate for application to universities”,
and from our observation that its relationship to universities’ existing duties with regard to freedom of speech is not clear. I have some sympathy with concerns about other parts of the educational sector, but following the JCHR report I will confine my remarks to HE institutions and will focus in particular on the question of academic freedom, therefore inevitably touching on some of the points already made. In doing so I declare my interest as an emeritus professor at Loughborough University.
Ministers have emphasised their commitment to academic freedom of freedom of speech, which I welcome. In a letter of 20 January to the JCHR, the Minister, James Brokenshire, pointed out that this freedom comes with a duty to ensure that it is within the law. Exactly. Given that, it is not clear why the Prevent duty has to be put on a statutory footing—moving from co-operation to co-option, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, so pithily put it. Universities are already required to operate within any law that circumscribes freedom of speech. At last week’s packed meeting, addressed by the Minister and Mr Brokenshire—I thank the Minister for arranging that—we did not receive a convincing explanation. I suspect that the purpose of the meeting was to reassure noble Lords; my impression was that it had the opposite effect.
Since then, the JCHR has received the Minister’s letter, in which he set out why the Government believe that the application of the duty to universities is a matter of enormous importance. He cited the proportion of people convicted of al-Qaeda-associated terrorist offences who had attended an HE institution—the implication, presumably, being that their HE experience helped to lead them there. He acknowledged that some students arrived already radicalised or are radicalised by external influences, while suggesting that others can become influenced by non-violent extremism at university but later move on to violence. That seems to reflect the kind of linear, conveyor-belt theory of the journey to terrorism, which is challenged by many experts in the area and which was questioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi.
There are two main areas of concern, which have sometimes been conflated: visiting speakers policies, and the free exchange of ideas that lies at the heart of the relationship between lecturers and students. With regard to visiting speakers, it is unclear how the new duties sit alongside the duty in the 1986 Act not to use beliefs or views as grounds to refuse access to premises. We shall look later at the draft guidance, so I will not go into that now, apart from coming back, in a moment, to the question of definitions.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 104, 105 and 115, which seek to protect universities and other further and higher education institutions from being bound by this part of the Bill in the context of an academic function and protection of freedom of speech, and to Amendments 107 and 109, which seek to exclude from Schedule 3 to the Bill certain universities and other colleges in England, Wales and Scotland. I do not think that this provision applies to Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will correct me if that is not the case.
The Bill seeks to put the Prevent programme on a statutory footing and I suspect has a greater impact than the Minister is willing to recognise. I have read carefully the letter which the Minister wrote to Members on making universities subject to the duty, which included a lot of statistics in relation to the number of people convicted of al-Qaeda-associated terrorist offences. I make one observation in relation to those figures. They do not necessarily indicate that the students were radicalised at university. There is evidence of terrorist organisations using universities to develop young people to be significant terrorist leaders because terrorism requires not just snipers and bombers but leaders, managers, logistics, procurement and all sorts of things, and that is the kind of skill you can pick up at university, so I think the issue is much more complex than is suggested.
Looking at Prevent on its own, the definition of terrorism includes non-violent terrorism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the problem as I see it is that these amendments are designed to address a threat to freedom of speech and all the consequences that would follow from that. I will speak of those consequences, in part from my experiences as a chair at a university, albeit an Irish university, and as a former university academic. I taught for 20 years in a university. During that period, we had several terrorist bombs. We lived daily with the terrorist armed threat, particularly in relation to our students who were members of the security forces and the police. It is profoundly important, as we contemplate the unintended consequences that might result from this clause, that we do not politicise our universities in a way which would make them the target of attacks such as that on Lee Rigby and other attacks, such as bombings and suicide attacks. I do not say that to be scaremongering, but because it is profoundly important that we recognise that the war that is being fought against democracy is a war which is changing its tactics. There is a lot of evidence that it will move much further on to our territory.
The function of a university in educating its students includes the provision of safe space in which students can debate and discuss very sensitive issues. My experience has been that, very often where issues are particularly sensitive, students can almost be afraid to engage with them. They need that space and the recognition that it is right to engage with these issues. I think of my experience in trying to teach constitutional law to students in Northern Ireland. One half of the class sat on one side of the room and the other half sat on the other side of the room and there was to be no meeting of minds about what I was trying to teach them. There was a terror of articulating any views lest that be taken back to somebody and consequences might follow. It is vital that students develop the confidence to address and to challenge issues, to test propositions, so that they can take a greater part in the debate within and without the university and, when they leave university, in constitutional governance.
That is where we are now in England, Wales and Scotland. We need people who have been exposed to challenging argument and have the capacity and the confidence to think and to articulate views which are the product of reasoned judgment rather than bias and prejudice. Although we may think we know what we are talking about when we speak of terrorism, some of yesterday’s terrorists are today’s world leaders. What does that mean for our understanding and what does it mean for those in universities who contemplate non-violent political action against democracies or systems of law in other countries which they are articulating in their own university? Are they to be regulated by the universities because they may be perceived as possibly supporting terrorism? How will the universities know the answer to that?
We have to ensure space in our universities for debates. The JCHR says in its report that,
“universities are precisely the places where there should be open and inclusive discussion of ideas. Broad terms such as ‘extremist’ or ‘radical’ are not capable of being defined with sufficient precision to enable universities to know … whether they … risk … being found to be in breach of the new duty”.
The JCHR talks of the inhibiting effect of the Bill as,
“lecturers and students worry about whether critical discussion of fundamentalist arguments, or of the circumstances in which resort to political violence might be justified, could fall foul of the new duty”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, spoke very articulately on the definition of extremism. It is not an exclusive definition. It refers to opposition to British values, including democracy and the rule of law, but it is not exclusive. Universities will have to work out what other values are included in this definition. Even the chief constable of the Greater Manchester Police, Sir Peter Fahy, has expressed concern that this will leave too much discretion to the police when they are trying to deal with very difficult situations. In effect, the Bill will force them to make decisions when they are conducting policing operations which are more political policy decisions than operational policing decisions. That analogy also applies to universities.
The National Union of Students, echoing calls by Universities UK and others, notes that any statutory guidance applying to universities needs to appreciate the particular freedoms of speech appropriate to an academic context, including allowing students and staff to speak freely on controversial issues. That needs to be retained in order to prevent the chilling effect on university campuses whereby people become wary of discussing difficult issues. Ignorance, prejudice, discrimination and unfounded fears can be the unintended products of restricting freedom of speech. Paradoxically, they can play their part in encouraging individuals to the cause of fundamentalism and even violence. We have seen that across the world.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 104, 105, 107, 109 and 115, to which my name has been added. I also speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Much of what I feel about these amendments has already been articulated by Members opposite who are also on that committee. I also thank the Minister and his colleague from another place, the Home Office Minister James Brokenshire MP, for the meeting on 15 January. It was clear when we met to discuss this very issue that there were serious concerns, particularly among the academic community. In the letter in today’s Times that has already been referred to this afternoon, there is reference to a concern that the proposed measures could be counterproductive, leading to mistrust and alienation. The difficulty is that a considerable degree of alienation already exists among some young people well before they attend higher education. This alienation is too often caused by separation by their parents at a very young age from fully, or in some circumstances even partially, socialising with their peer group of other faiths and cultures. The truth lies, I believe, in what different people perceive to be the meaning of integration and until we make much more effort in that regard, such that young boys and girls are allowed to grow up fully and freely socialising in our towns and cities whatever their faith, we will continue to have a serious problem—a problem we have been largely in denial about for years for fear of upsetting people in the faint hope that integration will just happen. This is also one reason why I am vehemently against faith-based schools which may allow and even encourage separation rather than integration.
Universities create for many the first opportunity for a natural separation from home, giving young people the freedom to socialise beyond their comfort zone. University life provides a catalyst for encouraging free speech and strong, open debate away from cultural and religious restraints. All that said, I understand that the Government are genuinely trying to find practical ways of countering terrorism and extremism because, as the Minister in a letter dated 27 January informed us, a significant number of individuals who become radicalised at some point attend university. This therefore provides a window of opportunity to prevent those vulnerable to extremism from that pathway during their time at university.
Part of the difficulty here lies in what is in the Bill. It appears too restrictive and prescriptive and does not take account of some of the practical difficulties of implementing these measures without attacking academic freedom, together with certain legal obligations. The Prevent duty guidance offers some help although, as my noble friend has already stated, these measures are very much in draft form and we all await the imminent outcome of the consultation. It is difficult to debate this subject fully without reference to that outcome but I agree with the Minister, who refers to some aspects of the duty guidance in his recent letter. For example, in paragraph 66 there is a suggestion that those who are going to make a speech or give a talk at a university should give:
“Sufficient notice of booking (generally at least 14 days) to allow for checks to be made and cancellation to take place … Advance notice of the content of the event”,
and so on. It is very prescriptive.
If noble Lords will bear with me, I shall give an example of a different subject to illustrate why such prescription just does not work. Four or five years ago, I chaired an Oxford Union debate regarding animal rights—a very different subject. I well recall approaching all the speakers an hour or so before the debate was due to commence to get a feel of what they intended to say to make sure that I could manage the debate, given that it is a controversial subject. One of the speakers, Heather Mills, was due to speak, alone, for the motion. She had in the past been known for making quite controversial statements. Heather did not give much away, and certainly not the fact that part-way through her speech her sister would leap forward on to the stage and produce from under her large woolly jumper a laptop showing a short, very violent film of an animal cull. A mini riot ensued among speakers for and against the motion, together with some of the audience, in spite of my best and extremely vocal efforts as the chairman. It became apparent that some members of the audience were not students of Oxford University at all; they were seasoned animal rights campaigners and activists, and absolutely content and keen to make trouble.
I make that point as a good example of where freedom of speech and freedom to offend were such a positive, as they produced a lively exchange of views among the audience, many of whom, having listened and watched and been genuinely appalled by the behaviour of those on one side of the debate, were almost all entirely turned off the animal rights movement.
However, there is another side to this issue and it is why I reference that experience. I must admit that, as an outside guest at the university, I was rather amazed, particularly given the subject matter, that there was nowhere to turn and no one to turn to when the situation became uproarious and extremely unpleasant. Therefore, I believe it is right to ensure that there is a mechanism for managing incidents and to recognise that universities, while allowing academic freedom, have a strong, albeit subtle—that is the important point—role to play in managing these events. Indeed, as proposed in the draft Prevent duty guidance, I could have done with a mechanism for managing incidents, even though the debate was very much on campus.
My message to my noble friend the Minister is that he should do all he can to reassure all those concerned that nothing in the Prevent duty guidance will restrict legitimate debate or academic research, that the Government are genuine in their view that universities’ commitment to freedom of speech represents one of the most important arenas for challenging extremist views and ideologies, and that therefore the Government support the existing duty in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 on universities to promote freedom of speech. Will my noble friend also take note of the work of the National Union of Students in encouraging dialogue between different faith and belief groups? As the NUS states in its briefing on the Bill, which it has sent out today, it helps student unions to understand their responsibilities under charity law and ensure that they have strong procedures in place so that the risk from extreme and external speakers is mitigated.
I say that in particular to emphasise that there is a general acceptance that work has to continue. How that work is done is the challenge. I hope that, following consultation on the Prevent duty guidance, the “how” will become clearer and go some considerable way to allay genuine concerns. Therefore, I encourage the Minister to seriously consider accepting Amendments 104 and 105, which would give reassurance on the face of the Bill in support of academic freedom and freedom of speech.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (LD)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 110 and 112, along with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I declare an interest as the warden of Wadham College, Oxford.
Under the terms of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, universities are under a statutory duty to,
“take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers”.
The Act goes on to say that this includes the duty,
“to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with … the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or … the policy or objectives of that body”.
Universities are required under this statute to have a code of practice in place to facilitate the discharge of these important duties. We might contrast the terms of that statute with the relevant clauses of the Bill and the proposed guidance associated with it.
It is very easy to understand why Parliament should have passed those parts of the Education Act. It was to underline not just the importance of free speech as a public good in itself, but to highlight its particular relevance—its inescapable importance—to institutions of higher learning. That is to say, you cannot have one without the other. Noble Lords will remember the context in which that legislation was passed. Speakers were being howled down in some of our universities, to the shame of those institutions. Some were being refused facilities to speak—the so-called “no platform policies” that some institutions adopted, again, to their shame. An institution that shouts down a speaker with unpopular views or bans arguments that cause offence is not really a university at all: it is an intellectual closed shop. That is something very different and much less attractive.
Under the proposed guidance accompanying this Bill, which universities will be under a duty to have regard to in discharging their new policing obligations—for that is what they are—academics must devise processes to exclude from those universities people who intend to speak or give presentations in a way that may be guilty in some way of exhibiting traits of what the guidance terms “non-violent extremism”. The definition of non-violent extremism has already been drawn to the attention of the Committee. I suppose in the sense of non-violent extremism, it must, if we extract it from the proposed guidance accurately, be,
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
It is those things that must be banished from British universities.
The patent lack of understanding in this Bill about how universities work—and some noble Lords have already alluded to this—becomes very clear when one considers the processes that the guidance mandates our universities to follow in order to discharge their new speech-policing obligations under the Bill. They are to be found in the guidance. The proposed guidance states that, in order to comply with the duty,
“all universities should have policies and procedures in place for the management of events on campus and use of all university premises”.
The guidance goes on:
“We would expect the policies and procedures on speakers and events to include at least the following … Sufficient notice of booking (generally at least 14 days) to allow for checks to be made and cancellation to take place if necessary … Advance notice of the content of the event, including an outline of the topics to be discussed and sight of any presentations, footage to be broadcast etc … A system for assessing and rating risks associated with any planned events, providing evidence to suggest whether an event should proceed, be cancelled or whether mitigating action is”,
to be contemplated or required.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. I was under the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, indicated in his letter dated 27 January that the Government would now withdraw paragraph 66 from the proposed guidance. It might save an awful lot of consideration in this Chamber if that is indeed the case.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven
If that is the case, no doubt my noble friend the Minister will make that clear.
The greater point is that universities are not places of surveillance in the sense intended in this Bill, and they cannot become so without fracturing what is best about them. As far as I can tell, no concern at all appears to be expressed in the legislation or in the guidance that what is being proposed is a form of institutionalised censorship with academics at its heart.
If the guidance means what it says, and we must assume that it does, it calls into question a situation in which people in British universities would not be allowed to argue, with Plato perhaps, that democracy is flawed. It is not a crime to argue that democracy is flawed. No one in a British university could deliver a lecture that evinced a lack of respect for someone else’s religion. It is not, thank goodness, a crime in this country to demonstrate a lack of respect for someone else’s religion. Perhaps no one in a British university would be allowed to decry individual liberty in favour of, say, collective empowerment—a notion with a long intellectual pedigree. Again, it is not a crime to express that view in the United Kingdom. Obviously, the point is not whether noble Lords agree or disagree with any of these propositions, or whether any noble Lord would wish to advance any of them—for my part, I would not particularly. The question is rather whether we have really reached a state of affairs in this country in which it is now necessary for a senior politician, even a politician as senior as the Home Secretary, to be granted the power to influence, by power of direction if necessary, what can and what cannot be said in a university in the absence of any crime being committed. That is the point. This legislation seeks to control not only violent extremism but also speech in universities even where that speech is not otherwise a crime. This is its central failing and it is the reason I have put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
The role of surveillance and control is one that is entirely inimical to the purpose of a university as we have understood it, which is to analyse, to explain and to discover. In that sense, open debate is the lifeblood of an institution of higher learning. Of course, as noble Lords have recognised, universities do not have immunity in the face of the criminal law—and they should not be immune to it. Indeed, like everyone else and every other body, they have existing obligations under anti-terrorism legislation, including the obligation to disclose to the authorities information they have about terrorism activities. But no one is suggesting that they are failing to discharge those obligations, and this Bill neither defines nor seeks to address any such failing. That is because there is none.
Let me conclude by pointing out one striking omission from the proposed guidance that is to accompany the Bill. Nowhere within it is there any attempt to explain how its terms are consistent with the entirely appropriate and laudable legal obligation placed upon universities to secure freedom of speech. There is no attempt to square that circle. This may be because no one in the Home Office considered the Education Act properly before deciding to legislate for our universities in this way, or it may be because it is simply obvious that the freedom of speech duty mandated in the Education Act is in conflict with the Bill, so any attempt to argue that they can coexist is doomed to failure.
These proposals may spring from the best of intentions. They doubtless spring from a desire to do something, perhaps anything, about the real problems we face around radicalisation. However, in practice they will inevitably undermine the place of freedom of speech in our universities. They are wrong in principle and they are unworkable in practice.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 112A, 112B and 112D. I shall start by speaking to those amendments and then to the others in the group. It is a matter of serendipity that I follow my noble friend Lord Macdonald because Amendments 112A, 112B and 112D try to address the exact points that he has raised and insist that the two duties must be examined together in order to balance the right to freedom of speech. I defy officers of universities and colleges to achieve that and I think that it would be a tall task for civil servants. One of the reasons I have been keen to table these amendments is that, as a senior university administrator, I have sat with two codes of practice and two different sets of statutory guidance which are completely in conflict with one another. We have to make it clear to those who will try to deliver the legislation on the front line exactly how it would happen. That is why the first part of the amendment talks about the recognition of the duty on free speech and the second part makes it clear that any guidance must be produced in the form of a single document so that staff do not have to trawl through parallel sets of guidance and codes of practice to try to find out which trumps the other.
I hope that the amendment is straightforward and simple, but it is included in a group which seeks to tackle the absolute, fundamental problems around the duty and how it conflicts with the duty on freedom of speech. I want to make two points. The first goes back to the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which many noble Lords have quoted. Clause 43(4) states,
“(including where appropriate the initiation of disciplinary measures) to secure”,
those rights, but that is a two-way right, and universities have certainly used it where there might be either radicalisation or something close to the infringement of personal liberties or, worse than that, the possible incitement of a crime. On 20 September 2013, the Guardian reported that a number of our universities and students unions across the UK had banned the song “Blurred Lines”, a song that is degrading to women and which encourages rape. That demonstrates that the current boundaries for freedom of speech are well understood in our universities and are applied by them and by the student bodies. I come back to this. I do not understand why we need a duty when it is absolutely evident that this is already working in practice. I repeat my request for specific recent examples of where this has not succeeded and has not been followed through.
The other point I want to make on academic freedom moves away from the purist freedom-of-speech argument. Much of our debate has been about societies, students and academies talking outside the normal framework. Recently I was talking to a postgraduate student who is working on Middle East peace studies. He and his colleagues have just completed a module in a Masters course on suicide bombers. How free will they be to access information on that issue and thus actually help this country and the wider world to understand what motivates these people to become so radicalised that they are prepared to give up their lives? Would accessing videos online to try and understand the linguistic and pedagogic emotions behind those decisions be caught as radicalisation, would it require a special exemption in order to have that debate, or would it just be banned completely? We need to understand how the pure academic freedom to research would be affected by this duty.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I shall start by mentioning that I, too, serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I am afraid that a whole flurry of us are getting involved in this debate. There certainly was a real consensus within the Joint Committee that applying this duty to universities would be detrimental to freedom of speech. We have been most concerned about it. One of the things that I think we have all now acknowledged is that freedom of speech is an absolute value to higher education. To interfere with that or to create a chilling effect is something that we should step back from. I endorse entirely all that has been said by others on this subject and want to add one or two things.
I have acted for a number of people involved in failure to fulfil their responsibilities in the criminal field, where they have not informed on those who seemed to be involved in terrorist activity. The duty to inform is real. The universities are very conscious of it, as are the student bodies. The concern that seems to be at the base of this—and which the public would want to see being at the base of this—is that, if you were to hear that people are planning and plotting things, there is a responsibility to do something about it. That already exists in law. It is the further steps that are involved in this that worry people.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others, I am involved in higher education, and I have been for some time. I too am the head of an Oxford college. Oxford University senior administrators have written to heads of house, such as Lord Macdonald and me, expressing their concern about this part of the legislation. This is partly because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said, it is almost impossible for us to oversee it sensibly. For example, in Oxford it would be hard to count the number of meetings that take place in any one week across the college structure and the whole of the university. I cannot imagine what the numbers might be. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and I talked about the possibility of doing a review to see what the number was. We are certainly talking about hundreds. The same would be true in Cambridge and in universities around the country. The autonomy of student unions to invite their speakers quite independently of the governance of the university must not be forgotten.
I speak from my experience as a lawyer who has acted in the criminal courts in this field during the Irish Troubles, but most particularly in recent years around the recent phase of terrorism. I acted in the case that came to be known as the Crevice trial; the fertiliser bomb plot. I acted in the transatlantic bomb plot where seven young men were put on trial for trying to blow up aeroplanes. I have acted for a number of the different wives of men involved in terrorism in relation to their duty to report. I have acted for a boy who was groomed while he was on the internet in his bedroom in his parents’ house. I have acted for those who were involved in trying to dispose of evidence in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings in relation to 27 July 2005. So I have acted in a whole series of these cases and I can honestly say that my experience is that these are not people who were radicalised in universities.
Radicalisation does not go on in universities. By and large I am talking about young men and it is about friendships and networks of friendship where people learn from each other and pass books and material to each other. It is not about closing down what happens in universities. It is really about what happens in our communities. So the work that is already going on in communities is probably the stuff that needs to be strengthened. All I urge is take a look at the real evidence of this. It is not enough to tick a box and say, “Some of these boys went to university, some of them were on access courses”. Many of our young around the country are going to university, but these boys were not radicalised because they were university students, in the way in which we think of university students. I see noble Lords nodding. That really has not been the case.
I go back to my concern about the chilling effect, which has been described by others. There is also the deterioration of trust effect, which is very important in the relationships between those who teach and those who learn. The other thing is that I spend time with the students in my college. I have them in regularly to gatherings. I do a regular meeting with sets of 12 at a time. We have discussions; they talk about all these things that are being described, some of them by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. They debate things such as, “Is democracy so wonderful, when it is bought wholesale by donations to political parties and where the small people do not get a voice? Is it right that religion can be denigrated?”. They want to debate things such as, “What is the point at which people are entitled to take up arms?”. I remember when I was president of SOAS, the School of Oriental and African Studies, there would be incredibly vital debates and arguments about the circumstances in which someone was entitled, as Mandela was in his time, to take up arms against the state. When is it appropriate? That is how young people learn about the nature of our society. It is where they learn and hear the counter arguments to some of the things that they feel seem so obvious to them.
This is not, by and large, where your radicalised young person is giving voice to his views. That is happening in the café down the road. It is happening in the kebab shop. It is happening in people’s rooms, but it is not happening in the universities in the way that somehow is imagined by this part of the legislation. I urge against it and ask that the bit about universities is taken out, because we are interfering with one of the most important freedoms that should be protected in our society.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, Oxford is well represented today. I declare an interest as a fellow of All Souls College. I find this a genuinely difficult issue. I am supportive of the Government’s general objectives in Part 5; far more supportive, I think, than some of the speakers who have addressed noble Lords this afternoon, particularly in the earlier debate.
It seems to me that the starting point has to be that there is a disturbingly large number of people out there who are prepared to take violent action for ideological and religious reasons. There is an even more disturbingly large number of people who are prepared to encourage or to condone such violence. For me, the most shocking part of the appalling events in Paris were not the attacks on the journalists and the kosher supermarket by deranged Islamists, it was that a minute’s silence for the victims was unenforceable in many French schools, because of sympathy for the murderers and their supposed cause from students and, presumably, their families. This demonstrates, I think, that in France there is an alarming failure to understand the basic principles of a liberal democracy; a democracy which protects the freedom of religion—rightly so—of those who refuse to recognise the basic rights of others.
My starting point is that the Government are rightly determined to prevent such developments here; developments which breed religion-inspired violence. Having said that, I share the concerns which have been expressed this afternoon about the impact of these provisions on freedom of expression and academic freedom in universities. My concern is very similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. It is that the duty which the Bill will impose is very difficult to reconcile with the very idea of a university whose primary role is to encourage academic debate and dissent. I think that a code which can be enforced by legally binding directions is far too blunt an instrument in the context of a lecture hall or a seminar room. If you try to wear a policeman’s hat and an academic gown at the same time, you are unlikely, I think, to perform either task adequately.
The Minister’s helpful letter to noble Lords on this issue makes the point that academic freedom is not absolute, even in a university. The Minister is absolutely right: the law already restrains freedom of speech, in universities as elsewhere, through the law of defamation, restrictions on threatening or abusive words or behaviour, and prohibitions on support for proscribed organisations. Universities have no exemption in that context, but this Bill would impose duties that are far more extensive and far more destructive of basic academic freedom than anything which is contained in current law.
I would prefer universities to be excluded from Part 5, but would be much reassured on this difficult subject if the Government would support Amendment 105, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett, Lady O’Loan, Lady Buscombe and Lady Sharp of Guildford, or something like it. Their amendment would write into the Bill the protection for freedom of speech currently contained, as your Lordships have heard, in Section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. I note that, in the Minister’s letter to noble Lords, he says that the duty under the Bill,
“is in no way designed to cut across the importance of free and open debate”,
particularly in universities. Good, I am very pleased to hear that. But then let the Bill say so expressly, to provide reassurance to the many good people in universities and elsewhere who are very concerned, and rightly so, about this issue.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I entirely support the points that have been made by all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of these amendments. I have a rather particular point to make about wording, which I do as a former chancellor of the University of Strathclyde, which of course is in Scotland.
Clause 41(1) makes it clear that Part 5 of the Bill applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales—it does not apply to Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said. However, this gives rise to a problem about drafting. One has to be absolutely sure when one refers to legislation—as, for example, Amendment 105 does, along with Amendment 108 and others—that the legislation referred to applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. The problem with Amendment 105—which I entirely support in principle—is that Section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 applies only to England and Wales, and does not apply to Scotland. The right to freedom of speech, and all the points that have been made in favour of the exercise of freedom of speech and about the difficulties of enforcing measures of the kind that we are talking about and so on and so forth, have just as much power and effect north of the border as they do in England and Wales. If Amendment 105 were to be agreed with the form of words which it has at the moment, it would create difficulties north of the border. That could be cured very easily by simply taking out the reference to,
“the duty in section 43(1)”,
of the 1986 Act, and substituting the words “the need to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained”. Freedom of speech in Scotland is deeply ingrained in the law of the country by, for example, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. One of the features of the 1986 Act is that it was passed some years before the Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted. Nowadays, you look to the convention rights in the Human Rights Act to see whether you have a right that you wish to assert. It is certainly true that Section 43 goes rather further and is quite detailed about the nature of the duty, but I have searched as best I can through the legislation in Scotland and, so far as I can see, there is no equivalent provision in either the education Acts or the university Acts in Scotland, which cover the same field.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as the chair of the Court and Council of Imperial College and by agreeing with the very clear concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Pannick about this whole area. The widening circles of support for this pernicious ideology are a concern for us all. I also pick up the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, to my noble friend Lord Evans of Weardale, in his absence, about there being many routes to terrorism. I am out of date on this subject, but there is no one, single route by which a young man or woman turns up as a terrorist—there are many different routes.
I therefore fully understand the Government’s concern in this area and their wish to address it. However, I also support the very powerful remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, with which I agree. I am afraid that it is a profound irony that we are seeking to protect our values against this pernicious ideology by trying to bar views that are described, too vaguely, as “non-violent” extremist but which fall short of incitement to violence or to racial or ethnic hatred—which is already forbidden by law—or indeed of the other legislative constraints on universities, which other Members of the Committee have mentioned. This is potentially in conflict with the university’s existing obligations to protect free speech, something we are all concerned about. The voicing of these opinions, some of which have been mentioned, such as those against the rule of law, democracy, civil society, women’s rights and so on, is of course often offensive and insulting to people. But we have been reminded only recently that we have a right to insult and we should avoid double standards here.
These opinions need to be exposed, challenged and countered. As the Minister said when referring to universities in his very helpful letter yesterday, to which my noble friend Lord Pannick extensively referred, they are,
“one of our most important arenas for challenging extremist views and ideologies”.
Quite so, and it is safer to challenge them in a university, if they arise there, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, that it is not all happening in universities. Much of it is happening in bedrooms, online and so on.
So this is difficult. My instincts are very often in support of the Government on these sorts of subjects, knowing that countering terrorism is not straightforward. However, the doubts that I expressed at Second Reading about putting Prevent, whatever its importance, on a statutory footing, in particular with regard to universities, have not been assuaged by anything that I have heard today. This work is going on now, and we really need a proper review of what has been achieved so far that is evidence-based. We have heard statistics, but we have not heard what they really mean. Prevent needs to be conducted with sensitivity, proportionality and care, and I fear that making it statutory in universities will jeopardise all three.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, I shall say a few short words in support of this group of amendments. I pay tribute to the Minister for the courtesy and care that he has brought to the conversations and for the correspondence that he has shared with several of your Lordships.
I declare as interests my professorship at Queen Mary University of London and my membership of the Royal United Services Institute Independent Surveillance Review. I have not been reassured about the practicalities of what the Government are proposing with regard to universities, on which I spoke at Second Reading, and I share the anxiety of many other noble Lords about freedom of speech within a university’s walls. I listened carefully to the Government’s case, but I am not persuaded that we need to shift from a voluntary approach to compulsion. By all means, strive to bring those universities which are laggardly up to the standards of the best; but we need to keep sharp what we already have—the scalpel of quiet, bespoke relationships between the authorities and the universities, rather than the mallet of legislation, however laudable the Government’s motivations in furthering the Prevent strategy.
I have to admit that the prospect of certain vice-chancellors being in the dock for contempt has a certain delicious attraction to it—although, I hasten to say, not my great friend and boss, the principal of Queen Mary University of London, Simon Gaskell. Universities must be very wary of overpleading that they are a special case—they genuinely must. None the less, the statutory road is not the path to take, as mapped out in Part 5 of the Bill. The defence of the realm is the first duty of the state—the first call upon the state—but here I think the state is in danger of overreaching and taking a step too far, even given the magnitude of the very real terrorist threats that we are facing.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, my name is attached to quite a number of the amendments in this group. I am not going to repeat the arguments that have been put very ably by other noble Lords. I merely add that it is vital that there is the opportunity for open debate and discussion of radical and extremist views in our universities and in other educational institutions in this country so that they can be challenged and the views refuted. It seems to me that the great danger in shutting down this debate is that it goes underground. It goes to the internet and social media, which we know are of vital importance in influencing those who are susceptible to these sorts of views. That issue is just as important for schools, further education colleges and sixth-form colleges with 15, 16 and 17 year- olds. If universities were to be excluded from this legislation, serious consideration would need to be given to the exclusion of other educational institutions as well.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Con)
My Lords, this has been a radical debate in the profound sense of getting to the roots of things. We have been talking about the open society and its enemies, and the Government have rightly identified the enemies of the open society as armed terrorists. But who are the friends of the open society? Clearly, we are speaking about free speech and academic freedom. I think that the Government, in seeking to constrain the enemies of the open society, are wrong if they take steps that constrain free speech and academic debate. The debate this evening has very much highlighted those difficulties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, spoke of the difficulties of administrating these procedures if they were passed into law. They would indeed be difficult to administer in a university. I fear that they would not be very well administered in most universities if universities were invited to apply them, because the sort of bureaucracy that can develop in a university would be ill suited to the task. So I feel very strongly that another approach has to be found, and there is a very strong case for excepting universities, as has been argued so well. I declare an interest as a former master of Jesus College, Cambridge, and a former professor. Universities are places where free speech should flourish and should be constrained as little as possible.
This year is the 200th anniversary of the Cambridge Union Society. That may be a small matter in these grand considerations, but I cannot see how a society like the Cambridge Union Society could flourish with the constraints applied to it in the draft guidance, some of which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. Therefore, I very much support the amendment and I hope that the Government will give it very serious consideration, because very high principles are at stake and, indeed, at risk.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 104. In so doing, I declare a past interest, as I was for 10 years a president of a Welsh university and the chairman of its management council.
I shall deal first with a technical constitutional point that is not a thousand miles away from the matter raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Universities and higher education in general in Scotland and Wales are, of course, devolved functions. Therefore, one could easily react in a rather crude and barbaric way and say, “This is not a matter for Westminster to intervene in”—although I certainly do not take up that argument.
Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that there are conventions in existence in the relationship between this House and the devolved assemblies. This is the Mother of Parliaments, and it stands to reason that it has the sovereign authority to cancel or amend in any way that it wishes any area of devolution that it has endowed upon it. But it will not do that and does not intend doing that wrongly. We have the Sewel convention in Scotland and a similar convention in Wales to the effect that such interference will not take place save in the most unusual—if not unique—circumstances. It would take place when either the devolved assembly requests that it should happen—the point essentially raised in relation to Section 43 of the 1986 Act by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—or there is a situation that is utterly unique. One can imagine one or two where there would be justification for such action.
It is clear to me that another principle overwhelms that; for although higher education has been devolved to Scotland and Wales, counterterrorism has not. That surely must take precedence in every way because it involves the security and, at the end of the day, the very existence of the state itself. I raise the matter not to show off any understanding of constitutional matters but to raise a point in relation to what should happen in this unique situation where we have a devolved function being clearly brought under the microscope of Westminster. The Bill accommodates that possibility very clearly in Clauses 23 and 25. In Clause 23, it is in relation to adding an authority to the list in Schedule 3; in Clause 25, it is in relation to giving a direction. However, the Bill states in each case that there has to be consultation between the Home Secretary and Welsh Ministers, and that is the point that I seek to raise.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I shall certainly not repeat what has been said—I am sorry; has the noble Lord not finished? I thought that he had.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I have a little to go.
Perhaps I may end in this way. The motivations of the Government are probably very decent, proper and understandable, but the way in which they are going about them is extremely naive and in many respects barbaric. Let us imagine that, before a person can speak at a university, notice for 14 days has to be given. A sketch of the content of that speech has to be produced. Just imagine how three people, all of them now dead, would react to that were they alive. One would be Bertrand Russell; another would be Bernard Shaw; a third would be a 30 year-old Winston Churchill. Do you think that they would have accepted the invitation? Do you think that they would have felt themselves bound by that stricture? It is a situation which, at best, is ridiculous and, at worst, can be extremely dangerous and counterproductive.
Most Members of the Committee will have heard at some time or another quoted the immortal words of John Philpot Curran, who in 1795 said, if I remember rightly:
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt”.
We can, by overemphasising vigilance, destroy the very thing that we seek to protect.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I shall not weary the Committee by using all the arguments that have been so well advanced by noble Lords on all sides. They have been much more eloquent than I could possibly be. I support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Pannick and Amendment 104 because I do not think that the Government have made a very convincing case for moving from a voluntary to a statutory basis. They are quite right in wishing to see all higher education institutions taking the Prevent strategy seriously and co-operating with it but they have not given any evidence that this voluntary approach—reinforced perhaps by a bit of naming and shaming—cannot bring everyone voluntarily within this framework. They have said little about the efforts they have made to do that, except to admit, which I very much welcome, that the majority of universities are actually doing this already. Therefore, I do not think that the case has been made for moving from a voluntary to a statutory basis.
There is a bit of a mixture in this grouping, ranging from a carve-out for universities and other proposals that fall short of that, which would leave universities within the Bill but would mitigate the problems from it. I hope that the Minister will address some of the other amendments—Amendments 105, 112 and so on—which would achieve that mitigation. It is extremely important that that should appear in the Bill.
Finally, I have a point to make about the guidance. The consultation on the guidance with universities, if I understand it rightly, concludes at the end of this week. Frankly, that guidance is pretty horrifying. It has caused a great deal of the concern that has been expressed around this Committee by the nature of its prescriptive detail, its intrusiveness and the absolute impossibility for most universities to carry out these provisions. Next week, on Report, the Minister could make clear in the most formal way the changes to the guidance that will be introduced before it is promulgated. I hope that the Minister will take that seriously. If he cannot agree to remove universities from this Bill, which would be my preference, he should accept some of the amendments that would mitigate the effects of it, make quite clear that the guidance will be radically altered and explain how it will be altered. He should explain, above all, some of the points that he put in his letter about the positive things that the Government are happy to continue to see happening in universities and not just give a long list of the negative things that they are going to try to clamp down on. I hope that can be taken to heart before we come back on Report.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
The amendments here fall into two distinct categories. There is the root-and-branch objection to the whole idea that higher education institutions should be brought into Part 5 of the Bill and the proposal that they should be carved out, to use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Then there are the amendments that seem to massage various provisions within Part 5 as it presently exists so that it becomes, apparently, compatible with the explicit statutory duties already placed on those institutions to promote free speech, freedom of expression, academic freedom and so on. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I very strongly support the first category, the root-and-branch objection. It seems to be a matter of the first importance that, for universities and higher institutions, nothing short of the express provisions of the criminal law—or, no doubt, the long-established principles of defamation—should operate as an inhibition on the freedoms that are here in question, which really are core values that go to the very heart of effective university life in a liberal democracy. It is small wonder that so little enthusiasm has been voiced in the Committee today in support of anything approaching Part 5 in its present form.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
I will speak very briefly as we come to the end of this debate. As I was listening to it, I realised that there is a whole area to which we have not referred but which is entirely relevant; that is, religious institutions and places of religious instruction and education. Those are missing from the Bill. The application of the Bill to universities will have very uncertain benefits and be extremely impractical to apply in as much as universities are independent institutions. They do not always appear so to the heads of those institutions when they deal with Governments but they are independent institutions. That is a really important feature. Most of the authorities listed here are not independent in that way, although other educational establishments are included.
At some point, we need to stop beating about the bush and see that, alongside the guarantee of freedom of religious speech in our country, and the charitable status of those engaged in different religious practices and education, there is an obligation that should be stated in law. Why not? There is simply an area missing from the Bill as we have it. When the Minister replies, I wonder whether he would be willing at least to comment on the fact that, among all these authorities that are listed, places of religious instruction and education are simply not mentioned.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I rise as the last member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—a long cast of players—to make representations in relation to this amendment. As noble Lords will be aware, the Joint Committee’s report recommended removing universities from the ambit of the Bill. However, I take on board the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about those in institutions for 15, 16 and 17 year-olds. I am grateful to the Minister for continuing to engage with the Joint Committee on Human Rights since we published our report. I have no doubt that what was presented to us was that there was a problem going on on campus, with certain groups holding extremist ideologies being given a platform and not being challenged on their views.
I wish to build briefly on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, in relation to the ambit of the criminal law here. Our response to some of these problems has obviously been to take terrorism offences and expand the ambit of the criminal law further and further down to preparatory-type offences, which we never would have envisaged 20 years ago. For instance, Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 concerns the encouragement of terrorism. Section 1(1) states:
“This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences”.
Offences such as that are designed to go further down the chain and to catch preparatory-type offences. That offence might just apply to printed published statements. I have not had the time to double-check that.
If one remembers that one adds on to all these preparatory offences the group of offences called “inchoate offences,” which are attempting to do that offence, conspiring to do that offence or inciting to do that offence. That takes the ambit of the criminal law a long way down in terms of the statements that we are talking about in this House. It has not been made clear to us what views this is aimed to prevent being expressed on our university campuses that are not within the realm of free speech, as offensive and as contrary to British values as some of us might think those views to be, but are outside the ambit of the extensive criminal law.
Finally, in relation to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate, I had assumed that religious institutions were somehow caught by the definitions of educational institutions. It is noteworthy that General Synod has an exemption under the Bill. In relation to the trust that has not been built up, perhaps because this is fast-track legislation and there has not been extensive consultation, somehow there is now concern among some in the church community that Clause 21 would require the vetting of speakers at carol services that take place on university campuses. I am not sure how one gets from Clause 21 to thinking that that might be a risk, but it indicates to me that more trust needs to be built through consultation if we are to have a clause of this nature.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
I declare two interests, one as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is thinking a lot these days about the right to freedom of expression and the challenges to it, and as a university teacher of some 40 years who has quite often not had her lectures drafted very much ahead of having to deliver them. That is a reality of academic life. I heard what other noble Lords have said about the ways these clauses could be counterproductive, but what is missing is positive thought about the ways in which universities have, not always with success but often, opened the minds of their students and countered radicalisation by the only long-term, effective method which is to discuss juvenile claims, hopes and aspirations that reveal hidden horrors within them. It is only speech that can defeat evil speech, and I hope that we will give far more thought to the positive measures that universities can take before we try in such an abstract way to construct forms of regulation that are likely to provoke what they seek to prevent.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am also an academic who tends not to write speeches in advance. I had not planned to speak this afternoon and I did not speak at Second Reading, but I feel it is important to mention something I did last summer which fits very much with one of the anecdotes we heard earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
I was doing a training session for parliamentarians from another country, a private event, and I was trying to explain to them the merits of the legislative process in the United Kingdom. After a while, one of them said, “I know what we need to do; we need a revolution”. I said, “Could you explain what you mean?”, thinking it was a term of speech. No, they really meant that they wanted to overturn their Government. Clearly, I was not in any way trying to incite terrorist or any other activities to overthrow the state, and I was slightly afraid that if anyone had been listening in, they would have thought that I was leading the wrong sort of class.
If we are engaged in free speech in universities, things can happen. There can be discussions and the idea that somehow the Government should be trying to impose duties on academics to say in advance what they are going to say, and to censor in advance what outside speakers are going to say, is very malign. I am very supportive of the amendments, and like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am not opposed to Part 5 and Schedule 3 in total. For local authorities and other organisations that are clearly state organisations, imposing a duty may be appropriate, but for higher education institutions, it is fundamentally wrong.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, it should be no surprise that this debate has lasted as along as the debate on Monday on 17 new clauses around communications data retention. Perhaps that is an indication of the knowledge, concern and experiences of noble Lords here today. This has been a long debate. It has been a healthy and very well informed debate. The Minister may feel slightly embarrassed that he has found no friends for the Government’s position during the debate. It would be wrong to caricature the debate as people not wanting to avoid individuals being drawn into terrorism. That is very clear. I concur entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who made clear why that is so important and the dangers of terrorism. I hope that no one would caricature this debate as showing that any noble Lord is not committed to ensuring that that is avoided at all costs and that action is taken.
I am not convinced of the need to pull universities out of Part 5 completely, but the reason there is very great concern is that the provision seems poorly drafted. It has created serious concern about the duties and responsibilities on universities. The issue is around free speech, which is what I want particularly to address because the Minister has an opportunity to win widespread support from your Lordships’ House and to respond to the eloquent and important points that have been made and to address the heart of the concerns. He will have heard them raised at Second Reading. They were reinforced tonight.
My noble friend Lady Lister said that her amendment may be technically deficient. It may be technically deficient, but she was very clear in what she was saying about her concerns about what could be seen to curtail free speech, proper debate and controversial debate within universities and higher education establishments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who is not in her place, made an important point about the consultation on this. It does not help debate in your Lordships’ House to be discussing guidance which is still open for consultation and which was not available at all in the other place. It was published after the other place debated this issue. We have had sight of the consultation, which will not close until the end of the week. The Minister recognises in his letter the concerns that have been raised. That letter was written only yesterday, which is why a number of noble Lords who have spoken about the duty regarding giving advance notice of speeches have not had time to read it. This is not the way we should establish guidance. This is not the way we should be debating legislation. In a later amendment, we will propose that because of the delay in the guidance and its importance, it should come back to both Houses and be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses before it can be accepted. It is completely unacceptable for us to be discussing this issue in such an abstract way.
I thank the Minister and his colleague in the other place, James Brokenshire, who tried to address a number of the issues raised by noble Lords in the helpful briefing he gave a couple of weeks ago, but I fear that that briefing raised as many questions as it answered. One issue has been raised again tonight. If the Minister is able to answer it, it would be very helpful in understanding the debate. A number of noble Lords referred to the work ongoing in universities under the Prevent programme and the arrangements being made. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, gave a helpful example regarding the banning of a particular song which shows that universities are fulfilling their duties. A question raised at the briefing has been raised again today and my honourable friend Diana Johnson has been asking questions on this in the other place. We have not had an answer. How serious it is for those universities which the Minister says are not complying with Prevent? He said that most universities are complying with Prevent, which implies there is ongoing work which is successful. He wants to bring the other universities up to the same level, but how many are we talking about? Are most universities complying? Is it a few? Is it 50? We have no idea of the scale of the problem which he has indicated to us that makes this legislation necessary. It would be helpful if he could say something about that.
Lord Bates
My Lords, it has been an excellent debate, which I will reflect on. The noble Baroness should not be so pessimistic and think that we are not going to reflect on this or that the notes simply say, “Resist”. That might have been the case under the previous Government, of which she was a member, but in the enlightened spirit of co-operation that is now engendered in Whitehall, that is not the case here.
In introducing this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the meeting that we had on 15 January. I am a born optimist—mine is the blood group “B positive”—and I take the view that if we explain and people understand what is actually in the provisions, they will feel less chilled by them. The meeting was very well attended—in fact, it was the best attended and most interesting Peers meeting that I can remember. Of course, it provoked a lively debate and I reflected very carefully on it. One of the outcomes was the letter that I chose to send out last night, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords, who have pointed to the restatement of the fact:
“We are firmly of the view that universities’ commitment to freedom of speech means that they represent one of our most important arenas for challenging extremist views and ideologies”,
simply because of that; and that we fully support,
“the existing duty in the Education (No 2) Act 1986 on universities to promote freedom of speech”.
I went on to reflect on the point, which a number of noble Lords have referred to, about the practicalities of how that is done. As several noble Lords recognised, even Ministers might struggle in giving speeches 14 days in advance; that might be pushing it a bit too far. I said that certainly we wanted to make sure that the requirements were less onerous —although, given that we are in a consultation phase until 30 January, I did not want to prejudge what the outcome was going to be.
Let me make one point that I think goes to the heart of where we are in this debate. External Speakers in Higher Education Institutions is another bit of guidance, provided by Universities UK and in operation at present. It says that actions that institutions take might include:
“Requesting a script or précis from the speaker outlining what they intend to say and requiring them to sign an undertaking”—
we are not going that far—
“acknowledging that their speech will be terminated if they deviate from it … Briefing the chair in advance of the event, making clear that they have a responsibility to ensure that no speaker or other person present at the event infringes the law; this briefing could highlight the circumstances under which they must stop the event, issue warnings to participants on their conduct or request the withdrawal or removal by stewards (or the police if necessary) of the person(s) concerned”.
That is pretty heavy stuff. It is in Universities UK’s guidance for external speakers that is already in place and applies to the 75% of universities which are part of that element.
Before I make specific remarks on the issues that have been raised, I turn to the Prevent duty under Part 5. When people were having these freedom of speech arguments in the context of universities, I do not think that we necessarily envisaged the type of situation that we might now be in and the level of threat, which is severe, that we now face and which gives rise to this legislation. Under Prevent, as was in many ways acknowledged by the previous Government, as well as dealing with the law and prosecution, you must engage in discussion with these groups and challenge their views. That was where Prevent came from and that is where we are going. Schedule 3 provides that this will apply to local government, criminal justice—probation, prisons—education and childcare, health and social care, and the police but people are proposing that universities should be exempt. These might be areas where there is some difference. I am trying to be straight with your Lordships about where the differences might arise between us.
Baroness O'Loan
How does the Minister envisage universities engaging with these groups to help them to see the error of their ways—it was envisaged that they might go into communities and talk to groups—without in some way being at risk of breaching the guidance which is implicit in this draft law?
Lord Bates
I will try to go on to explain about the guidance to the noble Baroness. I recognise her academic experience, which is particularly relevant, in teaching constitutional law in Northern Ireland; that must have particular relevance to what we are talking about here, and I listen very carefully to what she has to say. We are not seeking here to curtail or limit but to say that the institution should have guidance in place. Particular individuals should be responsible, a bit like what is described in the Universities UK guidance, but the institution ought to have some procedures and safeguards, if only for good order on the campus, when these matters are being discussed or when controversial matters are raised.
Baroness Warsi
I am sorry to cut my noble friend off in mid-flow. He may be aware that that kind of guidance led to a chilling effect within government on engagement with community groups. Many individual groups were not considered to be extremist groups and never passed the test required for them to be defined as such, but a question mark was raised over them. Even though no specific guidance was issued, that question mark was enough for individual Ministers, civil servants and departments to stop engaging with them. People were so concerned about being seen as being on the wrong side of the argument on these issues, that even where they would not have fallen foul of the guidance they were concerned that they would fall foul of opinion. Therefore that had a chilling effect, so the issue the noble Baroness raises is important. It may mean that they do not fall foul of the guidance—and this is only guidance—but it will have a chilling effect as regards engagement.
Lord Bates
I accept that my noble friend had lead responsibility for that, and she has far more experience in this area in formulating and delivering policy than I have. However, I am simply responding to the question which addressed where this code of practice is going as regards higher education institutions. I was simply making the point that in a sense it relates to the organisation and preparedness of institutions to deal with the safeguarding of organisations, the security of students, and just being aware. I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to give some examples of the relationship the inspectors who currently engage on the Prevent programme—the regional co-ordinators —have with higher education institutions. They are often contacted and asked about particular speakers. Most institutions found it very helpful to have someone they could go to and ask for guidance on whether special procedures needed to be put in place for a particular person.
Baroness Brinton
I was trying to make the point that it would be helpful to have an example of where the existing codes of practice guidance are failing, which requires the draft legislation we are looking at today.
Lord Bates
Yes; and I suppose that that comes from evidence. I accept that that evidence is not in the marshalled form in which the noble Baroness and the Committee might like, but it is certainly there in the evidence from the regional co-ordinators of the Prevent strategy, who say that some institutions simply do not comply and show no willingness to comply with guidance in the Prevent programme which is there already. Some do that very well; others have a willing heart, but are not doing it correctly. That is why, if this is put on a statutory footing and inspected externally, which is the Government’s case, we will have better evidence on which to measure the effectiveness of how this works on the ground. However, I will put some remarks on the record as regards these amendments.
The amendments in this group, in the name of a range of noble Lords, including members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, seek to remove higher and further education institutions from the scope of the duty altogether, or severely to curtail the application of the duty to those institutions, whether through legislation or the statutory guidance. I recognise the strength of feeling in the Committee on this issue, and I, along with my ministerial colleagues, listened carefully to the helpful and constructive debate we had on this issue at Second Reading. I hope that it will be helpful to your Lordships if I set out why we believe that the inclusion of higher and further education institutions under this provision is so important.
Lord Pannick
If the intention is that the Prevent duty should, as the Minister just told the House, sit alongside academic freedom and freedom of expression in universities, why not say so on the face of the Bill, so that it is absolutely clear?
Lord Bates
That is in my next paragraph, if the noble Lord will let me come to it.
However, I can equally understand the trepidation of many in your Lordships’ House, and I have heard the strength of feeling on this matter. On that basis, I will commit to considering this matter further, and to discussing it with my ministerial colleagues, before Report, in order to identify whether it would be possible to provide some additional comfort to noble Lords, and to the education sector itself.
This has been a very wide debate, with some 20 speakers. Many have made very specific points and asked very specific questions. I am conscious that this is the second group of amendments within six weeks to cover Prevent, but—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Could the Minister perhaps extend the period of reflection with his colleagues to cover the issues in the guidance, which have given rise to such concern, as well? I am talking particularly about overprescriptive guidance. The Minister addressed some of those issues in his letter of last night, but by no means all of them. As the period for consultation will have expired by this weekend, will he undertake to consider—no more than that—what he will be able to put on the record on Report to make it clear that the guidance to be issued will be very different from the draft guidance that went into the consultation?
Lord Bates
Well, yes, I am happy to say that we will continue to keep the whole thing under review. That is the whole point of the consultation. I accept that the fact that the consultation concludes on 30 January may cause some difficulties. However, all the points debated today and at Second Reading are very much part of that consultation. I shall certainly go as far as I am able towards providing what might be described as an additional “first draft” type of review of the guidance, as a result of the responses that have been received so far. About 160 comments have been received, in addition to the debates that we have had.
I was about to say that a substantial number of points have been raised in the debate, and I can go through them. My noble friend Lady O’Cathain, who happened to catch my ear during the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked me not to miss out the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester about religious institutions. There is a point here, which we took into consideration, about what is a private matter, such as religious faith and worship, and what is a public matter—that is, a public matter in public institutions of education—and about comparing the two duties and thinking about whether we should extend our guidance into those institutions.
That was one of the reasons why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, decided to send the letter that he wrote to mosques and other religious institutions, recognising the importance of faith and urging them to play their part in the community-wide desire to keep our society safe.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I am grateful for those remarks, but I think that advocating the idea that the distinction is essentially between private and public will not work in the longer term. Religion is too powerful a force, and spills over beyond the private. Indeed, in one sense universities are private institutions: they are completely legally independent of government, and one of the reasons why they flourish in this country is that, even though the relationship is close, that position has been maintained. I simply make that point, and hope that at some point further thought will be given to how one can get beyond simply relegating the religious to the private sphere—because that does not really work.
Lord Bates
Having been on the receiving end of mass campaigns by people who are deeply upset at the state daring to encroach on the sacred territory of religious groups, I think that we should bear in mind the notion of, “Be careful what you wish for”. We do have to be careful here, because there will be people who say, “Hang on, this is the state going one step further than it should into a private realm”. None the less, I shall reflect further.
Baroness Berridge
While the Minister is speaking of reflection, will he reflect further on the issue for charities? Under the previous Government there was a unit within the Charity Commission designed to look at the financial structures and compliance of various charities. It was discovered that a lot of extremism could be found when one looked, first, at the numbers: the finances revealed organisations that were charities to which we needed to pay close attention. We are not giving the Prevent duty to trustees of charities, who may arguably count as public. Yet the public fund an awful lot of charitable work through gift aid and so on. Surely the logic would be to extend the duty to the charitable sector. It is there to provide public benefit: that is the test that we have for charities. The unit seemed to be quite a good one. I think the Charity Commission had to decrease it, but has now increased it again, because looking at the numbers, at what trustees are up to, and at who they are connected to through the charitable structure, gives us some great information about what is actually going on.
Lord Bates
I accept the point that my noble friend makes about charities. That is the reason why the Charity Commission has taken robust action against some charities that are not fulfilling that public duty. We will certainly look at that further.
I am conscious that this has been a long debate and I have given a commitment to reflect on it. Specific questions were raised. If they are not addressed in discussion on subsequent groups of amendments, I give an assurance to write to your Lordships ahead of Report. Given that important commitment which I wanted to get on the record—namely, that in relation to some of the amendments, particularly Amendments 105, 112A, 112B and 112D, I would very much like to reflect on the debate that we have had—I hope that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments at this stage.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, the Minister made a remark earlier that went to the highly contentious issue which at least half a dozen noble Lords have raised relating to paragraph 66 of the guidance. It says—I quote from the letter that the Minister wrote yesterday—that,
“we note the difficulties of requiring all visiting speakers to submit their presentations in advance, and … we will be making changes to that text in the … guidance”.
There is no equivocation there. The Minister says that that will be changed. Earlier in his speech, he said that he would look at this and consider the response to the consultation. There is a big difference there and it is very important to a lot of people here to know what the position is.
Lord Bates
Normally I go beyond what I am instructed to say by my patient Bill team who work behind me, but on this occasion, I think that I am probably behind them in that the letter says in terms that we have heard enough already to reach a judgment on the practicalities of the provision in paragraph 66 and that we will rework that, notwithstanding the answer which I accept that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, earlier, that we would reflect on the issue and did not want to prejudge the consultation. I suppose that we have prejudged the consultation in that particular regard because we do not want what we consider is the important issue of keeping the universities within the broader statutory provision to be, as it were, misunderstood or challenged on relatively small procedural matters which could cause alarm and are many miles away from where the principal focus of our efforts should be.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his characteristically good-natured and considered response, which I shall discuss in a moment. I thank all noble Lords who put their names to my amendments and the many noble Lords from across the House who supported them. I cannot remember many debates in your Lordships’ House where not one noble Lord has spoken in support of the Minister, although many have rightly emphasised how much they support what the Government are trying to achieve in terms of preventing terrorism. We have had perspectives from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for pointing out the deficiencies of Amendment 105 and how we can put that right. We have heard important arguments of principle that go to the heart of what a university is about and have pointed out how we could undermine the very values that we are trying to protect. As I said at Second Reading, I call these values of democratic citizenship. There is nothing uniquely British about them, but they are values that we probably share. We have also heard important arguments regarding practice, where noble Lords have pointed out that there seems to be a lack of understanding of how universities work, and that the practical implementation of the measure would be counterproductive, not least in pushing underground some of the debates with which we need to engage.
Before I discuss the Minister’s very helpful finale, so to speak, I wish to make a couple of points. He pointed out that Universities UK had itself issued guidance which is rather similar to the guidance that everybody has decried as being much too prescriptive. However, the fact that no one, not even Universities UK, seemed to know that it had included the relevant measure suggests that probably most universities simply ignore that bit of it because it is so obviously fatuous. However, the big difference is that if a university fails to comply with that guidance, the Home Secretary will not issue a directive against it and it will not find itself in court. There is a huge difference between the advisory guidance that Universities UK issues and statutory guidance related to the Bill.
A number of noble Lords asked about the lack of evidence on how many universities are failing to comply in this regard. The Minister said that he accepted that the evidence has not been marshalled but that there are institutions that do not comply. Noble Lords who are academics would not accept that as evidence. Evidence has to be marshalled for it to constitute genuine evidence; otherwise, it is anecdote.
I very much appreciate the Minister saying that he will go away and reflect on the debate, but am slightly worried because he talked about the new Prevent duty sitting comfortably alongside existing statutory duties to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom. The whole point is that it sits uncomfortably beside those duties. I am worried that we may be talking about some kind of parallel universe. I am not a lawyer so I may make a fool of myself when I say this, but the existing duties in the 1986 and 1988 education Acts are themselves subject to other laws which restrict freedom of speech, as I said, so I do not see why there is a problem in making the Prevent duty subject to those duties because they are circumscribed. Therefore, I do not understand the noble Lord’s argument on that. When he reflects on the debate, I hope he will think seriously about that, because if the new duty is not subject to those duties, it will not meet the concerns expressed so powerfully in your Lordships’ House—concerns which are based on noble Lords’ experience. I hope it will be possible to discuss this issue informally, although we clearly do not have an awful lot of time before Report, given the fast-track nature of this legislation. I welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to think further about this and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before we move on to the next amendment, perhaps I may suggest, for the aid of noble Lords planning the rest of their evening, and given that we have a lot to get through, that it might be worth while getting some sustenance. I have discussed this with the usual channels and the plan is that we will debate the next group of amendments and then adjourn the Committee for 30 minutes. We would like to continue and try to complete the Committee stage tonight.
Schedule 3: Specified authorities
Amendment 105A
Lord Rosser
“A unitary authority.”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 21 places a general duty on specified authorities, defined as,
“a person or body that is listed in Schedule 3”,
to have a general duty to have due regard, in the exercise of their functions,
“to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.
Included among the specified authorities on which this general duty is placed are local authorities. The types of local authorities covered are listed in Schedule 3. They include a county council or district council in England, the Greater London Authority and a London borough council. What Schedule 3 does not appear to include is unitary authorities in general. The purpose of this amendment is to invite the Government to clarify which local government unitary authorities are covered by Schedule 3 and which are not, and the basis of that decision.
Two examples of unitary authorities which do not appear to be included in Schedule 3 are Thurrock and Southend in Essex. Clearly, Essex County Council is covered by Schedule 3 and will have the general duty placed on it under this Bill to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. That duty will not apparently also be placed on the Thurrock and Southend unitary authorities. Is it the intention, to use Thurrock and Southend as examples, that the responsibility will rest with the county council rather than the unitary authority? If so, why, and how will the arrangements work in this situation within the areas of the Thurrock and Southend unitary authorities? On which local authority, or local authorities, will the duty in Clause 21 lie in our major cities in England outside London, such as Birmingham and Manchester?
The consultation document on the Prevent duty guidance asks the question as to whether there are additional local authorities that should be subject to the duty to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Perhaps that means that the Government have some doubts about whether the list of local authorities covered by Schedule 3 is as extensive as it might be. In their factsheet on the Bill, the Government give us an example of what steps local authorities should take to meet their Prevent duty in the Bill. The example given—one that the Minister referred to in an earlier debate—is that local authorities should ensure that publicly owned premises are not used to disseminate extremist views. Does that mean only in local authorities covered by Schedule 3 and not in those that are not covered by Schedule 3?
It also appears, subject to what the Minister is going to say, that while not all local authorities are covered by Schedule 3 on the duty to prevent people being drawn into terrorism, under Clause 28 each local authority must ensure that a panel of persons is in place for its area to ensure support for people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. That would appear to be a bit of a contrast.
I hope I have made it clear that the purpose of this amendment is to seek clarification on which unitary authorities are and which are not covered by Schedule 3 and the reasons behind that decision. I await the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the world of local government, in its kaleidoscopic way, is changing at the moment with new groupings of authorities, such as the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities. Although the duty is expressed as a duty on each individual authority, will the Government be open to authorities seeking to find ways for neighbours to provide services to fulfil the duty? This has only just occurred to me, but it seems that one should be open to practical ways of dealing with this sort of thing.
Separately, I ask whether my noble friend is able to address my points about the contracting-out of services, which I raised in the first group of amendments. I do not know whether he has any notes on that. It is mentioned in Amendment 106 in the Minister’s name, which caused me to go on a hunt for Schedule 36A to the Education Act. That is only about education and there are many other services which are contracted out. I asked London Councils whether I was barking up the wrong tree in worrying about this. Its answer was that I was not and that this is something worth pursuing.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend’s amendment highlights the fact that this is a list which has been cobbled together with some speed and that perhaps, in trying to ensure that all the bases were covered, the normal diligence of the Home Office has fallen apart. As to the specific point about unitary authorities, my noble friend Lord Rosser suggested that perhaps a county council could act on behalf of a unitary authority. The very point about unitary authorities is that you cannot do that. That would raise some very interesting and wide issues so I assume that that is a simple omission. Regarding the list on criminal justice, while I assume that the duty is placed on the individual institutions, there is nothing said more generally about the role of headquarters bodies or contracting bodies like the National Offender Management Service.
There are a couple of other possible anomalies that the Minister might want to address. I note that community health councils, which still exist in Wales although they have been long abolished in England, are listed, but that the successor of the successor of the successor bodies for community health councils in England, Healthwatch organisations, are not included. Will community health councils in Wales have a Prevent duty that does not apply to the bodies which now fulfil many of those functions in England? Finally, I do not see the Ministry of Defence Police in the list of police organisations.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I can say in advance that I will probably be writing to both my noble friend and the noble Lord on their points. As extensive as the briefing is, I am afraid that it has not pre-empted those two points of contracting out or the Ministry of Defence Police.
I will move the government amendments in this group shortly but first I will respond to Amendment 105A in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—the Opposition Front Bench. This amendment would add a unitary authority to a list of specified authorities in Schedule 3 on page 47. This is an issue that I have discussed with her previously. I am pleased to assure her and others in your Lordships’ House that this amendment is unnecessary. Unitary authorities are already covered by virtue of a county or, more commonly, a district council. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I can see a quizzical look from noble Lords on this but we say that whether it relates to a county or district council in England—that is, a person carrying out the function of an authority mentioned in Section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999, by virtue of a direction made under Section 15 of that Act—the provision would catch all. Noble Lords will have to take the word of our counsel on it. It would be a pretty easy amendment to make if we were wrong, and we would be happy to correct it; but we feel that unitary authorities are covered under the existing wording.
There are a number of government amendments in this group, regarding bodies listed in Schedules 3 and 4. Schedule 3 specifies the authorities subject to the duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism. Schedule 4 specifies the persons who are subject to the duty to co-operate with panels established by local authorities to provide support for people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.
Amendments 106, 108, 111 and 116 to 118 will ensure that the appropriate authorities are subject to the duties, and that there are no gaps or inconsistencies. Amendments 106 and 116 add persons who are appointed by local authorities under certain delegated functions related to education functions. This ensures appropriate coverage of the duties. Amendments 108 and 117 add a person specified by Welsh Ministers in respect of a direction made in respect of a Welsh local authority’s education functions. This amendment ensures a consistent approach.
Lord Scriven
Where do GPs, as part of the health service, fit into the system?
Lord Bates
I am thinking on my feet. The legislation mentions a community health council in Wales, a local health board or NHS foundation trust.
Lord Bates
That was a good try but I am clearly in need of that break. Rather than answer now, I shall add my noble friend honourably to the list of the three Members to whom I shall write with clarification. However, inspiration has just come to me. Of course I knew the answer. GPs are not covered by this provision.
Lord Scriven
If it is a function across health professionals and health services, the proportion of people who come into contact with an acute trust is significantly small. Why have the health service and GPs been excluded from the duty, yet consultants who see the minority of patients have been included? What is the significant difference in order for the Government to be making that delineation of clinicians?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, if the Minister is going to come back to us on various points, perhaps he can include something on patient confidentiality.
Lord Bates
As I sat down to take that intervention, further inspiration came to me on this matter. We are consulting GPs on their role in this, and we will have regard to the important points relating to patient confidentiality to which the noble Baroness referred.
Finally, Amendments 119 to 122 would allow the Government to make changes, through regulations, to Schedules 3 and 4 at any time after the Bill is granted Royal Assent, and before such time as the rest of this part commences. The amendments ensure that, in the event that there are additional bodies to which the Prevent duty should apply or which should be partners to Channel panels, then those bodies can be added to the appropriate schedule with as much notice as possible before the duties on them commence. This is clearly in the best interests of those bodies because it will give them time to prepare. This has particular relevance to the addition of Scottish bodies. The Government have made clear that it is our hope and intention that Scottish bodies will become subject to the Prevent duty, and we are currently discussing this with the Scottish Government.
We still wish to make the changes to the schedules as soon as possible after Royal Assent, and to have the duty commence for all specified authorities in England, Wales and Scotland at the same time. Therefore, I invite the Committee to agree these government amendments and trust that, in the light of my earlier clarification, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am left feeling somewhat lonely. I think that I am the only noble Lord who has spoken in this debate who is not actually going to get a letter. I appreciate that the Minister was repeating the legal advice that he had been given—I do not doubt that advice—but having apparently found out that the reference to:
“A county council or district council”,
covers unitary authorities, it would be helpful if he were able at least to quote other legislation in which a reference to a county council or district council is meant to include a unitary authority. I am sure it exists; this is not a challenge. I assume from the advice given to the Minister that there must be examples in other legislation where that is the case. It would be helpful if there could be a note on that, or at least some communication to make that point.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister. I no longer feel lonely; I am going to get a letter as well. The question has also been raised as to why the consultation asked:
“Are there additional local authorities that should be subject to the duty?”.
I appreciate that parish councils are not mentioned but I hardly imagine that they are going to be covered by the duty; therefore, bearing in mind that unitary authorities are covered, I am not sure exactly which local authorities people might suggest could be included. However, I am not inviting the Minister to send me a letter covering that question. I am grateful to him for his reply, and I am sure that other noble Lords are grateful to him for his willingness to respond to the queries I have raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bates
“A person who is authorised by virtue of an order made under section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to exercise a function specified in Schedule 36A to the Education Act 1996.”
Lord Bates
“A person who is specified in a direction made in relation to the exercise of a local authority’s functions given by the Welsh Ministers under section 25 of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 (anaw 1) (including that section as applied by section 50A of the Children Act 2004 or section 29 of the Childcare Act 2006).”
Lord Bates
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Guidance issued under this section shall in particular deal with equalities issues.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 112BA is grouped with a number of other amendments, most of which relate to Clause 24. The amendments in this group in my name and those of my noble friends have been tabled to enable me once again to raise issues about equalities and concerns about discrimination.
It has been put to me that Prevent is regarded as a security prism through which all Muslims are seen and that Muslims are suspect until proved otherwise. The term “siege mentality” has also been used. We have discussed the dangers of alienation arising from the very activities that should be part of the solution, not part of the problem, and of alienation feeding violence. I have said to the Muslim organisations that have contacted me, and I think I have said in the Chamber, that because the current context for this legislation is the war in Syria and since most Britons, not all, who are drawn into fighting there are Muslims—I am not saying that they come from the same ethnic background; that is, of course, quite different—it is inevitable that Muslims will make up the great majority of those who are the subject of, or some might say subjected to, the provisions of this Bill.
We have laws about equalities and they apply to this legislation as to every other piece of legislation. I doubt that much can be done in legislation to address the concerns I have just summarised but what can be done should be done: in legislation, in practice and in providing safeguards against discrimination. Transparency is a very important tool and it occurred to me today that, the more transparency there is about how these provisions are operated, the more ammunition—if that is not an indelicate word in the context—the Government can give themselves to counter those concerns.
I have mentioned the current context. The counter- terrorism strategy and policy of course are also directed to dealing with other extremism manifested in violence—for instance, right-wing extremism. I am told that freedom of information requests for basic statistics about Prevent are routinely denied on the basis of national security. It seems to me that we should be looking for ways of providing information that do not endanger security. For instance, I wondered how many individuals are in a programme because of anti-Semitic violence. Over the last day or two, I have been pondering what it would look like if one substituted “Jewish” for “Muslim” in the briefings and descriptions we have had. The issue is not just how I would see it as a Jew—not a very observant Jew but one who is aware of her background and heritage—but also whether other people, who might be resistant to some of the points I have been making, would see things differently if it were a different group interposed in that way. I think that if this were aimed at the Jewish community or communities, I might feel targeted rather than protected. I say all that by way of some introduction and can go through the specific amendments fairly quickly.
I said earlier this evening that I think—although I am going to have to read the debate to check—that the Minister in his answer on the first group implied more support, at least for the thoughts that lie behind these amendments, than I suspect he is going to articulate now and he also implied more consultation than the clause spells out. The clause deals with revised guidance as well as the first issue of guidance. If one accepts the Minister’s point about how well the Government have conducted the process so far for the purpose of the argument, nevertheless the issues I am raising will be important for the revision of guidance as well.
The first of my amendments, Amendment 112BA, states:
“Guidance … shall in particular deal with equalities issues”.
I think that that speaks for itself.
Amendment 112BB would insert that there must be consultation with,
“the specified authorities subject to the guidance”,
as well as with, as stated in the Bill, the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The clause then goes on to include the very wide catch-all—although it could be a very narrow “catch-few”—of,
“any person whom the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
It must be right for those who are going to be the subject of this guidance to be consulted.
I then take that a stage further with Amendment 112BC by providing that, before responding to that consultation, a specified authority should,
“consult its local or other relevant communities”.
It comes pretty naturally to most local authorities to consult their own communities when they are proposing to do something, although not always. However, I do not just mean residents as a kind of amorphous bunch. There are communities within communities. We are all members of more than one community, and the specified authorities can identify their communities as they see fit under what I am proposing.
The next of my amendments, Amendment 112CB, relates to Clause 24(7), under which the Secretary of State can make minor revisions to the guidance without going to Welsh and Scottish Governments if the,
“Secretary of State considers that the proposed revisions … are insubstantial”.
I would like to see that as an objective test so that it could be challenged—in other words, I would like to change this subsection so that the consultation provisions have effect unless they are insubstantial.
Amendment 112DA is an amendment to Clause 25. It must be the case that authorities have the opportunity to make representations before directions under this clause are given—this being the clause which takes us to the sanction for failing to comply with the duty. I would hope that that would be automatic. It is perhaps a matter of general law but, again, I think that it should be spelled out.
Amendment 112F also relates to the directions clause provisions. It would insert that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament on any direction given. Giving a direction in this way is a pretty substantial action, and I think that it should be reported to Parliament with the reasons for it.
I hope that I have covered everything that is in my name. My noble friend tells me that I have, so I beg to move Amendment 112BA. As I do so, I realise that each of the amendments is on what might be thought to be a small point but, in my view, they amount to trying to find a way of addressing concerns which are clearly very real in the minds of those who have been looking at this legislation.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments 112C and 112E, which are in my name. I start by apologising to the Minister. I am sorry that I could not manage to get to his meeting last week. I know that my noble friend Lady Hamwee expressed my concerns and I am grateful for the Minister’s letter on some issues which has been referred to considerably since we started today’s session.
These two amendments are important and my noble friend Lady Hamwee ended on that point. After going to war, the right to curtail freedoms is one of the most important decisions that a Government have to take. The one thing that is missing at the moment on some of the key directions, particularly on guidance and on where the Secretary of State gives a direction to an authority, is any sense of accountability and transparency.
I shall take the amendments in order. Amendment 112C says that if guidance is issued,
“the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament … the proposed guidance or proposed revisions”,
and it should be done by an affirmative instrument of both Houses. As I have said on earlier amendments, guidance also needs to be combined into one document with any other parallel guidance that will ease matters for those having to use it. The duty in the Education Act 1986 is absolutely clear and I believe that the guidance has been brought forward in haste. The Commons has not managed to see the draft guidance and the consultation does not end until tomorrow. I am grateful to my noble friend for some of the changes that he has made but I see nothing in his letter that relates to this issue of transparency and accountability to Parliament. It is important on such a sensitive issue that goes to the heart of the freedom of people in this country that Parliament at the very least should have the right to examine any changes that the Secretary of State wishes to lay.
Amendment 112E asks for the same scrutiny for the Secretary of State should she or he direct under the terms of this provision. It is important that we as Parliament understand how and why an appropriate authority has failed, partly so that we can amass the evidence that my noble friend talked about earlier, but also because we as Parliament need to know exactly what is happening. Amendment 112E also provides that:
“A copy of any such report must be sent to—
(a) the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights;
(b) the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; and
(c) any other person whom the Secretary of State deems appropriate”.
It is also important that the relevant sector sees what is going on so as to understand the issues, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The three bodies mentioned also deal with some of the wider issues around terrorism, freedom and liberties. It would be inappropriate for them not to comment before such matters were discussed in Parliament.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, Amendment 112E is in my name and I join the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her reasoning for it. Clause 24(8) states:
“The Secretary of State must publish the current version of any guidance issued under this section”.
However, Clause 25(1) states that,
“the Secretary of State may give directions to the authority for the purpose of enforcing the performance of that duty”.
The directions will be known to the Home Secretary and to the body in receipt of them but there is no requirement for the wider public to be made aware of the nature of these serious directions that could curtail freedom of speech. One could predict that they might be the subject of a freedom of information request but these directions should be known wider than that. I agree with the outline of Amendment 112E that Parliament, in the absence of a written constitution, is the guardian of such liberties. Producing a report to Parliament enables the matter to be scrutinised. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I believe that that committee could scrutinise the directions under this provision. This is a particular executive power that we exercise and it is appropriate that the provisions in Amendment 112E should be made.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I have added my name to Amendments 112C and 112E. It is important that the fine print of the duty is spelt out in the guidance. It is extremely important that this should be put in the public domain and scrutinised by Parliament. I very much endorse the provisions of Amendment 112C. Similarly, in relation to the Secretary of State giving directions, it is important that this is transparent and in the public domain. Including such a report would actually be after the event. The scrutiny is not before the action but after it. Nevertheless, it brings the matter to public notice. It is vital that this is scrutinised by Parliament. I very much like the notion that a copy must be sent to the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That is appropriate given the interest that that committee has shown in these provisions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, the concerns that were expressed in earlier debates about the draft statutory guidance underline just how important it is that that guidance is the subject of proper parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has just been referred to, has recommended that the Bill should be amended to require the guidance to be approved by affirmative resolution of each House. I want to ask one specific question about the guidance. I do not know whether this is my bid for a letter but it would be good to have the answer in Hansard. The guidance sets out what is expected from student unions and societies in relation to the Prevent strategy, including making clear the need,
“to challenge … extremist ideas which are used to legitimise terrorism and are shared by terrorist groups”.
Both Universities UK and the National Union of Students have questioned how this is compatible with student union status as independent legal entities. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws made reference to this in passing but did not actually pose the question of how it is compatible. The NUS also points out that student unions are already regulated by the Charity Commission so it could be awkward if they had to be accountable to two different bodies. I would welcome an explanation of this either now or, if that is not possible, in a letter. How do student unions fit into this and how will it be possible for universities to apply the guidance to bodies which are independent of them?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, clearly we have returned from our break reinvigorated, although I suspect that when noble Lords saw the words, “House adjourned for pleasure” while they ate with indecent haste, they might have wondered about the term “pleasure”. We will all claim some indigestion later.
I shall speak to all the amendments, including our Amendment 112CA. Yet again these amendments highlight the concerns around making sure that something is effective in practice, that the necessary checks and balances are in place, and that the reporting procedures will ensure that it is working as it should. Our amendment reflects a point made by my noble friend Lady Lister, which is that the guidance should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is important because the guidance we are discussing and which we will rely on is now out for consultation, and that consultation has not been completed. I think that the noble Lord has been both wise and helpful in pre-empting the consultation responses in his letter sent last night to noble Lords. It goes into some of the changes that can be made. However, the importance of the consultation is such that it is going to inform the guidance, which in turn will indicate to specified authorities what is going to be expected of them. I appreciate that noble Lords have pointed out in earlier debates that it is not prescriptive, but the role of the guidance will be crucial to how the specified authorities can ensure that they do not find themselves subject to a direction from the Secretary of State, which is quite a significant move. We should not underestimate the importance of the consultation and the guidance.
We are not going to see the guidance until the Committee stage has finished, so there will be no real opportunity to discuss it as we would like. Moreover, I do not know whether the Government are going to issue a formal response to the consultation. Indeed, the consultation itself had not been issued when the other place considered this Bill, and that is why we think it would be a sensible and practical move for the guidance to be considered by both Houses under the affirmative procedure. This has the support of Universities UK and million+.
Part 5 sets out a new duty which has a very wide range. It relates to schools, universities, prisons, the police and some public companies exercising a public duty. We had a long debate earlier about higher education. I also appreciate that recently there have been cases in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham which highlighted the need to bring schools within the Prevent agenda to see how it could be of positive assistance to them, although the Minister is probably very aware of the fact that we need further information on how that will work in practice.
However, I am struggling to understand why nurseries have been included in the list and how they are going to operate this. The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, raised the same point earlier. We all know that young children say things that they do not understand and they do not mean. A young Muslim friend of mine was absolutely horrified when her nephew came home from school playing with an imaginary gun and saying that he was going to fight in Iraq. He does not know where Iraq is and he had no idea of what he was saying. He did not hear it at home, but somehow he picked it up. What would be the duty of the nursery when he said that? My nephew at the age of four caused great embarrassment to my younger sister when on a train back home one day he asked the German man sitting opposite him: “Are you a Nazi then?”. Where did he pick that up? One thinks of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. Children say things that are inappropriate; that they do not mean or understand. I wonder how that fits in with the Government’s Prevent agenda and the duty that they are going to place on nurseries.
I declare an interest because my mum runs a preschool. It was a Church of England voluntary preschool; it is now state-funded under the Labour Government’s plans to provide nursery provision for three and four year-olds. It is Ofsted inspected. If I have to tell her that she now has a further duty to have due regard to ensure that her three and four year-olds are not drawn into terrorism, I wonder how she will respond and what the responsibility will be to ensure that she fulfils that duty. I joke slightly, but this is a serious matter. I do not understand how the Government expect people to fulfil that duty.
I have read the guidance and would be interested to know how many nurseries, preschool providers and childminders had access and would have known to respond and understood what there is. If the noble Lord is able to say at the end of the consultation how many responses there were from those providers, it would be interesting to get a sense of the legitimacy of the consultation.
If the concern is about parents, it is important for the welfare of a child that nursery staff have a very trusting relationship with parents. We should not take any action which undermines that. The Minister nods and I am sure that he understands the point I make. Why are nurseries included and how will the measure work in practice?
There is nothing in the guidance, it seems to me, that looks at the issue of online radicalisation. If you look at the risks of being drawn into terrorism—a point which has been made today by a number of noble Lords—the only route is not through university, as seems to be indicated in some of the documentation that we have seen. What action is proposed to counter radicalism, recruitment and grooming online? There is a significant case for far more to be done to tackle online grooming, extremism online and social media—all these different routes. This does not seem to be catered for in the guidance that is out for consultation.
Another point that has been raised, but is worth repeating when talking about the duty and parliamentary scrutiny, is the need for the Government to give further clarity on what is meant by extremism. Which definition should be used? I turn to the detail of the amendment. Clause 24 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance to specified authorities about the exercise of their duty. The consultation ends on Friday. The Bill was semi-fast-tracked. We have not had the opportunity to benefit from the consultation results. I found the consultation documents quite narrow—as did other noble Lords—in how they expected people to respond. Without those responses it is absolutely essential that Parliament, not the Secretary of State, has the final say in how that guidance should reflect the responses to the consultation. Otherwise, all we are doing in the clause is to provide an enabling power for the Secretary of State. Given the impact that this will have, we think that such scrutiny from your Lordships’ House and from the other place is important.
Over the past week or so we have had discussions with various Muslim representative groups, the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND regarding their concerns about the Bill and particularly the Prevent duty. It is worth putting on record that in many cases we see that Muslim community groups and youth organisations have been among the most vocal in condemning extremism and extreme violence and in pointing out that the action of barbaric groups such as ISIL are not representative of the Islamic faith whatsoever. I would not want anything that goes out from the Bill or from the debates that we have today to undermine our acknowledgement of that.
We have to ensure that we continue to speak to those communities about their experiences and work together to try to counteract the issues that divide us. There is far more that unites us than divides us and the Prevent strategy is not going to work unless we have that interfaith and all-faith and no-faith understanding. It is because the Opposition support Prevent that we want it to be effective and proportionate. The guidance that the Secretary of State is going to issue will be crucial in this. That is why we believe it is so important that it has parliamentary approval.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving her amendment and to other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It may be helpful if I put on record a couple of points relating to the consultation on the guidance first.
The Bill was considered at Second Reading in the House of Commons on 2 December. It had three days in Committee—9, 15 and 16 December 2014—and then two days on Report, on 6 and 7 January. Third Reading also took place on 7 January. The draft guidance that we are considering today was deliberately published in mid-December so that it would be caught in part of that consultation process. It was certainly there, although as reflected in the Official Report in the other place, it was not given the same level of scrutiny that it has had in your Lordships’ House. That may have been to do with its availability, because people had not studied it in great detail or perhaps because other organisations and higher education institutions had not quite flagged up their concerns at that point, but that has been addressed now. Moreover, of course, subject to your Lordships granting the Bill a Third Reading, the amendments that there will be in this area will be considered in another place. I agree about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, and this Bill has benefited immensely from it.
Before I go into the prepared remarks on the amendments themselves, I will just try to deal with a couple of issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked whether the duty applies to the National Union of Students. The duty does not apply to student unions and societies, but institutions should have regard to the duty in the context of their relationships and interactions with student unions and societies. This requires clear policies about what activities are allowed to take place on campus. Policies should set out what institutions expect of student societies in relation to Prevent. We expect student unions and societies to work closely with their institution and to co-operate with the institution’s policies.
My noble friend Lady Berridge asked why the directions are private. The power to give directions will be subject to multiple layers of protection, including judicial oversight and that of the Prevent oversight board, on which my noble friend Lord Carlile provides independent representation. A direction would only be issued as a last resort and only after all other means of ensuring compliance with the duty had been exhausted. A decision to make a direction can be judicially reviewed, and if it is contested, it would come before a court to be enforced. All of these judicial processes are of course matters of public record. I also emphasise that the direction would only be likely to be made in order to ensure that the right policies and procedures are put in place according to the guidance in the institution. This is not designed to impose decisions in respect of individual cases and decisions that have been taken in those institutions. We do not feel the need for a level of transparency that requires all directions—of which there will be very few—to be made public in the way suggested.
As for definitions of extremism, we touched on this earlier, but, for the record, the definition that we are working with is,
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
Calls for the death of British Armed Forces are also included.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the situation in nurseries and asked why they were covered. In the comprehensive list of the institutions covered, nurseries are included because they are public areas and the Government can inspect what happens in them as they are covered by certain government standards. There have, for example, been cases where individuals decided to travel to Syria and had actually taken children with them. That might be something. For example, a child might have mentioned that that was going to happen. That could be relevant to safeguarding the child. In all these things, I am conscious of something that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was always fond of saying, which is that a failure of common sense is a failure of the rules, and we are expecting, in these circumstances, that common sense will prevail.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think that the noble Lord is making a good fist of it but it is not very convincing. He thinks there might have been a case or there could be a case where a child might let slip in a packed nursery that someone is going to Syria and that he or she could be taken with them. What we have here is a duty being placed on the staff of that nursery. Unless it is clear-cut what that duty is going to be and how it is to be undertaken by the staff, I struggle to find a good explanation for why it is in there. I hope that the paper arriving for him is enlightenment, and I will give him an opportunity to read it, but so far his explanation is not really very convincing. It is quite an onerous duty to be placed on staff, involving training, costs and so on. If he is able to offer any further enlightenment on why and how, I would be very grateful.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, while the Minister takes the opportunity to read fully the piece of paper that has just arrived, it seems to me that the argument that he is putting forward is about essentially providing a duty to support the Pursue function rather than the Prevent function. Of course, in a nursery and various other places information may emerge that could actually be important in terms of pursuing, preventing or interdicting a particular terrorist act. That is slightly distinct from what we are talking about here, which is preventing people from going down the road of becoming terrorists. The examples that the Minister has given have been more about the Pursue end of the counterterrorism strategy rather than the Prevent end.
Lord Bates
In that case, it is probably the fault of the rather poor example that I gave rather than the actual guidance as it is. Essentially, it says to a responsible person within any nursery, “There is a general Prevent review where we are trying to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. The responsible person would want to know, “What does that mean for us? If we had a circumstance where that came to light, what would we actually do? Who would we report it to? If we had any concerns, what would we do?”. The fact that that procedure is written down and that somebody has actually thought about what that procedure would be complies with the guidelines. It is the duty to have due regard to the guidance.
The amendments in this group relate to a number of matters concerning the duty itself and the guidance to be issued under it. I begin with the amendments that deal with parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance, which were tabled by the Opposition and my noble friends. Amendments 112C and 112CA would require that the guidance may be issued only subject to parliamentary approval. The Bill already provides that the Secretary of State may consult before issuing guidance. That consultation has been running for six weeks and closes on 30 January.
This public consultation has provided ample opportunity for interested parties to scrutinise and influence the guidance. The final guidance will have benefited from extensive consultation and expert input, including contributions to debates in your Lordships’ House.
The approach that we have taken to this guidance is not uncommon. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not recommend any additional parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance in its report on the Bill. I take this opportunity to thank the committee, and particularly my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, for producing its report so efficiently in order to support your Lordships’ scrutiny of this legislation. In view of this, and although we of course value the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, the Government do not believe that it is crucial for the guidance to be subject to parliamentary approval.
Amendment 112BA would require the guidance to “deal with equalities issues”. I assure my noble friend Lady Hamwee that this is an issue that the Government take extremely seriously. In drawing up the final version of guidance, we will certainly consider any equalities issues that have arisen since we published the draft for consultation. Of course, many of the specified authorities will already be subject to the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. I hope she is reassured that her amendment is not necessary in the light of these considerations.
Amendments 112BB, 112BC and 112CB would further increase requirements to consult on the guidance. I assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State will of course consult specified authorities before issuing guidance that affects them. As I have said, we are just coming to the end of a full public consultation on the guidance. However, it will not always be necessary to consult all specified authorities in all cases. For example, there might be a case where part of the guidance relating to just one sector is to be revised and it would not be appropriate to consult all specified authorities on such revisions.
Amendment 112BC would require specified authorities to consult their local or relevant communities. This might be good practice in some cases. However, the duty is on the specified authority, not their relevant communities, and this consultation would impose additional costs. There might also be cases where it would not be appropriate to consult communities. For example, in making amendments to the guidance to the prisons sector, it might not be appropriate to consult the prison population. As such, we consider this to be a matter best left to specified authorities to consider and to decide.
Amendment 112CB would remove reference to the Secretary of State as being the person who should decide whether a revision to the guidance is insubstantial. The amendment accepts that insubstantial changes should not require consultation and that someone must make the decision on whether a change is insubstantial. It remains the Government’s view that the decision should fall to the Secretary of State, given her responsibilities to Parliament. This is consistent with standard practice on this type of issue.
I shall now respond to the amendments that relate to the Secretary of State’s power to issue directions. Amendment 112DA would make the power to issue a direction subject to the specified authorities having the opportunity to make representations. Amendments 112E and 112F would require the Secretary of State to issue a report to Parliament after making such a direction.
I reassure your Lordships that a number of safeguards are already built into this direction-making power that make these amendments unnecessary. The legislation makes clear that the power can be used only where a specified authority has failed to discharge its duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism, in the assessment of the Secretary of State. This narrows the circumstances in which the power could be used. The decision to issue a direction to bring about compliance could then be judicially reviewed, following the normal principles of such reviews.
Further, the direction is enforceable only by application to a court for a mandatory order. The court would not exercise its discretion to issue an order if it felt that the direction had been issued unreasonably. Of course, court decisions stand to be appealed against.
The Government would consider using the power only where other efforts to address the failure had been exhausted. The decision to recommend that the Secretary of State issue a direction would have been considered in detail by the Prevent oversight board, on which, as I have already mentioned, my noble friend Lord Carlile sits as an independent member. There would also have been detailed discussions with the specified authority beforehand, including the opportunity to make representations at that stage.
This debate has been an insightful introduction to the consideration of the Prevent duty. I hope that my remarks, in which I have been able to expand on previous statements, may reassure noble Lords. In that regard, I invite them not to press their amendments at this stage.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Before the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, makes that decision, I revert to the question of what it is that is being required and one of the reasons why that might imply that it is better to have more consultation about it. One of the reasons why some of the previous Prevent programmes failed, and fell into disrepute with the communities concerned, was that they were not seen as about preventing people from going down the road to become dangerous, violent extremists. Rather, they were seen as being programmes that put a series of spies in the camp and were about reporting individuals to the authorities for action to be taken against them. Speaking personally, I am all for mechanisms that identify people who are a danger to the rest of us and make sure that appropriate steps are taken, but this was perceived as being the authorities intervening and getting the data. We are going to come to this subject in a minute, but when I questioned the Channel panels as to why the intelligence services were not specifically listed as an agency involved in that, the argument given at that stage was that it was because it would make it look as if the Channel panel process was part of a process of ratting on individuals to the authorities.
It is important to get this guidance in a form where the communities understand that it is not about pointing the finger at individuals in a way that might lead them into trouble with the authorities, but is a way of supporting individuals and preventing them going down that road. That is why this distinction of whether this is about “prevent” or “pursue” is so important, as is getting public and community buy-in to the way in which this is enforced.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend might not be too pleased to know that I was scribbling quite a lot during his reply, but he will be pleased to know that I can hardly read what I have written. However, I am sure that this is something that we are going to want to come back to next week. It strikes me that a lot of this debate has been on the premise of what the situation is here and now. Even with the reassurance that my noble friend Lord Carlile is so heavily involved in this, I do not suppose that he is going to want that to be for ever and a day. There might come a time when he finds other things that he will apply his energy to.
Leaving that aside, I made the point earlier that what we are talking about here is not only the guidance that we will see fairly shortly. The noble Baroness said that we will not see it until after Committee; in fact we will not see it until after the end of the Bill or even, as far as I understand it, until after enactment. There is also the question of revisions to the guidance, which is surely going to have to be changed; it is very unlikely to be exactly what is required in its first incarnation. It is the sort of guidance that needs time for individual organisations to have their own internal discussions and for umbrella organisations to trickle down the consultation—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to interrupt her. The Minister, during the course of his speech a few moments ago, mentioned the Prevent oversight board on a number of occasions and kindly referred to my involvement. Does he agree with me that, if the Prevent oversight board is to have a realistic oversight role, it should meet reasonably often; it should be able to choose what it reviews from time to time; and it should be heavily involved in the quality control of Prevent schemes around the country rather than, as at present, meeting very rarely and not really carrying out a great deal of detailed scrutiny?
Baroness Hamwee
I am not sure whether that was a question for me; I assume it was, although it seems to be beyond the amendments that we are dealing with here. In making that point, though, I think my noble friend is pointing to the breadth, depth and complexity of this issue and to the need to keep everything under review and to be open to making changes as it becomes apparent that they are needed. This sort of guidance needs time for those who are affected to trickle down consultations, sweep up the responses and reflect back—perhaps this goes to my noble friend’s point as well—experience on the ground.
Like the noble Baroness, I mentioned nurseries in the first group and said rather more about the bureaucracy involved, which would be inappropriate for small organisations such as the nurseries, pre-schools and primary schools that we are talking about. It is about the substance as well as the bureaucracy. I was reminded by her anecdote of the six year-old son of a friend who was being visited by a German family. The child came downstairs going—I do not know how Hansard can reproduce this—“Rat-a-tat-tat”. He was asked, “What are you doing?”, and replied, “I’m killing dirty Germans”. That is exactly the same sort of experience, but how should one react to that?
On the individual amendments rather than the generality, I am glad to hear that the Government will consider equalities issues. What the Minister was given to read was that the Government will, “consider any equalities issues that have arisen since we published the draft for consultation”. There will be issues, I think. I will not get into a discussion at this time of night on the philosophy of consulting the population of prisons, although I think there is quite an interesting debate to be had about that.
Under my Amendment 112CB, the Secretary of State would have to take the decision about whether or not proposed revisions to the guidance were substantial, but that should be by an objective test, not a subjective one.
In summary, I come back to two words: transparency and safeguards. I will of course consider the detail of what my noble friend said, but it is quite clear to me that, with perception being so important as well as reality, we have to reduce the opportunity for incorrect perceptions as well as everything else.
Lord Bates
“Monitoring of performance: further and higher education bodies
(1) In this section—
“monitoring authority” has the meaning given by subsection (4);
“relevant further education body” means the governing body or proprietor of an institution in England or Wales that—
(a) is subject to the duty imposed by section 21(1), and(b) is subject to that duty because it is an institution at which more than 250 students are undertaking courses in preparation for examinations related to qualifications regulated by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation or the Welsh Government;“relevant higher education body” means the governing body or proprietor of an institution in England or Wales that is subject to the duty imposed by section 21(1) because it is—
(a) a qualifying institution within the meaning given by section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004, or(b) an institution at which more than 250 students are undertaking courses of a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses).(2) A relevant further education body or relevant higher education body must give to the monitoring authority any information that the monitoring authority may require for the purposes of monitoring that body’s performance in discharging the duty imposed by section 21(1).
(3) The information that the monitoring authority may require under subsection (2) includes information which specifies the steps that will be taken by the body in question to ensure that it discharges the duty imposed by section 21(1).
(4) The “monitoring authority” for a relevant further education body or a relevant higher education body is—
(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) a person to whom the Secretary of State delegates the function under subsection (2) in relation to that body.The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before delegating the function under subsection (2) in relation to institutions in Wales.(5) A delegation under subsection (4)(b) must be made by giving notice in writing to the person to whom the delegation is made if—
(a) that person is Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills or Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales, and the function is delegated in relation to relevant further education bodies;(b) that person is the Higher Education Funding Council for England or the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and the function is delegated in relation to relevant higher education bodies.(6) Otherwise, a delegation under subsection (4)(b) must be made by regulations.
(7) The Secretary of State must publish any notice given under subsection (5).
(8) Regulations under subsection (6) are to be made by statutory instrument; and any such instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(9) In this section—
(a) “institution in England” means an institution whose activities are carried on, or principally carried on, in England, and includes the Open University;(b) “institution in Wales” means an institution whose activities are carried on, or principally carried on, in Wales.
Lord Bates
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will take Amendments 113 and 114 together. Throughout our debates the Government have made it clear that we will rely on existing monitoring regimes for the relevant sectors. That remains the case. Although publicly funded further education is monitored by Ofsted, no such regime currently exists for all higher or private further education. We have asked the higher and further education sectors about monitoring of the Prevent duty as part of the consultation on the draft guidance, which has been undertaken in parallel to the passage of the Bill. I am pleased to say that in the discussions we have had, the sector has been broadly supportive of a limited regime, such as the one we are proposing.
Universities are not inspected. Rather, they are currently subject to limited monitoring and assurance regimes that apply to quality of provision and to accounting for the use of public money. Those regimes are based on risk and are designed to be proportionate and not burdensome. The overwhelming view expressed in the discussions so far has been to agree that a monitoring regime for this duty should be one that is both recognisable to the part of the education sector to which it is being applied and proportionate to the duty being placed upon the sector. We have achieved that with these amendments.
The amendments will allow the monitoring authority to require the provision of information by relevant education institutions to assess compliance with the duty. Information that institutions might be asked to provide to monitoring bodies could include details of risk assessments relating to how students might be at risk of being drawn into terrorism, policies and procedures on speakers and events, and on IT. We fully expect an institution to co-operate with the monitoring authority. However, there may be rare cases where the institution does not co-operate and, in such cases, where the monitoring authority has exhausted all other options to address the failure, the amendments allow the relevant Secretary of State to make a direction.
This is a serious step that we would not like to see taken unless it is strictly necessary. For that reason, the amendments allow for a monitoring authority—for example, when not satisfied that an institution has adequate provisions in place to comply with the duty—to request information about steps that the institution plans to take to ensure that it discharges its Prevent duty correctly. We expect this to be sufficient to avoid the use of direction in all but the most serious cases.
If an institution has failed to provide adequate information about compliance with the duty in spite of repeated approaches by the monitoring authority, we would expect any direction necessary to be given by the appropriate Secretary of State. That means the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in England, not the Home Secretary and, for institutions in Wales, we expect it to be the Secretary of State for Wales, in consultation with the relevant Welsh Ministers. The amendments allow for the relevant Secretary of State to undertake monitoring or to delegate the function. We do not envisage that the Secretary of State will actually undertake this function, but it is important to explain the technical reason for including this possibility.
We may wish to consider whether the Skills Funding Agency is an appropriate monitoring body for part of the sector and if, in consultation with the further education sector, we determine that it is, then we would technically need the Secretary of State to deliver that function. That is because of the proposed legislative changes to abolish the office of chief executive of skills funding in the Deregulation Bill, which will mean that the Skills Funding Agency will become part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and will operate through the powers and duties of the Secretary of State.
Going forward, the department with responsibility will work with the monitoring bodies and, once they have been confirmed, we will work with the sector to draw up a monitoring framework that sets out more explicitly how we expect to monitor compliance with the duty. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I think I understand the purpose of the clauses from the explanation that the Minister has very helpfully given. He will not be surprised to hear that I have spotted that there is no mention of Scotland in either of these two clauses. As I mentioned earlier, if one looks at Clause 41 one sees that Part 5 of the Bill applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. Therefore, as far as I can judge, all the other clauses in this part are carefully designed to apply to that jurisdiction as well as to England and Wales. It is very strange that no mention is made of Scotland in either of these clauses or in the noble Lord’s explanation of their purpose. I may be wrong, but the equivalent bodies exist in Scotland to enable a similar system to be carried out. Is it simply that under the normal conventions, the Government have been unable to secure the agreement of the Scottish Government to these clauses, and will come back at a later date—perhaps before Third Reading or possibly in the other House, if this has to go there —or is this a deliberate intention not to apply the monitoring system to Scotland? If that is the intention, I would be very interested to know why that decision was taken.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I have a few questions concerning the role of HEFCE as the appropriate monitoring body. I was slightly surprised when I heard that it would play that role. What expertise does it have as primarily a funding body—albeit, I accept, with some wider governance oversight? Is there not a danger that the chilling effect will be that much greater if compliance is policed by the funding body?
Will the Minister also explain how HEFCE will regulate those HE institutions with which it has no formal funding relationship? Finally, I understand that reference to “the Secretary of State” means the Home Secretary. However, Universities UK argues that it is inappropriate for HEFCE to be given directions by the Home Secretary; there is the whole question about the independence of universities anyway, but in so far as there is such a relationship, normally HEFCE has a relationship with BIS, not with the Home Office. I would therefore appreciate the noble Lord’s reflections on those questions, because I know that there are concerns in the HE sector about the role of HEFCE— I do not know what its own view is on that.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their questions. I will first deal with the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on HEFCE. As the noble Baroness will be aware, that is one of the questions we specifically ask on page 21 of the consultation:
“Do you agree that the Higher Education Funding Council for England is the appropriate body to monitor compliance with this duty? … Are there other higher education regulatory bodies that should be involved in monitoring compliance?”.
In many ways the short answer is that we are consulting on that. That was one of the reasons why when I introduced the government amendments I said that in certain cases we nominate the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills as the designated person for these purposes. I hope that addresses that point.
I turn to the point mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Scotland, which he raised in the previous context as well; as I have stated, it is our hope and intention to add Scottish bodies to Schedule 3 in due course. At such point we could look at making consequential amendments to this clause to make it applicable to Scotland. The other one relates to Northern Ireland. On the application of free speech in Scotland, which was referred to previously—I take the opportunity because the notes happened to arrive together—this part of the Bill applies to England, Wales and Scotland, but as yet no Scottish bodies are listed in Schedule 3; I made that same point earlier. However, we will look carefully at the wording used, to ensure that it applies equally across all territories, so the basic answer is what I already said in this regard.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Is it the intention to make further amendments by statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation? Obviously, if we had to come back with an amending statute, that would take time and be a rather laborious business. I wonder whether a better precaution would have been to put some kind of structure into the Bill at this stage, as is done elsewhere in this part, on the assumption that a number of Scottish authorities or institutions will be added to Schedule 3. But if it is possible to do it all by order the problem disappears, because that can be done quite simply.
Lord Bates
Perhaps I could reflect on that a little more and then return to it. Of course, there is still parliamentary time for further consideration of the Bill, and for Scottish bodies to be named and listed. We would be happy if that happened in time for them to be included on the face of the Bill. I shall consider further the noble and learned Lord’s point.
Lord Bates
“Power to give directions: section (Monitoring of performance: further and higher education bodies)
(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a relevant further education body or a relevant higher education body has failed to comply with a requirement under section (Monitoring of performance: further and higher education bodies)(2), the Secretary of State may give directions to the body for the purpose of enforcing compliance.
(2) A direction under this section may be enforced, on an application made on behalf of the Secretary of State, by a mandatory order.
(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before giving directions under subsection (1) in relation to institutions in Wales.
(4) In this section “relevant further education body”, “relevant higher education body” and “institution in Wales” have the same meaning as in section (Monitoring of performance: further and higher education bodies).”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
“Impact Report
(1) Before the provisions of this Chapter may come into force in respect of the specified authorities set out in Schedule 3 under the heading Education, child care etc., the Secretary of State must prepare a Report on the potential direct and indirect impact howsoever of this Part on the specified authorities affected, on those attending the same in whatever capacity, and on society generally.
(2) In particular the Report shall assess the impact referred to in subsection (1) in relation to the cultural and financial consequences.
(3) The Report shall also specify comparable legislative arrangements in other Member States of the European Union, the United States of America and the countries of the Commonwealth.”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, Amendments 115A, 118A and 123 stand in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who is a professor at the University of Leicester, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who is pro-chancellor of Birmingham University, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who is a professor at the University of Hull, and has had to go back at this hour in order to meet his students in the morning, and myself—and I was for 11 years chancellor of the University of Essex. It is no surprise, therefore, that this group of amendments addresses what we take to be the severe inadequacies of Part 5 of the Bill in so far as it relates to schools and universities. We have no view to express on, for example, the issue of prisons in relation to Part 5. Part 5 is made up of a strange bag of entities, and we believe that universities and schools deserve particular and different treatment.
We well understand that the issues the Government are grappling with in the Bill are of extraordinary difficulty—they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The only thing one can say, in the light of the debate today, is that as far as I can recollect not one single person has spoken in favour of Part 5, and nearly everybody has addressed their remarks to its treatment of universities and schools—much more of universities than schools, it has to be said.
I pay tribute to some of those who have tried to assist us in our work—Universities UK, the National Union of Students and the Association of School and College Leaders. A number of us also had a useful communication from the Muslim Council of Britain, which is particularly concerned about the unintended effects on Muslim communities.
One thing that has been universally remarked on, although in different language—it is manifestly true of the impact of Part 5 on universities—is the extraordinary complexity, bureaucracy and cost that it will impose on educational establishments. I shall come to those in a little more detail when I go through the amendments.
The other thing that has come through again and again is the absence of adequate preparation for the Bill, and for this part in particular—an absence of remotely sufficient fact or evidence to justify the huge change in regime that will afflict universities if the Bill goes through unamended. It is also striking that the consultation, too, seems to have been highly inadequate. I think that the Minister referred to 160 responses. I do not know how many universities there are, but there are a lot more than that, let alone higher education authorities and thousands of schools. Indeed, I hope that the whole population is interested in the fate of our universities consequent upon the well intentioned but, we believe, severely misguided measures in this part of the Bill.
If it were not for the factor of realpolitiks, I and, I think, other supporters of these three amendments would wish to see universities taken right out of Part 5. However, we are not arguing for that because, as I say, we are trying to be as pragmatic and concessionary—if I can use that word—to the Government as possible, understanding that they would have to bear the brunt of public unrest if, in a week’s time, some terrorist event were to take place in our blessed islands.
Amendment 115A is headed, “Impact Report”, and would require the Secretary of State to,
“prepare a Report on the potential direct and indirect impact … of this Part”,
of the Bill on universities and schools, and the impact,
“on those attending the same in whatever capacity, and on society generally”.
The amendment follows that up by saying that the report must assess the impact in relation particularly to the “cultural and financial consequences”. I stress that the cultural consequences are even more important than the financial ones. I noted that in the course of this very revealing debate a great number of noble Lords focused particularly on culture, including the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hennessy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady O’Neill of Bengarve.
The third aspect of the impact report that we want to see the Government prepare before universities and schools can be brought under this part of the Bill is a comparable study of legislative arrangements in other member states of the European Union, the United States of America and countries of the Commonwealth. My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to the regimes in Germany and Denmark, which deal with the issues we are confronting. I think she said that, as far as she was aware, neither of the sets of requirements was statutorily compulsory.
Amendment 118A deals with Chapter 2 of Part 5 and Amendment 115A deals with Chapter 1. Chapter 2 of Part 5 concerns the local authority panels and the whole edifice of district council and county council panels, with their police reports and panoply of partners, and a whole range of stuff about that. I totted it up and I think that Part 5 covers 12 pages of the Bill and a further 39 pages in the draft guidance, so we are dealing with a huge corpus of new statute law because the guidance will be statutory.
Amendment 118A states that,
“the Secretary of State must prepare a Review of the workings of the existing voluntary ‘Prevent’ strategy”.
Again, it is striking that there are no adequate facts or evidence on which to base any reliable new regime. I call in aid a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Scriven in which the good noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, inter alia:
“The Government does not hold information about the Prevent policies and processes of all the authorities on which the duty would fall”.
That is not a basis on which to bring forward legislative impositions—for that is what they are. It would be folly for us to go ahead without requiring the Secretary of State to produce a sufficient review so that Parliament, when it comes to consider Chapter 2, will have at its back enough information, fact and evidence to enable it to reach the right decision. Amendment 118A also talks about the review dealing with the effectiveness and shortcomings of the present Prevent strategy.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendments in this group and I strongly support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
One of the most arresting testimonies that I have heard recently concerns the way in which the alienation and radicalisation of young British Muslims has been related to a rising tide of Islamophobia. It would be wrong to suggest that the existing Prevent strategy is grounded in Islamophobia, but there are clear indications that it has added to the sense of alienation. In other words, the strategy has already become counterproductive. By placing the strategy on a statutory basis and by mandating acts of surveillance on the part of various public institutions, the damage that has already been done is in danger of being exacerbated. The danger can only be averted if the Prevent agenda is pursued with sensitivity and with a light touch and if it is subject to careful and ongoing parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 115A and the other amendments with which it has been grouped seek to ensure that there will be some scrutiny at the outset. I observe that these amendments are conformable with Amendments 112C and 112E, which concern the need to review the guidance on subsequent occasions.
The consultation document titled Prevent Duty Guidance gives an indication of what might transpire if the strategy were unleashed in an unbridled manner. It has the potential to give rise to an era comparable to the post-war era of anti-communist persecution in the United States, known as the era of McCarthyism. The document describes a duty to prevent people from becoming terrorists and a duty to challenge terrorist ideas. These duties will be imposed on specified institutions: hospitals, schools, prisons, young offender institutions, universities and local authorities. The intention is that the Secretary of State should have the freedom to specify the duties that will be incumbent upon each category of institution, without submitting them to parliamentary scrutiny. Little regard has been given to the potential within the institutions for fulfilling such duties. Nevertheless, it is proposed to establish an inspection regime that will determine whether the duties are being fulfilled. If they are not fulfilled, then it is proposed that penalties may be imposed.
Specially appointed agents may be assigned to the institutions to ensure their compliance with the statutory obligations. We are told that the specified institutions must demonstrate evidence of productive co-operation with local Prevent organisations, the police and local authorities. Those in positions of leadership must ensure that the staff of their institutions implement their Prevent duties effectively. To this end, they will need to ensure that the staff are appropriately trained.
People suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities must be reported to the police. If I understand correctly, terrorist-related activities are deemed to include non-violent extremism, which would make the category very wide and ill-defined. All the activities in fulfilment of the duties must be recorded, and reports of compliance must be made available on request.
These provisions are quite sufficient for the creation of a totalitarian police state. If that sounds far-fetched, that it is only because, in view of the nature of British society and its ingrained resistance to tyranny, such an outcome seems unimaginable. However, I suggest that our complacency in itself is not a sufficient protection against tyranny. Instead, we need to ensure that our legislation does not sanction such dangerously oppressive powers. To fulfil the various injunctions of the statutory Prevent strategy, the institutions will need to establish specialised units. The Home Office will be charged with monitoring all the resulting Prevent activity and ensuring that every specified institution has a suitable inspection regime.
An immediate concern is the expense that would be entailed in even a partial fulfilment of the agenda of the statutory Prevent programme. In this connection, I can speak of what I have experienced within the university environment. There are already precedents that provide ample warning of the deleterious effects of centrally directed inspection regimes. I have in mind the quality-assurance regimes to which universities have been subjected since the late 1980s. These have entailed considerable expense. They have pre-empted the time of lecturers and others, who have been required to provide extensive documentation of their activities and to submit reports to demonstrate compliance with the nostrums of the regimes. They have inhibited flexibility and innovation and imposed a heavy workload. This is exactly what we should expect from a centrally imposed, statutory Prevent agenda. The superfluous compulsory training courses that it mandates and the reports of compliance that will be demanded are aspects that are all too familiar to those who have served in universities in recent years. The injunction that lecturers should spy upon their students will subvert the essential relationship between staff and students. It will make it difficult for those charged with the pastoral care of students to discern what is actually happening in their lives. The injunction that all visiting lecturers should submit their material to prior inspection is absurd and unworkable; others have already commented on this point.
Finally, I should say that there is no evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the existing voluntary Prevent programme has been effective in averting terrorist outrages. Instead, this has been achieved by careful police work that has depended on the close co-operation of the Muslim community. To an extent that cannot be determined, it has been assisted by covert—that is to say, non-intrusive—surveillance and cyber-intelligence. It is these aspects of the counterterrorist strategy that need to be enhanced. A statutory Prevent strategy will be of no assistance in either connection.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving the amendment and giving us the opportunity to consider the important issues that he has raised. I agree with him that it is quite proper that the Government undertake reviews of policy and strategies from time to time to ensure they remain relevant and effective. The Government comprehensively reviewed the Prevent strategy in 2011. Since then, we have kept the various elements of the strategy under review. This has been part of regular business and in particular part of the annual report on our counterterrorism strategy, Contest, which is laid before Parliament. In the light of that, we have expanded the Prevent priority areas to reflect the changing threat, prioritised those that we feel are most effective and increased guidance and support for the voluntary Channel programme. In addition, the Prime Minister’s extremism task force was established in the wake of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby,
“to identify any areas where the current approach was lacking”.
That task force reported in December 2013, just over one year ago. One of its conclusions was that delivery of Prevent should be put on a statutory footing in areas of the country where extremism was of most concern. The duty outlined in Clause 21 does just that. It does not limit itself to specific areas of the country. As the subsequent geographical spread of travellers to Syria has shown, such travellers can come from areas beyond those of most concern and listed under the current arrangements for Prevent.
Reviews of strategies can take many months to complete. It would be wrong in our view if we were to ignore the findings of the extremism task force and delay the implementation of this important duty in order to carry out yet another review. Should such a review take place at some point and recommend, in the light of actual experience of the implementation of the duty, that changes be made—for example to the authorities listed in Schedule 3—then the Government would be able at that point to lay regulations amending that schedule, which would need to be approved by both Houses.
Regarding the report to be provided prior to commencement, we have already published impact assessments on the measures in the Bill. As for the comparable legislation in other countries, the UK’s efforts in the field of Prevent are considered by most of our allies to be several years in advance of where they currently are.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who spoke on this, that when we are talking about a duty that is effectively about the upholding of democracy, tolerance and respect for others I do not think it is in any way appropriate to draw upholding those values akin to a totalitarian approach. I know that he was trying perhaps to provoke us into some further response. What we are talking about here is how, as a free liberal society, we react to a growing threat from within our society from people who seek to challenge those very basic freedoms and who pose a serious risk through potential violence to individuals, be they on campuses or in wider society. That was why when we had an extensive review of the Prevent strategy—which was launched in 2010 and, I think, published in 2011—it took the view that we should focus on national security as the priority of Prevent. That is why the Prevent programme has changed to being one of safeguarding and protecting people’s liberties in our society. I think that is right. It is kept under review, as I have tried to outline to my noble friend, and there are opportunities caused by that systematic review for Parliament to consider the progress of the strategy as it moves forward. In the light of that, I wonder if he might feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that his response is a little disappointing on this matter—predictable but disappointing. If the Government are not going to move in the direction suggested by these amendments and by some of the others that we have discussed, will the Minister register that it becomes ever more important that next week we hear from the Government not the full detail but some of the ways in which they intend to improve the guidance that they give to higher education institutions, to make it more positive and clearer about the Government’s support for our higher education institutions, which are some of the best in the world? We also need to hear from the Government their determination to allow some of the fears that have been expressed by those who have put forward a lot of amendments today to be met in some respects.
I hope that when the Minister reflects on this—as he agreed to do when we debated the previous group—he will think about how he can come forward on Report with clear and precise indications of areas where the Government are going to improve the guidance following the end of the consultation. I understand that it will take much longer to produce the full guidance, but I think that having that clear indication on the record will be helpful in our further consideration of the Bill.
Lord Bates
Obviously I am sorry if the noble Lord feels that the response was not adequate. The amendment was trying to say that there should be some regular means of assessing the effectiveness of the measure and its impact on higher education institutions. I was trying to set out several existing mechanisms by which that reporting and accountability to Parliament could take place. In relation to the other point, I said earlier that in a sense, as a first stage, my letter of yesterday was a step down the path towards what I hoped he would find was a fuller response regarding how this might work. I shall look to take further steps as we move into Report and Third Reading in this House.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister, but I am afraid that I shall be even less complimentary than my co-signatory to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I believe that my noble friend gave us no new facts at all. We have had extraordinarily little by way of evidence or factual backing for this. For example, his letter, which he put in the Library yesterday, refers to two students—one, I seem to remember, a Swedish student and the other an American student—who had been influenced at their universities. There was nothing about English students. We have had nothing about the cost to universities, direct and indirect. He has not attempted to deny, because it is undeniable, that it will be a heavy bureaucratic burden, as my noble friend Lord Hanworth said. If we are acting responsibly, we really need to know these things before we plunge in. It is no good saying that there will be a report next year. It will then be too late to reverse the compulsory legislative nature of this measure, destroying the hugely valuable voluntary basis upon which the Prevent strategy currently takes place.
Lord Bates
All the way through, we have tried to say that we envisage a light-touch duty to have regard to systems which will already be in place. I do not imagine that there is an academic institution in the land or in the world that does not have policies for the welfare of its students, for risk assessments, for online safety and for the conduct of meetings. Therefore, I expect that we are talking here about, if necessary, a small addition to what is already happening in existing institutions.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I thank my noble friend for that but I have to disagree with him. He talks about a small addition to the present state of affairs. The universities are telling us loud and clear that it is not a small addition; it is a massive new addition. Before we make this decision, some attempt has to be made to find out the cost to government. I think that even the present voluntary panels in the counties cost £26 million a year. That will be but chicken feed if the universities are subject to this new regime with this vast statutory guidance.
I will leave it at that for tonight, but I hope that my noble friend will endeavour to come back at Report, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, suggested, with something a great deal more satisfactory by way of background to the need for this than we currently have. Perhaps we can have a conversation before then, but the time is terribly short. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 115AA takes us back into Chapter 2 and the Channel programme. Clause 28 deals with local panels for assessment and support. The Bill provides that a chief officer of police can refer an individual to a panel. I was requested to raise the first of my amendments in this group by London Councils to allow local authorities as well as the police to make direct referrals in order to access specialist support for individuals who are identified as vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. London Councils is concerned that the provisions might have the effect of limiting the access of public bodies other than the police to a key source of support. It gives as an example a teacher who may spot a pupil who has been accessing extremist materials and refer that pupil to the local authority under the school safeguarding policy. The local authority might conduct an assessment under safeguarding and child protection legislation, agree that the pupil is vulnerable to radicalisation and decide that the sensible next step would be for the case to be considered by the panel in order to access appropriate support.
London Councils is also concerned that, as drafted, an unbalanced relationship between the police and local authority would be created. The local authority of course would chair the panel. Another concern is that cases that come up before a panel are “deconflicted” by the police to ensure that the person concerned is not subject to an active investigation before a support plan can be put in place. I would be grateful if my noble friend could respond to that offer from local authorities to be even more active.
Amendment 115AB takes us to what the support plan would include. It returns to points that I have already made about discrimination, grassroots, bottom-up and perceptions. I suggest a reference to people,
“who will be consulted in keeping the plan under review”,
in order to ask about the role of the local community, religious leaders, the family and so forth and how they will be recognised.
Amendment 115AC is about the support that the panel may put into place. We are told that it must consider reference to a provider of health or social care services. Those are not the only services. I seek to add the words “or other”; for instance, housing. I know that Ministers have referred to Jobcentre Plus and so on. There are a number of other services which might be appropriate for an individual. I do not whether counselling would come within local care, but certainly that is also one which should be considered.
The last of my amendments in this group is Amendment 118ZA. It would amend Clause 32, which is about indemnification. We are told that the Secretary of State may agree to indemnify a support provider against reasonable expenses. I think that that should be “shall”. We have already more than touched on necessary expense and good investment but nevertheless there is concern about the expense of the sorts of programmes we have been discussing today. The authorities that will be required to undertake these various duties and activities will be very stretched to find the money for them and questions of prioritisation will arise. If I can be told that “may agree to indemnify” actually means “shall” in the odd way we sometimes seem to go about drafting legislation, that is fine, but I am certainly looking for some sort of reassurance. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 115C in this group. We have tabled this amendment because a number of organisations and members of the education profession have raised with us the issue of how far the provisions in Clause 28 will become counterproductive by destroying the relationship of trust between teacher and student. At their crudest, the duties being laid on the professionals concerned might be described as “snitching” on their pupils. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, who is not in his place at the moment, talked about spies in the camp as well as the perception of these provisions. I should like to quote from a recent edition of Times Higher Education:
“The draft legislation also proposes processes of referral for students considered at risk of succumbing to radicalisation. Universities will be required to train all staff who have contact with students to recognise what Brokenshire”—
the Minister in the Commons—
“called being ‘withdrawn and reserved, and perhaps showing other personality traits’. Where these traits are identified, the university must refer the student to a panel set up by the police and the local authority. The panel will oversee and administer a safeguarding programme which may include referral to the health services”.
There is obviously a balance to be struck here. We have all agreed in our debates that the Bill addresses serious problems, but there is also considerable worry that these requirements will destroy important relationships between teachers and students. The Association of School and College Leaders has talked about how the lack of certainty over the definitions of terms such “extremism” will make it difficult for schools and colleges to know with sufficient certainty whether they risk being found to be in breach of the new duty. The association states:
“The proposed powers to the Home Secretary, particularly with no parliamentary oversight, could have serious negative consequences for the curriculum and/or pastoral functions of schools and colleges”.
The association goes on to say:
“The implied duty to report children and young people ‘at risk’ to the police for referral to the Local Panels is problematic because schools and colleges may be unwilling to sacrifice relationships and trust on the basis of suspicion or may go to the other extreme and try to cover themselves by reporting every risk”.
These uncertainties and ambiguities will apply as much to other professions, especially those in the NHS and mental health services. There are real worries that making these duties statutory, instead of the present voluntary co-operation which gives room for judgment and flexibility, will result in a risk-averse and inflexible system which, rather than helping, has the reverse effect of alienating the students and making them more susceptible to extremist propaganda via the internet and social media. This is a very worrying issue which should be taken seriously. It strengthens the case for the implementation of Part 5 of the Bill being delayed until the authorities have had a chance to consult more widely and consider the possible unintended consequences of what is being proposed.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we have one amendment in this group, Amendment 115AD. Its effect is to give the Secretary of State statutory responsibilities in supporting local assessment and support panels exercising their functions under Clause 28 by requiring the Secretary of State: to provide guidance—rather than it being optional—on the exercise of the panel’s functions; to provide a list of approved providers for de-radicalisation programmes; and to ensure that the approved providers are subject to monitoring.
Under Clause 28, each local authority must ensure that a panel of persons is in place for its area with the function of assessing the extent to which identified individuals are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. That panel, whose chair has to be the responsible local authority, must, among other duties laid down in Clause 28, prepare a plan in respect of identified individuals whom the panel considers should be offered support for the purpose of reducing their vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism.
The effect of Clause 28 is to put the voluntary programme for people at risk of radicalisation, in operation since 2012 and known as Channel in England and Wales, on a statutory basis alongside the rest of the Prevent programme. Local authorities will not need to establish a new panel if there is already one which carries out the functions set out in Clause 28. The reason for taking this step is stated in the Government’s impact assessment as being to secure effective co-operation from multi-agency partners and ensure that good practice can be recognised, shared and applied between areas using common practices to further improve implementation of the programme. However, while the Government are putting these statutory duties on local authorities in respect of the panels, there appear to be no similar provisions to ensure that they are supported by central Government. Indeed, the Government’s factsheet on the Bill also states that there will be no extra funding for councils and local areas.
Under Clause 28, a chief officer of police must make the referral of an individual to the local support panel. As provided for in the Bill, local support panels have to assess the individual’s risk of radicalisation and tailor a support package to address those risks. The issues are complex and the current guidance cites, I think, 22 vulnerability indicators that may lead to a Channel referral. The panel must weigh up these factors and tailor a support package which could have any number of elements. In some areas the panels could be addressing issues that they have not faced before.
There is a need for the Home Office to support local panels by providing an approved list of support providers who are able to give the specialist interventions needed to address the specific issues facing the individual in question and to approve the list of support providers to help ensure effective support packages and value for money.
The panel is also tasked with assessing the progress that the individual makes. However, it does not necessarily have the ability to assess the quality of support provided by other agencies, which is why the Home Secretary should also be required to assess providers, as set out in the amendment. I suspect that the Minister will say in response that the Secretary of State and the Home Office already do much of what is laid down in this amendment, but frankly that rather misses the point. Since the responsibilities and duties of local authorities in respect of the local panels are now being placed on a statutory rather than a voluntary footing under the Bill, it is only right—if we are talking about a true partnership between central and local government on supporting people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism—that the responsibilities of central government in respect of the functioning and effectiveness of, and support for, the local panels should also be placed on a statutory rather than an optional footing. That is what this amendment seeks to do, and I hope the Minister will feel able to give a sympathetic response.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I will just say a few words in relation to this group. Best practice as I have observed it around the country has involved local authorities doing more or less what is set out in the provisions in this part of the Bill. Indeed, in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, for example, I have witnessed a meeting of exactly the kind described here. However, the practice has been very varied around the country. Some local authorities have done almost nothing, and it is absolutely clear that the most important work can be done, and needs to be done, at least under the aegis of local authorities. I therefore commend the provisions.
However, one or two things have been said during the course of this short debate which are particularly important. I will just focus on one of them, a remark by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about housing. Housing providers—which obviously does not just mean councils—have a huge amount of corporate knowledge about what is going on in large social housing projects. I have heard housing managers give an almost flat-by-flat or house-by-house description of activity which might be of concern in relation to Prevent and other aspects of counterterrorism policy. Before the Bill reaches its final stages, I ask my noble friend to consider whether there should be a reference to housing in these clauses.
The other point is about the police. It is of course right that the police should be involved in this activity, however there is a danger of exaggerating the role that the police play in Prevent. Of course the police should draw it to the attention of the relevant authorities—including the local authority and those involved in education, housing and so on—when they have detected concerns about the danger of radicalisation. However, we should not allow ourselves to be trapped in the position of believing that the police are the lead agency, or even a lead agency, in counter-radicalisation. It is when the police are overinvolved that communities become suspicious in the way that was mentioned earlier—perhaps with a degree of hyperbole—by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I simply ask my noble friend to keep in mind that there needs to be perhaps a little more flexibility than appears to be in the clause which the amendments in this group seek to amend.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, this debate has allowed us to consider matters relating to the duty to create local panels to support people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism in Chapter 2 of Part 5. I will start with my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s amendments. With many of them, this is really a question of practicality. We are seeking to continue the Channel programme, which has been operating now for nearly three years, in a way that is practical but effective.
Amendment 115AA would enable a local authority to refer an individual to a panel in addition to the police officer. I am pleased to reassure my noble friend Lady Hamwee that anyone can refer an individual who may be vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism for assessment, including the teachers to whom my noble friend referred. But, crucially, the police are responsible for co-ordinating activity from partners, and only the police may refer an individual to a panel. That is because the police carry out the initial assessment of an individual who has been referred and gather information from local partners to determine whether the individual is suitable for assessment by the panel.
My noble friend Lord Carlile asked whether the police were in danger of being overinvolved in this process. I remind the Committee that the Channel programme is entirely voluntary and that nobody needs to be in it who does not want to be in it. Different considerations apply to a voluntary programme from the other ones that we talked about earlier that are compulsory. To add a provision for a local authority to undertake a referral to a panel would create an unnecessary duplication of effort, as it would then also need to carry out the initial assessment and information-gathering phases. Of course, the police and the local authority are the two members of the panel ex officio, so they would be, of necessity, in close contact.
Amendment 115AB would have the effect of including in the support plan a list of people who have been consulted and who will be consulted in keeping the plan under review. I hope that I can give my noble friends some comfort on this point. In practice, those consulted on the support plan are the panel members. Proper records will be kept on the outcomes of the panels’ deliberations. We will ensure that the process and approach for support plans, and the records kept following these panels, are addressed in the statutory guidance underpinning this duty.
Amendment 115AC would add other providers that the panel must consider in cases where the individual is not vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. We expect the panel to consider all forms of support on a case-by-case basis using its expertise and to refer an individual to the most appropriate support service, including housing and Jobcentre Plus, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned. The local authority housing function—my noble friend Lord Carlile mentioned housing—should be included in the panels. The local authority housing function should be covered by the membership of the local authority, but we can certainly ensure that this is emphasised in the guidance.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I have listened carefully to my noble friend and there is one important lacuna in what he just said. A lot of social housing is no longer in the hands of local authorities. There are massive housing associations, particularly around London, which have taken local authority housing stock into their hands. I believe that the biggest landlord of social housing in London now may be the Peabody trust, which owns billions of pounds’ worth of property. Can we be sure that we are not going to just take local authority housing into this and that it will be possible to include other social housing? I think that is very important.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I certainly take my noble friend’s point. I believe that the panel can include anyone who the local authority thinks is suitable, but I will take that back just to confirm that what I said is correct. As I just said, as the panel consists of local experts from such service providers, who will be very much aware of the services available locally, we do not consider it necessary to include in the Bill a list of all the services that the panel should consider. However, the process and the other forms of support to be considered will be detailed in the statutory guidance.
Amendment 115C would expressly rule out a disclosure that would jeopardise a relationship of trust between a practising professional and an individual concerned who has been referred to the programme. We do not seek or wish for the provisions of the Bill to undermine any such relationship. It is made expressly clear that the co-operation duty does not entail disclosures which would contravene the Data Protection Act. However, the 1998 Act includes certain lawful grounds on which information—which is not restricted to electronic information—concerning a person vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism could be shared.
Lord Rosser
The Minister has given the reply that I indicated I thought would be forthcoming—namely that what I have asked about is already being done. However, the question is: if the Bill puts the functions of the local authority and the local panels on a statutory footing, why not also put the requirements that the Secretary of State is expected to meet on a statutory footing, even though that may be being done anyway?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The reason that we want to put this on a statutory footing—which was recommended, incidentally, by the Government’s extremism task force—is to enhance the engagement and co-operation of partner agencies and to ensure that best practice is adopted. I know that the noble Lord asked as well about funding for Channel. We are not expanding Channel. It is already a national programme across England and Wales, so we do not consider that it needs more funding.
Lord Rosser
The point that I was raising was not about funding or querying why the local panels would be put on a statutory footing. My query was: if the local panels are being put on a statutory rather than a voluntary footing—which we are not arguing about—why not also put the requirements that the Secretary of State will be expected to meet on a statutory footing as well, rather than putting those on an optional basis? That is what is provided for in the Bill, but the Minister is reiterating that the Secretary of State does anyway what I am seeking to put on a statutory basis. Why not put that on a statutory footing in the same way as the activities of the local panels will be put on a statutory rather than voluntary footing?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
There is a reason why we want to put the local authorities’ duties on a statutory footing. If the Secretary of State is doing everything that the noble Lord wants her to do, I do not see any particular benefit in putting that on a statutory footing. However, rather than going backwards and forwards on this, I am prepared to take this matter back. If there is more information that I can provide to the noble Lord, I will do so.
All providers are bound by a service level agreement with the Home Office that sets out the terms and conditions of their appointment, including conduct. In addition, as part of their co-ordination role, the police regularly review progress made against any interventions commissioned. Any misconduct will be treated seriously, with the option of terminating an agreement with a provider. It would be unusual—and we think unnecessary—to provide for these matters in the Bill.
Finally, I would like to address my noble friend’s Amendment 118ZA, which seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State must indemnify a support provider against any costs and expenses incurred in carrying out functions as a provider. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the costs for each case would be considered and, where the case was deemed appropriate, those reasonable costs would be indemnified. However, there might be some cases where it would not be appropriate to indemnify costs. One of the key reasons for resisting making the indemnification clause a blanket duty, required in all cases, is that it is included in the Bill to plug a gap that might not arise in all cases. The gap is the absence of reasonably priced insurance in the open market for risks that might arise for intervention providers. Depending on the precise nature of the support the provider is giving, there may or may not be sufficient availability of cover in the market. The intention behind Clause 32 is to allow the Secretary of State, only where a provider cannot get adequate cover, to step in with an indemnity. We do not want the Secretary of State to have to indemnify if a product is available on the market. The Secretary of State should therefore have discretion to decide which costs or expenses would be indemnified, but, as I have said, it is the intention that reasonable costs would be indemnified.
I hope that my responses have addressed the concerns raised by these amendments during this debate, and on that basis, I invite noble Lords not to press the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the reference to insurance leaves me—I have to confess—rather bemused. That was not at all what I thought this clause could be about. However, I will not take time expressing my bemusement. The Minister started his response by using the terms “practical” and “effective”. Those are criteria for me as well. Unfortunately, as it happens, I am not wholly convinced that we identified the same ways of arriving at that conclusion.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlile for expanding the point about housing. Of course, he is absolutely right: local authority housing supply is minuscule, almost disappearing. However, the role of housing providers in this area can be very significant. I will think about the detail of the Minister’s response and perhaps come back to it. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Guidance issued under this section shall in particular deal with equalities issues.”
Baroness Hamwee
I will try to move this amendment in under one minute, and not only because the Chief Whip is here. The amendments in this group more or less replicate, word for word, amendments made in respect of the Prevent programme. This part of the Bill is about the Channel programme. The Minister has been stressing the importance of guidance—which makes me think that my amendments are important. I simply invite him at this point to make any further or different comments or responses to those which he gave when I moved and spoke to similar amendments earlier this evening. I was just under a minute, I think. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton
The noble Baroness has set a racing example, and I, too, will try to be extremely brief. My name is on Amendment 115B, which repeats the request found in two earlier clauses in the Bill through my amendments that when the Secretary of State issues or revises guidance she should make sure that Parliament has sight of an affirmative instrument in both Houses. I repeat, for the third time, I think, today, that where guidance is in parallel with other guidance, it should be issued as a single document.
The principal reason for this amendment is exactly the same as that for the other amendments: the Secretary of State has taken to herself and her successors a right to take decisions on guidance on sensitive issues. It is extremely difficult to assess which people are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. I am sure Parliament would want to have sight of this guidance and be able to review in future. As with my other comments, I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance that Parliament will be able to assess the guidance before it is given.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, we have had a very brief debate on this part of the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friends for tabling this amendment. I fear that I may not be able to satisfy them. Amendment 115B seeks to make the guidance under the duty in Chapter 2 subject to approval under the affirmative procedure. Noble Lords should be aware that Channel is already an established programme across England and Wales and those who participate in the programme follow existing non-statutory guidance. The Channel programme has been in place since April 2012.
The current guidance for local authorities’ panels is being amended, in consultation with those involved in the programme, and will be reissued on a statutory basis. Guidance of this sort is not routinely made subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not recommended that it should be in this instance.
Amendment 115AF seeks to ensure that local authorities are consulted on any guidance issued for panels. Amendment 115E aims to ensure that partners of panels, or their representatives, are consulted before any guidance is issued. I can assure noble Lords that local authority panel chairs, panel members and police practitioners are being consulted about the revised guidance. Panel members invited to a meeting are likely to be those panel partners who have shared relevant information in relation to a referred individual and therefore will also be consulted at a local level. The consultation process will ensure that the views of all relevant stakeholders are taken account of and that the guidance is meaningful for those to whom it is issued. Their experience and expertise is invaluable in achieving this.
I hope that reassures my noble friend and that she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I suspect that as with the equivalent group on the previous provisions, we may want to come back to these issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bates
“A person who is authorised by virtue of an order made under section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to exercise a function specified in Schedule 36A to the Education Act 1996.”
“A person who is specified in a direction made in relation to the exercise of a local authority’s functions given by the Welsh Ministers under section 25 of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 (anaw 1) (including that section as applied by section 50A of the Children Act 2004 or section 29 of the Childcare Act 2006).”
Baroness Berridge
“Part 15AFunding of terrorism: looting of cultural artefactsPanel and report
(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall appoint a panel to examine and report on the funding of terrorism through the looting and sale of cultural artefacts.
(2) The areas to be examined by the panel shall include, but shall not be limited to—
(a) the prevalence and scale of the funding of terrorism around the world through the looting and sale of cultural artefacts;(b) the extent to which looted cultural artefacts are sold in, or transit through, any part of the United Kingdom;(c) ways in which the practices in paragraph (b) can be reduced, including the possibility of placing a strict liability on United Kingdom auction houses in respect of the provenance of any cultural artefacts they sell; and(d) the treatment of any cultural artefacts seized by the United Kingdom authorities, including the involvement of British museums and galleries.(3) The report of the panel shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 118B. First, I thank the charity Walk of Truth and its founder, Tasoula Hadjitofi, who drew this matter to my attention.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, it is clear that one of the streams of funding for IS in Iraq and Syria is the sale of looted religious and cultural heritage—anything from ancient coins to frescos literally hacked out of church walls. Due to the obvious difficulty of accessing IS-controlled territory, much of what we know is from reports by news outlets. Given the time, I will mention only one. In November 2014 an article in Newsweek quoted the executive director at Iraq Heritage, Aymen Jawad, as saying:
“By some estimates, these sales (of ancient artefacts) now represent ISIS’s second largest source of funding. One of its biggest paydays recently came from looting the ninth century B.C. grand palace of the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II at Kalhu, which is now called Nimrud … Tablets, manuscripts and cuneiforms are the most common artefacts being traded, and, unfortunately, this is being seen in Europe and America”.
Most of the reports indicate that these stolen treasures are finding their way into or through London. The news reports are confirmed by UNESCO, which has now alerted museums, Interpol, and the World Customs Organization to be vigilant,
“over objects that could come from the current looting of Iraqi heritage”.
The amendment requires the Home Secretary within three months of the Act to appoint a panel that would look carefully at this issue and specifically at the mens rea required for the offence under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. At the moment, the offence is committed, by auction houses and others, only where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the goods were removed—in the case of Syria, for example—after 9 May 2011. I question whether that is sufficient, bearing in mind the current context.
The panel could investigate whether the UK should copy Germany’s law that will oblige dealers and collectors to present an export licence for where the object is coming from, in order to receive an import licence for any ancient artefact. The panel could also report on whether or how many stolen cultural and religious artefacts are coming through London. It could collate data on this matter, including how many cases the proceeds of crime unit of the Metropolitan Police is currently dealing with, which I presume has operational responsibility for this matter. Whether any artefacts have already been seized by the police and what happens to those artefacts would also be considered by the panel. If they have seized items, are the museums and galleries in London involved in helping to ensure that the artefacts are kept in conditions to preserve them, not only as criminal evidence but also to preserve their condition so they can one day be returned to Iraq or Syria? These items may require much more specialist handling than the colloquial “bagging up of evidence” to avoid contamination.
This panel would not be costly and would provide Parliament and the Government with much-needed data and recommendations to deal with the atrocious fact of stolen cultural heritage, which needs to be preserved for the time when Iraqis and Syrians can return to their homes and to the cultural heritage that should exist for them at that time. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
My Lords, I certainly support the intention behind the amendment. My noble friend the Minister may well say in his reply that some of these issues are already covered by the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. It is certainly the case that it is illegal to sell in this country cultural objects that were illegally exported from their country of origin after 2003. However, there are many new dimensions and my noble friend is right to draw attention to them. The scale on which terrorism is being funded through the sale of such artefacts gives cause for concern. I am not sure that many artefacts of this kind are being sold in this country now, but many will be in transit. As they may well be sold in the future they could still command a good price in the market.
I draw attention to one point. Proposed new subsection (2)(c) would require the examination of,
“the possibility of placing a strict liability on United Kingdom auction houses in respect of the provenance of any cultural artefacts they sell”.
This is not the occasion for a long debate on these matters. Some of them were raised in amendments during the passage of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, although they were not carried. They placed an onus on auction houses in particular to be more transparent about vendors because auction houses are not obliged to declare for whom they sell such objects and somebody selling privately on the open market is not obliged to declare from where the objects came. There is a real problem. Indeed, there have been cases recently where auction houses have offered for sale objects which, it turned out, did not have a respectable provenance and had emerged on the market by shady means. It is therefore time to place an onus on the auction houses to check the provenance of the artefacts and to be assured that they left their country of origin legally after 2003, which would comply with the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act. However, there is at present no onus on auction houses to be clear about the source of their objects. That is a glaring loophole, and that is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
I will speak to Amendment 118B but will not repeat the points made by my noble friends Lady Berridge and Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn. I want to remind the House of the scale of this problem and that it is a key funding area for Islamic State. A flash stick recovered after a courier was killed last year revealed that $36 million of goods had been taken from one town alone in Iraq. If you scale that up, and understand that each item can be sold for between $20,000 and $50,000, one begins to understand where IS’s money to resupply itself with weapons comes from. In addition to the provenance arguments and making sure that auction houses deal with appropriate items, there is a real issue of funding terrorism that needs to be addressed as well.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this interesting amendment and for giving due warning at Second Reading that it might be coming. It allows us the opportunity to give due consideration to the looting and sale of cultural artefacts. Of course I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken that this is a relevant issue in the context of the terrorist threat, given that such sales are often used as a source of finance for ISIL and others, as noble Lords have said. I hope that I may be able to give some reassurance.
I should stress that this is a global issue, on which all states need to respond together. That is why the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2195 in December 2014. This calls on all states to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism. In particular, the resolution highlights the fact that terrorists can benefit from a plethora of activities, including through the sale of artefacts. It also recognises that defeating terrorist fundraising requires a global effort.
My noble friend’s suggestion of a further examination of this issue is timely. The UN resolution already requires the Secretary-General to submit a report to the Security Council outlining efforts to address the threat of terrorists benefiting from a range of transnational organised crime, including the sale of artefacts. Notably, the report will contain recommendations to strengthen member states’ capability in relation to this issue. Rather than commission a separate report at this time, the UK will carefully consider the findings of the UN report and take appropriate action as necessary.
In addition to this, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime established an intergovernmental expert group on protection against trafficking in cultural property. In January 2014 that group finalised guidelines for crime prevention and criminal justice responses with respect to trafficking in cultural property and other related offences. Again, the United Kingdom has actively been involved in this work.
Amendment 118B proposes that a panel be appointed to explore looting and sale of antiquities for the purposes of financing terrorism and report on that subject. I hope that I have given my noble friends some reassurance on why such a requirement is unnecessary, given the UN work in this area and in light of our wider work on the issue.
As I have said, all states, including the UK, are required to stop terrorist financing, including through the sale of artefacts. The UN Security Council resolution makes it clear that there will be a report on efforts to counter the financing of terrorism-related crimes, including the sale of artefacts, which will include recommendations on how member states can strengthen their capabilities. I must stress that the UK takes the funding of terrorist organisations through any means, including through the sale of artefacts in the UK, very seriously. Instances of terrorist financing in the UK will be investigated by the police.
The UK already assesses how we can reduce all instances of terrorist financing and countering terrorist financing features in the Government’s counterterrorism strategy, Contest. The Government continually assess how best to disrupt the financing of the activities of terrorists, whether through the sale of antiquities or by other means.
Auction houses are required by law to report any suspicions of terrorist financing relating to high-value goods to the National Crime Agency. I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Renfrew that there is no suggestion that any UK companies or auction houses have been involved in terrorist financing through the sale of artefacts. Additionally, Part III of the Terrorism Act 2000 already makes it illegal to make funds available to terrorists or to enter into an arrangement that will result in funds being made available. Where there are suspicions of terrorist financing, it also creates various reporting obligations for the regulated sector, including auction houses, which are subject to criminal sanction in the event of non-compliance. Therefore, we do not see the need to impose an additional strict liability on auction houses, given that they are already obliged to raise terrorist financing suspicions with the authorities. I hope I have reassured your Lordships that the UK already has a very robust response to this important issue and plays an active role in what needs to be an international approach. I welcome the opportunity to put our work on this issue on the record and I am grateful to my noble friends for providing the chance to do so. In the light of the extensive work that already goes on in this area, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Berridge
I thank my noble friend the Minister and welcome what he said about the UK Government’s response to the UN report. This was an exploratory amendment around this issue but it served to distil matters. Although my noble friend stated that there is no evidence of current terrorist funding through auction houses in London, the evidence that I have received matches the comments of my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Items appear in the catalogues of auction houses in London, but when an auction house is phoned and asked whether it is certain of the origins of a particular artefact, that artefact disappears from the sale catalogue. So, clearly, through our suggestion of a panel, we have distilled the issue. As my noble friend stated, there is concern about the provenance of artefacts offered for sale here in London. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will meet us to discuss this specific issue as greater onus needs to be placed on auction houses in this context. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
“Independent reviewer of terrorism legislation
In section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006, for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review and report on the operation, effectiveness and implications of—
(a) counter-terrorism legislation; and (b) any other legislation or power to the extent that they are applied for counter-terrorist purposes.(1A) “Counter-terrorism legislation” in subsection (1) means—
(a) the terrorism Act 2000,(b) the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001,(c) Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006,(d) the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008,(e) the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010,(f) the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011,(g) Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, and(h) Parts 1 and 2 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.””
Lord Bates
I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord, but I thought that it might be helpful to him if I put on the record some comments on his amendment, which the Government have carefully considered. I hope that that might be helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord Bates
My Lords, it is getting late. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment and for raising this very important issue.
The two amendments before us are slightly different in wording but are designed for the same purpose. Both amendments would insert a new clause into the Bill which would amend the statutory remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, in some respects, would amend the reporting arrangements for those Acts falling within his remit.
I am aware that the essence of these amendments reflects a recommendation made by David Anderson in his last annual report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts, and echoed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report on the Bill. It is, however, right that the Government think carefully before making what would be very significant changes to a long-standing and highly effective oversight role. The primary purpose of the independent reviewer role is to provide assurance to the public on the operation of UK counterterrorism legislation. It is important that we do not dilute this core function and that there is clarity about what is subject to the independent reviewer’s oversight.
Nevertheless, I can see that there is some force to the argument that it is a little perverse that while the independent reviewer is able, and obliged, to look at certain Acts of counterterrorism legislation, other equally relevant pieces of counterterrorism legislation are outside his remit. The Government have reflected on this issue, and will continue to do so in the light of this evening’s debate, to consider whether it might be possible to make some changes on Report to address this concern. Were we to expand the independent reviewer’s remit, it would, of course, raise questions about the capacity of the independent reviewer. Even someone with such a voracious appetite for work as David Anderson has limits. In part, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, which we are coming on to, is designed to increase the support and capacity of the independent reviewer. I will give further thought to whether it would be appropriate to give him greater flexibility to set his own work programme and concentrate on those areas which he believes are most deserving of scrutiny or most topical.
I give your Lordships a very clear assurance that the Government will consider these points extremely carefully, and very urgently, and I hope that we may be able to find some way to meet the points which these amendments seek to address. I invite the noble Lord to reflect on those comments.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. That is extremely helpful. Of course I have no intention of pressing the amendment. I look forward to hearing what he says next week on Report. I ask him to reflect not only on the recommendation of the Joint Committee that the remit of the independent reviewer should be expanded but also, as the Minister mentioned, the other part of the Joint Committee recommendation—paragraph 7.8 of their report—that the Government should make available to the independent reviewer resources necessary to perform his task effectively. In particular, David Anderson has explained that it would help considerably if he were assisted by a security-cleared junior counsel. That seems a very good idea to me. I do not think that the provision of such assistance would need statutory authority, but I hope that the Minister can reflect on that. Other noble Lords may wish to intervene in relation to this debate.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am glad to hear what the Minister has said. Reference has been made to the Work Programme. My amendment extended beyond the remit to the question of the frequency of reporting, which is a point that the current independent reviewer raised. Less frequent reporting on some matters will free up time to focus on others, responding of course to the current situation. There is also the question of specific statutory powers for access to classified information and to gather information. He has said that he has not had a problem but that he feels that it would be appropriate for the matter to be dealt with in statute. I wanted to ask that those points be among those that the Government are considering and, like others, I look forward to seeing the amendment on Report.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I will add a few words of support for what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend. I feel very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for taking the initiative in this group of amendments. David Anderson has set out very clearly and correctly the additional support that he needs and the programme of work that it would be in the public interest to have in his hands. The Minister seems to agree, provisionally at least, with David Anderson’s representations as articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in particular, and I feel that we can now await next week with some confidence.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, if Amendment 118F is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 118G for reasons of pre-emption.
Amendment 118F
“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a body to—
(a) provide advice and assistance to the persons appointed under—in the discharge of their statutory functions;(i) section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006;(ii) section 31(1) of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010; and(iii) section 20(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011,in the discharge of their statutory functions;(b) review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and any other law or prerogative power to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism;(c) consider whether such legislation contains appropriate safeguards, is proportionate and remains necessary;(d) review intelligence-sharing guidance and practice to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism and the functions of the Board; (e) make recommendations to any public authority about the exercise of its statutory functions relating to the prevention of terrorism;(f) undertake inquiries relating to counter-terrorism when invited to do so by the Home Secretary, the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or on the initiative of the Board;(g) encourage good practice in the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of terrorism; and(h) provide advice and assistance to Government on the development and implementation of policy relating to the prevention of terrorism.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 118H and 118J. I welcome the Minister’s statement in relation to the previous debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I hope that that will be reflected in his comments on this group of amendments, which also impact on the work of the independent reviewer and the Government’s proposals for a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board.
One reason that I brought forward these amendments is to get some concrete proposals to try to improve this part of the Bill, but I also want to understand the thinking behind the Government’s proposals and how they expect them to work in practice. This was first announced in July, when the Government brought forward the DRIPA Bill. When that was debated, there were no details on the board other than what it was to be called. My understanding is that, since then, there has been considerable debate within the Government about what the role, remit and make-up of the board will be. The original proposal, that it should replace the independent reviewer, has wisely been dropped. However, on 17 December last year, the Government launched their public consultation on establishing a board—another consultation, which does not end until tomorrow. Will that report be available when we discuss this issue on Report?
The Government said that purpose of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board was to support the work of the independent reviewer of counterterrorism, but the how, why, where and who of what will happen is where the lack of clarity remains. What is clear is that both inside and outside your Lordships’ House the whole role of the independent reviewer attracts enormous respect and credibility regarding the way in which he undertakes his work. We extend those comments to the previous holder of that position. However, that is not to say that the work could not be improved or enhanced.
In the previous debate, the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Pannick, commented on the recommendations made by the independent reviewer on how he could better undertake his work. He provided suggestions in his report on the operation of the terrorism legislation in 2013. He repeated those points in evidence to the parliamentary committee. His comments on how he thinks he can enhance and improve the role of the independent reviewer seem thoughtful and worthy of serious consideration by the Government.
While I therefore agree with the Government and welcome their direction of thought on examining ways in which that role could be supported and enhanced, the Government need to provide more detail and a convincing case for why the establishment of the new Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is the right way forward. The impact assessment produced by the Government, which was published after the independent reviewer’s recommendations were published, makes it clear that the Government did not consider any of those recommendations when deciding to proceed with a new board. The policy options that were considered, including any alternatives to regulation, were:
“Option 1—do not establish a privacy and civil liberties board”,
and,
“Option 2—legislate to provide … a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board”.
The options suggested by the independent reviewer of how to improve his work included having a junior counsel work with him who was security cleared, but that was not even considered when the Government brought forward their proposal for such a board. That is disappointing and perhaps the Minister can say why. I am not saying that he should automatically take on board and accept anything that the independent reviewer says that he wants, but those issues should have been considered in the round when looking to improve and enhance the work of the independent reviewer. The question of whether to have a board and the options that he put forward should all have been considered together.
The consultation produced by the Government on establishing such a board quotes the independent reviewer. While admitting that the independent reviewer thinks that a board would be best served by an individual operating part-time, the consultation quotes him as saying that,
“a board, if properly constituted, could bring advantages”.
Although that quote is correct, it is shame that it is not presented in its proper context in the consultation document. He said that in the context of the Government’s proposal, as it was then, to replace the independent reviewer with a new board. In the rest of the quote, which the Government did not put in their consultation document, he said:
“In short, such a Board if properly constituted could bring advantages: but”—
this is the bit missing from the consultation document—
“the wrong decisions could substantially diminish the value that is offered by the current arrangements, particularly if there were any reluctance to share classified information with a larger and more varied group. If the proposal is progressed, I would suggest that it requires the most careful scrutiny”.
It is disappointing that that comment was not included in the consultation document in the interests of completeness. I therefore ask the Minister: does he consider that the representation of the independent reviewer’s opinion in the consultation document is entirely and wholly accurate and in context? Does he consider that this enabling power, which is what Clause 36 is, provides the adequate scrutiny that the independent reviewer suggested?
Some of the background to our amendment is to ascertain exactly what is required of the board. As I say, the clause is essentially an enabling power for the Secretary of State. It could be a very broad power in determining and deciding the role and functions of the board, the salaries of the board and the administrative support it needs—which, if you look at the impact assessment, you will see is quite a sizeable bureaucracy in the age of austerity.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendments 118G and 118K in this group but I want to say on Amendment 118J that I take the noble Baroness’s point about the impact on communities. The point has been raised with me as well and rightly so.
The first of my amendments in fact builds on the consultation paper. Under the section headed “What would the … Board do?”, it sets out in bullet-point form a number of core objectives. In most of the cases it uses the terminology that the subject of the consideration is,
“sufficient to meet the threat and adequately take account of privacy and civil liberties concerns”.
I think that I would prefer to see the word “properly” rather than “adequately” take account of privacy and civil liberties concerns. It is essential that that aspect is set out in the consultation paper, and I would hope to see it spelled out in the remit for the board in the statute as well. If it is not there, it is not there, and it will be difficult for the board to pursue that. My amendment is quite mild in that it seeks to provide advice to Ministers on that aspect of legislation. I have used the word “adequately” to reflect the consultation paper, although, as I said, I would prefer proper account to be taken of those concerns by that clear purpose being put on the face of the Bill.
My other amendment is about the chairmanship of the board, to which the noble Baroness referred. My amendment would give flexibility around whether the independent reviewer should chair the board. Mr Anderson has made his views clear about this being a possible diversion of his time and energy. I have a lot of sympathy with that, and the JCHR also took the point. The independent reviewer could still have an extremely central role in determining membership and the work programme without being the chair. I am not saying in this amendment that he—or, in future, she—should not chair the board; I am leaving it open for further consideration.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I have an amendment in this group. It may be a miserable little amendment suitably to be looked at at 11.20 pm. It says simply that any regulations under the clause should be by way of affirmative resolution.
Perhaps I may say something a little more widely about the group. When I looked at Clause 36, the first question that came to my mind was: what is it for? You do not get very much out of the wording. It seeks to provide advice and assistance to the independent reviewer. Why and for what purpose? Then we look at what the regulations are to contain. They may include provision about,
“particular things that the board may or must do”.
This lack of clarification about the purpose of the clause is reflected in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
I was quite interested in Amendment 118F because it contains provisions which I think would have shocked to the core the Home Secretary in the previous Government—the thought that these wide-sounding provisions should be given to a board. On the other hand, my noble friend stresses that this should be about privacy and civil liberty concerns. I think that if it were about privacy and civil liberty concerns, we would understand a little more about it. However, as it is, the lack of clarity about what it is for means that we are about to have the anvil dropped from a large height by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile. I trust that we will hear a little more in clarification from the noble Lord in reply.
Lord Pannick
From a modest height, I am very concerned that Clause 36 will undermine the essential role of the independent reviewer. The current holder of the post, David Anderson, and his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, have achieved a remarkable degree of success. They have commanded the confidence of the public and of the NGOs that have expertise in this area. They have also commanded the confidence of the intelligence services and the Government. To command the confidence and, indeed, the respect of all these different constituencies is a deeply impressive achievement. However, that confidence and respect have necessarily depended on the personal independence, integrity and judgment of those who have performed this role. The job cannot be done by a committee. The clause is silent on whether the independent reviewer will share all the secret information with the board. If so, there is a real danger that he will not, in practice, be given such free access to confidential information in the future. If he is not to share the information with the board, I cannot see how it can do much to advise and assist him.
My other concern is that Mr Anderson, as has already been mentioned, has limited time to devote to the primary task of reviewing counterterrorism legislation. The very last thing that he needs is a committee structure that will inevitably use up his finite time which would be far better spent on the front line on essential activities of reviewing the operation of the relevant legislation. For all the reasons that have already been given and for these reasons, Clause 36, certainly in its current form, is a very bad idea. I hope that the Government will fundamentally reconsider it in the limited time before Report next Wednesday.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I absolutely agree with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the reasoning behind what he said. However, I recognise that the Government are determined to pass something like Clause 36. In looking at Clause 36(1), if there is to be some kind of board to provide advice and assistance to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, then so be it. But the only part of Clause 36 that has been really thought through is subsection (1), which merely gives the power to establish the board. It is important to be fair to the Minister and to recognise that the Government are not setting up the board by this provision, which enables the creation of regulations only if such regulations are made to set up the board.
I have a few issues that need to briefly be considered before we deal with the principal question of whether the clause should remain in its present form. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the title is inappropriate. If the title were appropriate, Mr Anderson, surely, would be retitled the Privacy and Civil Liberties Reviewer. But of course Mr Anderson would not accept that because that is not what he is. It is completely illogical to have an Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and a board assisting him entitled the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, whose prime aims are neither privacy nor civil liberties. I beseech the Minister, who is a sensible, realistic and charming man—if I may say so—to recognise that what is in the tin should be described accurately on the tin. Many who are involved in this field of work have been perplexed by this title; apparently it has some attraction to advertising and branding people.
I would like to hear my noble friend say that yes, the Government do want to have a board, albeit possibly under another title, and that it can be formed—that is, regulations could form it. But I ask my noble friend to recognise that a great deal of work is still to be done. That work cannot be done while this Bill is before this Session of Parliament. I ask him to recognise that the work will take many months and possibly even longer. It may be that the regulations will never be made because we have not yet reached the point at which we are ready to describe a board that would have some utility in the life of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
Perhaps I may close my evening here with a couple of words of Latin. I would say to my noble friend: please, festina lente.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
My Lords, it is late, we all want to go home, and the end is in sight. This grandly titled panel is a tail stuck clumsily on a donkey. Someone has grabbed an American idea and stuck it into the Bill. What is it for? Others who have spoken have asked exactly the same question, and I think that we would all be concerned if the role of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation was damaged or corroded in any way.
I congratulate the Opposition on nobly suggesting some flesh to put on this bony tail of the donkey with a number of things that they think might be worth discussing, if the board ever was to convene under a different title. It is all pretty vague stuff. What do the Government think the board will do? They have had some suggestions from the Opposition. How will the members be chosen, what will be their powers, and—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—what access to classified information will they have? No doubt all that is clear to the Government, but it is certainly not clear to me.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I have sat through the Committee debates without opening my mouth until this late stage, but if even now I can help to save the Government from expenditure on some quite unnecessary bureaucracy, it will have been worth while.
I am actually astonished that this Government, who have been so draconian in their cull of quangos and unnecessary bodies, should come forward at this late stage of the Parliament with a proposal of this sort. However, it is not just that I think that it is unnecessary. I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that it is damaging. At Second Reading I said that I feared that this was the fifth wheel on a coach which at present operates very satisfactorily. Even if that were not so and it could be shown that the body has some utility, I must point out to noble Lords how unsatisfactory it is to include this clause in the Bill in its present state. It is an empty shell. It empowers the Secretary of State to do anything she likes by way of functions, appointments and procedure, including amending any primary legislation—a Henry VIII clause par excellence.
The contents of the statutory instrument, now non-existent, are to be determined as a result of consultation. It has been pointed out that that consultation is not due to end until 30 January. There is no prospect that we will have the Government’s conclusions on these important matters about the board before the Bill passes into law. The only firm provision in the Bill is that the independent reviewer should chair the board. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved an amendment even to modify that and make it flexible. Moreover, I understand that the Government may have already changed their mind about it. That only serves to illustrate how completely undecided the Government are about this body.
I would submit to noble Lords and to the Government that it would be much better to remove the clause from the Bill at this stage and to do the further work which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has described, and which is extensive. If, after the election, the next Government wish to come forward with a board with its functions and its contribution very much better defined, and after consultation with the independent reviewer, that would be the time to make provision for a board of this sort.
Lord Bates
My Lords, this has been a good debate and I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I, too, must not be tempted at this late hour to drift off the core message before me. I was tempted, when the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, talked about camels and donkeys—
Lord Bates
Perhaps I was thinking of the aphorism that a camel is a horse designed by committee.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
May I ask if it is apposite to call the independent reviewer a donkey?
Lord Bates
Indeed, not a donkey, nor a camel, though he certainly does more than the work of both, which I guess is the point which is being made to all of us here—that is a serious point about how we support a highly effective individual in a highly effective office to do his duties more effectively. I will seek to address some of the specific points on my way through, but I give notice that part of my instructions, should I race past it on page 11 of my speaking notes, is that we will be returning to this on Report. I hope that that will provide some comfort to noble Lords as they consider what to do with their amendments at this stage.
Clause 36 is a very important clause, as it should be. It is right that as the legislative landscape changes, we pause to consider the safeguards and oversight arrangements we have in place for counterterrorism laws, to ensure that we are getting the balance right between responding to these threats and the protection of civil liberties.
Few would question the exemplary job David Anderson QC is currently doing as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, or the contribution of his predecessor. I totally take on board my noble friend’s injunction to make haste slowly and the fact that we should ensure that there is a robust independent scrutiny of some of our most far-reaching counterterrorism powers. We should be proud of the long-standing, very effective and transparent system of independent oversight that we have in the UK, but we should not rest on our laurels.
Clause 36 provides for the creation of a board which will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. As our legislative armoury necessarily increases, there is also an increasing demand for the review of particular aspects of counterterrorism legislation, and that this is a substantial task for one individual to undertake. David Anderson has himself made clear that he is operating at the very limit of his capacity and that there is a need to reform the independent reviewer’s role. It is intended that the board will provide support in the discharge of the independent reviewer’s statutory responsibilities, but also that the board will produce reports and advice to the independent reviewer, expanding the capacity and breadth of experience available to our oversight arrangements, and enabling a greater range of matters to be subject to review.
It may be helpful at this point to deal with Amendments 118F to 118J which go to the heart of a very important issue, in the same way as other amendments, in seeking to set out particular matters on which the board will report.
Clause 36 provides for regulations to be made which will be subject to the affirmative procedure and which would set out the precise detail of the board. Among other matters, these regulations will make provision about the appointment, membership and particular functions of the board. I fully expect that a number of the issues covered within these amendments may be appropriately dealt with in those regulations.
We are approaching the end of the public consultation period on 30 January, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out. The Government will consider carefully the outcome of that consultation prior to bringing forward the regulations setting out the details on how the board will operate. Of course, it is important that the comments of your Lordships in this debate and at other stages of consideration are also considered as part of that consultation.
However, I am mindful that a number of views which have been expressed in this House—
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, the Minister said that we would return to this on Report. He will presumably acknowledge that it is completely impracticable that a Report stage starting on Monday should be able to take into account the results of the consultation.
Lord Bates
That may be two different elements. It is certainly our intention to return to this issue, perhaps with a little bit more detail at that stage on how this is going to operate, whereas the full responses of the consultation will, of course, take a little longer to put in place and therefore the regulations that accompany them will also necessarily be a little bit later. It is right that in setting the board up we make clear how it will operate alongside the independent reviewer. The Government are giving careful consideration to this important point, and I hope we can return to this matter on Report, in order to deal with the substance of the concerns previously expressed by David Anderson and your Lordships on this specific issue.
David Anderson has been kept informed of the development of these proposals, and we take seriously his views on these matters. He will have a key role in determining what work the board will undertake and precisely how it will support his role. It is right that the board’s statutory remit be drawn in line with that of the role it is designed to support. Indeed, I want to assure your Lordships that, in making changes to this important area, the Government will not do anything to diminish the existing arrangements. We will, of course, continue to work closely with David Anderson in refining the details of how the board will operate. However, in my view, we should not unduly prescribe in this Bill the tasks that the board will carry out, so as to ensure that it is flexible and that it will be helpful to and genuinely enhance the capacity of the independent reviewer’s role.
I hope also that I can reassure my noble friend that Amendment 118K is not necessary. An important feature of Clause 36 is that it provides that the board will be chaired by the independent reviewer, ensuring that the reviewer role will continue to provide the vital scrutiny that it has done over the past 35 years. This will also ensure that the work of the board complements rather than duplicates—much less rivals—the very important work of the independent reviewer. I understand that David Anderson has welcomed this aspect of the clause.
I hope that I can deal swiftly with Amendment 118H, which proposes to change the board’s name. The name of the body must reflect its purpose—I appreciate the suggestion of a Ronseal test, if you like, so that it does what it says on the tin—and the Government would assert that this is very much the case here. We have been clear that the consideration of privacy and civil liberties interests in our counterterrorism legislation and policies will be a key object of the board. The board will seek to offer further assurance to the public that careful, independent scrutiny is being given to the UK’s counterterrorism powers to ensure that we are getting the balance right and that our legislation and policies have due regard for civil liberty and privacy concerns in the face of the threat to the UK. It is right therefore that the name of the board reflects this.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 118L and 118M, which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. The Bill very properly provides that the regulations to establish the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is right and proper given the significance of the issues. However, if minor changes to those regulations were to be required in future—perhaps in the light of experience based on the initial operation of the board—it would seem unnecessary, and not a good use of Parliament’s time, for all such revisions to be subject to the full affirmative resolution procedure.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered this Bill, and published a report on 15 January. The committee, having considered all the issues carefully, did not make any recommendation for change in respect of Clause 36, and I suggest that this Committee should accept that position. In the light of that explanation, and with the assurances that we will return to this on Report, I invite the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment at this stage.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He says it gives us comfort that we will return to this on Report, but unless we know what we will return to on Report, there is not much comfort there. I will not detain the Committee at this late time, but he did not answer my question about why the recommendations of the independent reviewer were not considered when the Government were looking at what to do to support the reviewer. He also did not answer my question about the Government’s selective quotes from the independent reviewer in the consultation document or my question about the independent reviewer’s appointment to the board. Most importantly, I was hoping to hear from him, but did not, a justification for the role of the board. It still seems to me that an announcement was made about a title and a body without clarity of what that body was going to do. I have to say that I still find it difficult to believe that a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board will be there to support the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—it seems a bit incongruous. However, I look forward—I hope—to seeing what is tabled on Report by the Minister and, at this stage, beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bates
“(a) sections 28 to 30 and 32;”
“(d) sections 21 and 24 to 26;”