House of Commons
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 9 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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
1. How many NHS staff have been made redundant and subsequently re-employed by the NHS since May 2010.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
9. How many NHS staff have been made redundant and subsequently re-employed by the NHS since May 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
Over the four and a half years between May 2010 and October 2014, 5,210 people—equivalent to, annually, less than 0.1% of the NHS work force—have been made redundant and then returned to work elsewhere in the NHS.
Julie Hilling
But at a time when A and E is in crisis and there are not enough nurses, how on earth can the Minister possibly justify firing and rehiring thousands of NHS staff? What greater sign could there be of a Government with their priorities totally wrong?
Dr Poulter
I am not sure I recognise that picture of the NHS. We know that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 extra nurses, midwives and health visitors working in our NHS than there were under the previous Government. Also, in respect of A and E, the average length of stay in hospital has steadily come down from about eight days in 2000 to about five days now. So our NHS is getting better and improving under the current Government.
Graeme Morrice
Last year the Prime Minister promised to recover redundancy payments from people who have been rehired. Can the Minister tell us how many payments have been recovered and at what cost?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was the previous Labour Government who in 2006 set these eye-watering redundancy payments for the NHS, and we have committed to making sure we reform and change that. Therefore, as part of our negotiations and pay offer to NHS staff we want to introduce a redundancy cap of £80,000. Since many Opposition Members are supported by trade unions, I hope they will encourage union members to back that pay and redundancy cap.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that according to the latest figures there are more nurses working in the NHS now than there were in 2010, including an additional 391 at East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust and an additional 59 at Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, the two trusts that serve my constituency?
Dr Poulter
I am delighted to confirm that, and we have made a conscious decision to reduce NHS waste and bureaucracy. NHS administration spending is down from 4.27% under the previous Government to only 2.77% now, which has resulted in £5 billion of efficiency savings and meant we can invest in about 6,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The extra NHS staff my hon. Friend talks about are welcome, but my constituents want to know that standards of care are the best as well. What progress is he making to ensure that hospital patients get the best possible care?
Dr Poulter
The most important thing we have done is support our front-line staff with additional investment in the NHS, which Labour called irresponsible, and there is about £13 billion more going into the NHS during this Parliament. We have also increased transparency to make sure that where there are isolated pockets of poor care, the Care Quality Commission can intervene and make recommendations to improve the quality of care for patients in those hospitals.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
20. Given the significant challenges facing the NHS and the fact that this top-down reorganisation has led to this hiring and firing and therefore a distraction of energy and attention at crucial times, do not the Government now regret their top-down reorganisation?
Dr Poulter
A reorganisation of NHS services that results in administration spending being reduced from 4.27% under the previous Government to 2.77% under this Government, meaning that there is £5 billion more money for front-line patient care, is a good thing. That is something the Opposition should support, because it means that patients are getting a better service.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Can the Minister remind the House of the number of extra specialist A and E doctors working in the NHS in England now compared with 2010?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is right to raise this important point. As part of our commitment to investing more money in the front line, we have been able to ensure that there are between 800 and 1,000 more doctors now working in A and E than there were under the Labour Government.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently remind the House that the question is not about staff per se in the NHS? The question is about people made redundant and subsequently re-employed. Attention to detail tends to profit a Member.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Those of us on the Public Accounts Committee have heard about the industrial scale of this revolving door of people going out of one job and into another with a fat redundancy payment. Does this not show that the Government have lost their grip on what is truly important in the NHS, which is paying front-line clinicians to serve patients?
Dr Poulter
That is extraordinary. The Public Accounts Committee will be aware that these redundancy terms were introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2006. We are committed to changing them and I hope that the hon. Lady’s party will support us in exerting pressure on the unions to support the pay deals on the table that will introduce an £80,000 redundancy cap.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
21. Yes, Mr Speaker; I am grateful. I want to ask about the number of nurses who have been made redundant. Lots of hospitals in my area are now recruiting from Spain, and I wonder whether an assessment has been made of the cost to the NHS of using nurses from abroad after making other nurses redundant.
Dr Poulter
Our NHS has always benefited from overseas staff bringing their skills and coming to work here, and we can all welcome that as long as they have a good standard of spoken English, which is something that we are putting right through the legislation that we are introducing. As I outlined earlier, there are now around 7,500 more nurses, midwives and health visitors working in the NHS than there were under the previous Government.
Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
2. What contingency plans his Department has formulated to cope with the expected increase in the number of GPs retiring before 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
In addition to the extra 1,000 GPs working in our NHS since 2010, our mandate to Health Education England will ensure that 50% of trainee doctors enter GP training programmes by 2016. This will enable the delivery of 5,000 additional newly qualified GPs by 2020.
Douglas Carswell
I am told that many young doctors are choosing not to go into general practice. That, coupled with the number of retiring GPs, is leading to real shortages in places such as Clacton. What more can be done to make general practice more attractive to young doctors, in order to offset the number of GPs who are retiring?
Dr Poulter
There have always been parts of our health service where it has been difficult to attract GPs to work; that is a long-standing problem. A new £10 million investment fund has been put in place, and a new 10-point plan is being delivered by NHS England to look at how we can better incentivise younger doctors to work in areas in which it has traditionally been difficult to recruit. I am sure that that will bring benefits to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere in the NHS.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just a matter of the total number of GPs? Quite a lot of GPs now want to work part time, and quite a lot now want to be salaried rather than being partners. Is he confident that the model that was set up in 1948, which effectively means that each GP practice is its own separate, private business, is still suitable in the 21st century?
Dr Poulter
My right hon. Friend asks an important question. We can of course support the existing model, and the innovation that comes with GPs being small businesses, and that is exactly what we are doing with the £1 billion investment fund for GP infrastructure and technology. We are supporting those GPs as small businesses to develop better patient services.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
On what is his last outing, will the Minister tell us how many GPs, in addition to those who have retired, have left the profession and how many have gone to work abroad?
Dr Poulter
It has always been the case—it was certainly the case among many of my medical contemporaries—that many people from our NHS go and work overseas for some time. They often come back to the NHS, bringing broader experience and skills. As I outlined earlier, there are now 1,000 more GPs working and training in our NHS than there were five years ago.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Following the retirement of a senior partner whom it has been impossible to replace, Dr Hadrian Moss of the Dryland GP surgery in Kettering has followed the advice of the British Medical Association and informally closed his expanded list of 2,500 patients on the ground of patient safety. He has now been taken to task by NHS England for a potential breach of contract. What is the Minister’s opinion on reconciling the views of the BMA on patient safety guidelines and those of NHS England on a potential breach of contract?
Dr Poulter
I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it is difficult for me to comment on an individual case, but I am very happy to look into the matter and get back to him about it.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Given that the needs of patients must come first and that young people are not choosing to pursue GP training as much as they used to, what discussions will the Secretary of State hold directly with the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges, the training councils and his colleagues in the devolved Administrations throughout the UK to address this issue, to prevent further congestion in accident and emergency departments?
Dr Poulter
There is a lot of work going on in this area. First, we are encouraging and supporting GPs who have had career breaks, perhaps because they have started a family, to get back into the profession more easily than they have been able to do in the past. Secondly, we also have the commitment that 50% of medical students and doctors leaving foundation training will become GPs in future. That will make sure that we have 5,000 more GPs by 2020.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
But the Government’s reorganisation took billions of pounds away from the NHS front line. Figures released last week show that fewer than a quarter of medical students now enter general practice, because they can see the pressure that Ministers have put on it, while GP morale has collapsed. Should the Minister not now admit that the reorganisation was a mistake and instead match Labour’s pledge to invest an extra £2.5 billion a year to recruit 8,000 more GPs and guarantee appointments within 48 hours?
Dr Poulter
I know that the Labour party is full of professional politicians, but medical students do not just leave medical school and straight away become GPs; they become foundation doctors. As I have outlined, 50% of the people leaving their foundation training will become GPs in future, which will increase the number of GPs by 5,000. Under this Government the number of GPs in education, training and working in the NHS has increased by 1,000, which is a move in the right direction.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
3. How many CT scans were performed at the Countess of Chester hospital in (a) 2010 and (b) 2014.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (George Freeman)
I am delighted to report to the House that the number of CT scans performed at the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust increased by 67% between 2010 and 2014. In December 2014, only 0.6% of patients waited more than six weeks from referral to test at the trust—that is rather better than the figure we inherited in 2010 of 4.9%, and I hope that the Opposition will welcome it.
Stephen Mosley
I welcome those fantastic figures at the Countess of Chester hospital. Will the Minister confirm that early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for dealing with many conditions, and that we are seeing the results of that in improved survival rates for conditions such as cancer?
George Freeman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that diagnostics play a key role in our drive to improve cancer survival, which is why we have committed £750 million to deliver our cancer strategy, including £450 million to achieve better diagnosis of cancer, and better awareness and access to diagnostic tests. Projections show that that is working; we are on track to see 12,000 more cancer patients a year surviving for at least five years in 2015, which is more than double the target of 5,000 we set ourselves in January 2011. I hope that the Labour party will agree that these are real benefits for cancer patients in the NHS today.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Cancer scanning services in Cheshire and Staffordshire have recently been subjected to a competitive tendering process, and the contract was awarded to Alliance Medical, despite its bid being £7 million more expensive than the NHS bid. Can the Secretary of State explain why the more expensive private sector bid was chosen over the better value NHS bid to provide these services? Will he commit to investigating the bidding process to ensure that the tender was conducted fairly? [Interruption.] He is chuntering from a sedentary position, but will he today confirm, because this is a matter of profound public interest, that no contact of any sort took place between his Department and the board of Alliance Medical with regard to this decision, including at any point with the current board member, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)?
Mr Speaker
Order. That was a considerable essay to which a pithy but comprehensive response is expected. The House seeks it.
George Freeman
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s chutzpah but it ill behoves him to talk to us about privatisation; it was his party that led to the increases and it is this Government who have stopped it, and he needs to acknowledge that. On the facts, in December the NHS in England performed more than 130,000 more diagnostic tests compared with December 2013. I note that he did not talk about Wales, where 24% of patients have waited more than eight weeks for their diagnostic test—the comparative figure is 2% of patients in England.
Mr Speaker
Order. The question was about Chester, so there was no particular reason to talk about Wales.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
5. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the most recent rates of cancer survival.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
6. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the most recent rates of cancer survival.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
13. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the most recent rates of cancer survival.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
This Government inherited the worst cancer survival rates in western Europe and, as we have just heard, we have invested a record £450 million in improving early diagnosis, which means that record numbers of people are being tested and record numbers of people are being treated.
Paul Uppal
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Last year, I met cancer patients and carers with the aim of looking at how we can improve cancer survival rates so that they are among the best in western Europe. The main observation was that early diagnosis is key. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely crucial that we support GPs to find and identify the early signs and symptoms of cancer so that we can improve survival rates?
Mr Hunt
That is absolutely right. What is said by everyone who has been wrestling with this problem about why our survival rates are not as good as we want them to be is that early diagnosis and access to the latest drugs are the two critical things. My hon. Friend will be pleased that 9,000 people in his region have accessed the cancer drugs fund and that, in his constituency, 300 more people every year are now being treated for cancer than was the case four years ago.
Mark Menzies
The excellent progress made in cancer survival rates is great news across the UK and in my constituency in Fylde. A lot of that is down to the increase in availability of diagnostic tests. Statistics from Blackpool’s NHS trust show that just under 33,000 more diagnostic tests were carried out in 2014 compared with 2010. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend commit to increasing the availability of diagnostic tests?
Mr Hunt
We absolutely can. In fact, we are carrying out about half a million more diagnostic tests for cancer every year than we were four years ago. The result is that, over the course of this Parliament, 700,000 more people are being admitted for cancer treatment in our hospitals than was the case in the previous Parliament, saving 12,000 lives every year.
Mr Walker
I welcome the Secretary of State’s answers. Improvements in radiotherapy have been a key factor in improving cancer survival rates and quality of life for patients. This month, Worcestershire is celebrating the delivery of a state-of-the-art radiotherapy centre at Worcestershire Royal hospital. I visited that £25 million oncology centre last week. With some of the most advanced equipment in the country and eight new consultants recently recruited, does my right hon. Friend agree that the centre will be a key asset in taking forward the fight against cancer?
Mr Hunt
Absolutely. It was a fantastic development for Worcestershire Royal hospital. My hon. Friend campaigned very hard for it, and it is fantastic for his constituents. Cancer treatment is expensive, which is why we can only fund developments in cancer if we have a strong economy. That is what this Government are committed to doing for our NHS.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to an excellent debate we had in the Chamber on 5 February under the auspices of the all-party group on cancer? May I also draw his attention to the uncertainty surrounding the funding of the national cancer peer review group programme? That programme has recently been reviewed and the Minister had indicated that the funding would continue. Will he take the opportunity to give a commitment to funding that peer review group, because there seems to be some doubt among the 17 national cancer charities that support its work.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) seems to be enjoying a very close relationship with his mobile phone. I hope that it profits both of them
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
On the early detection of cancer, will the Secretary of State consider putting more resources into socially deprived areas such as Halton where the incidence of cancer is higher?
Mr Hunt
We are putting more resources into Halton. In fact, we are putting more resources into the NHS across the country. We are carrying out 21,000 more diagnostic tests, including cancer tests, every year compared with four years ago, and I hope that that is something the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The all-party group on cancer and the wider cancer community have commended the Government on introducing the one-year survival rates for cancer into the delivery dashboard from April of this year as a means of driving forward earlier diagnosis. But what can the Secretary of State tell us about the work that is being undertaken to ensure that the levers of accountability are in place to push under-performing clinical commissioning groups into raising their standards on behalf of patients?
Mr Hunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his understanding of the importance of transparency. He will welcome the fact that we are now saving 1,000 more lives a month as a result of focusing on the five-year survival rates. But that transparency must apply to CCGs as well, and discussions are ongoing with NHS England as to the best way to do that for lots of things, including cancer.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Last week, we learned that the 62-day target for cancer treatment has been missed for a full 12 months:
“This isn’t just about missed targets–consecutive breaches mean thousands of patients are being failed. These targets exist to ensure swift diagnosis of cancer and access to treatment, which is vital if we’re serious about having the best survival rates in the world.”
Those are not my words; they are an exact quote from Cancer Research UK. Which bit of it does the Secretary of State disagree with?
Mr Hunt
I do not disagree with it, but I will tell the hon. Lady why we are missing that one target. Incidentally, we are hitting the seven other targets. We are treating and diagnosing so many more people, with 560,000 more diagnoses every year. That means that in this Parliament we are treating 700,000 more people than were treated in Labour’s last Parliament, saving 1,000 more lives a month. If the hon. Lady looks at some of the other things that Cancer Research UK says, she will see that it welcomes that strongly.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
7. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of Her Majesty’s Treasury’s costing of free social care at the end of life.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
HM Treasury’s costing demonstrates the limitations of data available nationally in estimating the potential costs of providing free personal care at the end of life. That is why the Department of Health is undertaking further work with stakeholders to develop an evidence base to inform the next spending review.
Dr Wollaston
I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that most people want to be able to remain at home at the end of their lives, surrounded by the people they love, and I pay tribute to all the carers, volunteers and health professionals, including Rowcroft’s hospice at home, who help to make that possible. Sadly, he will also know that often the situation can break down because of the sheer exhaustion of caring for a loved one at the end of their life. Will he commit that the Government will consider the quality of care as well as the costs when considering introducing free end-of-life social care?
Norman Lamb
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and join her in paying tribute to the work of so many people: volunteers, loved ones and the professionals working in the community. The whole emphasis should be on ensuring that we respect people’s choice about where they want to be and that they get the best possible care. Later this week, the independent review of choice at the end of life will be published and I hope that it will inform discussions. I am completely with her in trying to ensure that we can achieve this.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
One of my constituents recently went through a lengthy, distressing and difficult process to get NHS continuing care for his wife. If we remove the distinction between NHS and social care, many people across this country, including my constituent, will be spared this distress and difficulty at one of the hardest times in their lives. We know that funding should be put where it is needed and we know that that will be more cost-effective in the long run and will be better for patients, so why will the Minister not act?
Norman Lamb
Actually, we are all agreed on this. We all want free care at the end of life, but whoever is in power after the election in May will have to ensure that we understand fully the costs. There is a lot of evidence, and the evidence is growing. We are having very good discussions with groups involved in care at the end of life and we all want to achieve a solution. Of course, the truth is that very many people are receiving free care at the end of life, but they are in hospital, where they often do not want to be. I am completely with the hon. Lady in trying to achieve this.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Eight out of 10 people say that they would prefer to die at home when their time comes. Since the Government published their White Paper and said that they saw merit in social care being free at the end of life, a succession of reports from Macmillan, Nuffield and others have shown that there are savings to be made and benefits in terms of more dignified deaths and compassion for families. Is it not time to act on the evidence and make social care free at the end of life?
Norman Lamb
We very much hope that the case will stack up. As I said earlier, we are in active discussions with these groups and I held a round table with them a few months ago to discuss how we can achieve this. Everyone is agreed on the objective, but we need to understand the full costs involved before any Government can make a commitment to it.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Is there not something deceitful about the Government’s promising major changes for the next Parliament when we do not know how they will be paid for? If we want improvements to the NHS and end-of-life care in the next Parliament, Members on both sides of the House need to put before the electorate how we will pay for those important long-term changes.
Norman Lamb
I am tempted to say that that is a bit rich coming from an Opposition Member. I am sure that he would agree that whatever commitments are made, we need to understand their cost. That work is under way and I hope that as soon as we achieve a full understanding we can proceed.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
8. What assessment he has made of the potential of the genomics programme to improve cancer treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (George Freeman)
The Government’s £300 million genomics England programme, led and announced by the Prime Minister as part of our life science strategy, has the potential to improve dramatically cancer diagnosis and treatment. By sequencing the entire genetic code of 100,000 NHS patients and volunteers and combining the data with their clinical records, and launching a genomic medicine service—a world first for the NHS—we will be able to understand the genetic triggers of disease, unlock new diagnostics and identify better treatments from existing drugs.
James Morris
The number of people being treated for cancer successfully and getting appropriate diagnostic treatment in Dudley and Sandwell has increased substantially in the past five years, but does the Minister agree that harnessing genomic medicine is key to the future, and that we need to drive innovation in this field over the next 10, 20 and 30 years?
George Freeman
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right: cancer is a genetic disease, and the more we know about genetics, the more we discover about different patients’ predisposition to different diseases and drugs. That is absolutely key, and nowhere more clearly so than in breast cancer, where the HER2-Herceptin breakthrough and the BRCA2 gene are allowing us better to screen, predict and target treatment of breast cancer, freeing women from the choice of mastectomy, which has been far too dominant, and enabling us to treat breast cancer as a preventable disease.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
10. What guidance he has given to clinical commissioning groups and mental health trusts on jointly funding not-for-profit voluntary and charitable organisations providing support for people with mental health issues.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
The Government are clear that voluntary organisations and charities make an important contribution to the delivery of local health and social care services, including services that support people’s mental health needs. However, it is the responsibility of local commissioners to commission appropriate services based on their local population’s needs.
Sir Bob Russell
The Minister will be aware that although the NHS is one organisation, trusts seem to operate as silos. Will he convene a meeting of all the trusts in the Colchester area to discuss the future of the Haven project?
Norman Lamb
I visited the Haven last week with my hon. Friend, and I was enormously impressed by everything I heard, including the extraordinary testimonies of people with personality disorders who had benefited so much from the Haven’s service. In my view, it would be incredibly sad and very worrying if that service were to be lost. I am happy to invite the clinical commissioning group and the mental health trust to a meeting in the Department to discuss how it can be saved.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I recently met the five UK Youth Parliament Members from Rotherham, who talked about the lack of facilities for mental health help in education, both further education and state education. May I say to the Minister that it is all right saying that it is up to local commissioning groups, but where is the leadership, when our young people are being left in extremely difficult situations and are seen by some professionals but, sadly, not health professionals?
Norman Lamb
The local Members of the Youth Parliament the right hon. Gentleman met make an incredibly important point. I refer him to the children and young people’s mental health and well-being taskforce, which will report very soon. I think that the role of schools will be crucial in its conclusions, and I encourage him to look at the report when it emerges.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The latest figures show a huge rise in the number of young people with a mental illness turning up at A and E. Young people not getting the help they need early on and becoming so ill that they need hospital care shows that the system is failing. Does the Minister accept that this Government’s decision to cut children’s mental health services at the same time as wasting £3 billion on a reorganisation has been a key factor in that failure?
Norman Lamb
This Government have absolutely not made any decision to cut children’s mental health services, and the hon. Lady knows it is misleading to suggest otherwise. These decisions are taken by local commissioners in local authorities and CCGs. Indeed, we have legislated for parity of esteem for mental health. I urge her to look at the outcome of the work of the children and young people’s mental health and well-being taskforce, which I think gives us a real opportunity to improve the way in which services operate.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
11. How many nurses per million population were working in the NHS in each of the last five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
The full-time equivalent number of nurses, midwives and health visitors working in the hospital and community health services in England per million population from September 2010 to September 2014 inclusive has remained broadly constant at 5,872, 5,768, 5,703, 5,712 and 5,781 respectively.
Steve McCabe
In response to 11 parliamentary questions that I submitted in the past year, the Minister has admitted that he does not know how many part-time, agency and locum GPs are in the health service, the number of agency and part-time nurses, the number of part-time doctors in our hospitals, or how many working nurses and midwives are also drawing their pensions. Given that he has so little detail on staffing, where did today’s figures come from, and what faith can anyone have in them?
Dr Poulter
They are in the monthly staff statistics survey. As the hon. Gentleman would like some detailed information, I am sure he will be pleased to hear that in his constituency there are now 386 more nurses than there were in 2010 under the previous Government, and nationally there are 7,500 more nurses, midwives and health visitors working in the NHS.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and with the nursing profession that if nurse staffing levels on acute hospital wards fall below one registered nurse to seven acutely ill patients, excluding the registered nurse in charge, it will significantly increase the risk to patient care and result in avoidable excess deaths?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this many times and I do not agree with him, as he knows. What is important is that patients are assessed on their clinical needs. A rehabilitation ward will need a different number of nurses—indeed, it may need physiotherapists and occupational therapists—from intensive care nursing, which often requires one-to-one care, so setting arbitrary staffing ratios is not in the best interests of patients.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister accept that the issue is not just broad numbers, but the shortage of specialised nurses in many departments, certainly in Calderdale and Huddersfield, where we are finding it difficult to recruit the right qualified nurses for very specialist tasks, as well as the doctors to go with them?
Dr Poulter
In many parts of the country we are seeing more specialist nurses working, particularly in areas such as diabetes, and supporting patients with complex care needs. As we need better to support people with those complex care needs at home in their own communities, the Government will continue to invest in specialist nurses not just to provide care in hospital, but to work in the community at the same time.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Russells Hall hospital is being forced to lose one in 10 staff, which could include midwives, to deal with Government efficiency savings of £12 million every year. This morning the hospital’s chief executive has written to me and says that these
“excessive efficiency requirements place care at risk”.
She goes on to say that
“the financial challenge has reached unviable levels”
and that NHS providers
“can no longer guarantee sustainable and safe care”.
What will it take for Ministers to listen not just to us, but to NHS staff, and ensure that hospitals such as Russells Hall have the resources they need to provide care for local people?
Dr Poulter
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that, as part of our winter pressures funding, Dudley received £3.5 million to support the hospital during a difficult winter period. There are now 69 more doctors and 324 more nurses, of whom 29 are extra midwives, working in the area than in 2010.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
12. What discussions he has had with (a) the Haven project in Colchester and (b) NHS bodies in north Essex on the need for continuing funding for support for people with moderate to severe personality disorder.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
My right hon. and noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for quality responded in February 2014 to correspondence from the client chair of the Haven project about its funding. As I said a few minutes ago, decisions on NHS funding are a matter for local commissioners, but I will invite North East Essex clinical commissioning group to meet to discuss the issue in more detail.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking such a close interest in the matter, and for the visit paid by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). Although I understand the huge cost pressures on the CCG, may I invite my right hon. Friend to study the Enable East report, which made a different recommendation on how the unit should be treated? It would be sad to close the leading example among 11 Department of Health pilots, when all the other 10 are being kept open as the lessons learned are so valuable.
Norman Lamb
I am very much aware of the work that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) have done on this. It is interesting that all the other 10 pilots have continued. They are part of NHS trusts. This is the only one run by a voluntary sector organisation. It is an incredibly valuable service. I was struck by the extent to which people said how much they had reduced their hospital in-patient admissions as a result of the incredibly impressive preventive work that this service provides, and I want to look into it further.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
14. What support the Government are giving to people with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
The Government acknowledge the challenge posed in supporting patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which encompasses a complex range of conditions with a wide variety of symptoms. Diagnosis and investigation of suspected EDS takes place in dedicated regional genetics clinics, with specialist clinics, as my hon. Friend will know, at Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and London North West Healthcare NHS Trust.
Andrew Griffiths
People in Burton have raised £130,000 to pay for a life-saving operation that is not available in the UK for Nina Parsons, my constituent, who suffers from EDS. I have another constituent, Sarah Pugh, who is having to pay for vital physiotherapy and an MRI scan. Will my hon. Friend look at what more can be done to help people suffering the misery of EDS, and will she agree to meet some sufferers to discuss the matter further?
Jane Ellison
I am certainly very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about his particular constituents. I am aware of the work that he has done in his local area. He will be interested to know that in 2013 the Government published “The UK Strategy for Rare Diseases” precisely to address such issues and the complexities around them, and aspects of that strategy speak directly to the challenges that he has just outlined. May I also take this opportunity to mention that there is an event tomorrow in Parliament organised by Rare Disease UK to mark rare disease day, at which the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), will be speaking?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
15. What estimate he has made of the number of admissions to A & E in the last three years for patients with palliative care needs in (a) areas with a 24-hour palliative care helpline or palliative co-ordination centre and (b) areas that do not offer such services; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
We know from local examples that areas that offer 24/7 community palliative care services have been able to reduce the number of A and E attendances and inappropriate hospital admissions, including emergency admissions, for people with palliative care needs. I would encourage all areas to offer these services in line with the NICE quality standard.
Philip Davies
A poll conducted by Sue Ryder shows that 82% of people expect advice to be available 24/7, yet only 8% of CCG areas have a dedicated around-the-clock palliative care helpline and co-ordination centre. As I am sure we all agree, carers do wonderful work and need as much support as possible. Will my right hon. Friend’s Department work with Sue Ryder and others to ensure that there is a dedicated 24/7 palliative care service, which would certainly help to take the strain away from A and E, which is already under great pressure?
Norman Lamb
I pay tribute to the professionals in my hon. Friend’s area, which is one of the leading areas for providing strong support in the community, which prevents unnecessary hospital admissions. I am very happy to work with Sue Ryder and others to try to get the message across that if this can be provided throughout the country we will improve the experience of people at the end of life, but critically also save costs further down the line by stopping inappropriate hospital admissions.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
16. What his priorities are for improving mental health care.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
Mr Speaker, you sounded a note of tedium in calling my name again.
Mr Speaker
I feel no sense of tedium but almost a state of ecstasy upon calling the right hon. Gentleman. If I gave any other impression, I most heartily apologise to him. I hope that he is now assured of his status in the affections of the Chair, if, possibly, also of the House? There might have to be a Division on that proposition. I do not know.
Norman Lamb
I am so grateful to be reassured, Mr Speaker.
Mental health is a priority for this Government. We have legislated for parity of esteem between mental and physical health, invested £400 million in talking therapies, significantly reduced the numbers of people who are placed in police cells during mental health crises and are introducing the first waiting times standards for mental health services from April this year.
Mary Macleod
I recently met a constituent at one of my advice surgeries who had been refused NHS mental health care because she was told that she was entitled to only one batch of free support. Considering how complicated and varied mental health issues can be, is there anything we can do for people who need more support after a relapse of mental ill health?
Norman Lamb
If that was the advice the hon. Lady’s constituent received, it is complete and utter nonsense. The idea that someone can have only one episode of care under the NHS is so ridiculous that it hardly merits a proper response. I urge her to encourage her constituent, with her support, to go back to those local services and ensure that she gets further support if she needs it, as she is entitled to it.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
17. What assessment his Department has made of the future role of community hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (George Freeman)
Community hospitals can play a hugely important role in the 21st-century NHS. The NHS “Five Year Forward View” explicitly recognised the role of smaller hospitals, including community hospitals, as part of the new care models towards which we need to evolve. Specific local commissioning decisions are rightly taken by local clinical commissioning groups, reflecting local need.
Neil Parish
We have excellent hospitals in Tiverton, Honiton, Axminster and Seaton, and there could be a much greater link between them and the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. For example, patients could be moved to the community hospital in Axminster after acute operations, thereby creating space at the RD and E and keeping Axminster hospital open with beds, which the population is keen to see.
George Freeman
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tireless work on this matter. I know that he recently met the Secretary of State to discuss it and that he has been very active locally and here in Parliament. He is right that local community hospitals can play a key role in supporting patient convalescence, providing particularly good care in the community close to home, which is convenient for elderly patients, and relieving pressure on acute hospital beds. You do not have to take it from me, Mr Speaker; take it from Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England. He recently said:
“A number of other countries have found it possible to run viable local hospitals serving smaller communities than sometimes we think are sustainable in the NHS…The NHS needs to abandon a fixation with ‘mass centralisation’”.
I hugely welcome that.
Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)
18. With reference to the recent Francis report, if he will investigate (a) the case of Meirion Thomas at the Royal Marsden hospital and (b) cases where staff have been disciplined or required to sign confidentiality agreements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
The Government welcome any individual who has the courage to shine a light on malpractice, wrongdoing or patient safety issues in the NHS, and the House will be well aware that that is something the Secretary of State has very much championed. Professor Thomas has a right to express his views on the health service and on wider issues, and I understand that the trust has confirmed that. The Department is not responsible for investigating cases involving individual members of staff, but I want to be clear that confidentiality agreements cannot be used to prevent individuals from making a protected disclosure in the public interest.
Mr Robathan
I am glad to hear that, and I note that the Secretary of State has had dealings with Professor Thomas. However, I think it is very important that this is looked at closely in the light of the Francis report. If it is the case, as is said in media reports, that Professor Thomas has been forced to sign a confidentiality agreement—a so-called gagging order—I think that is disgraceful and shows a very dire state in the NHS in the Royal Marsden. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that.
Jane Ellison
I can only reiterate this Government’s complete commitment to openness when it comes to patient safety and say again that confidentiality agreements cannot be used to prevent individuals from making a protected disclosure in the public interest.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
22. What plans he has for the NHS in west London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
Clinicians in west London are leading a process that is very much aimed at improving services for people in west London. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the local NHS is pressing ahead with the implementation of service improvements as part of the clinically led reconfiguration programme, “Shaping a healthier future”.
Mr Slaughter
The Minister does not sound very convinced by that herself. I wonder whether she saw the comments from the College of Emergency Medicine yesterday, which said that attempts to dissuade people from going to A and E have been a dismal failure and that what we should do is locate primary care services alongside A and E. That is the model we have at Charing Cross hospital and in the rest of west London, and it is succeeding. What is failing is the closure of emergency departments, which is creating an intolerable strain. Will the Government look again at the issue? Will you stop closing A and Es in west London?
Jane Ellison
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has a dismal track record of campaigning on this issue. We have all seen the leaflets being put out in west London. I can only say to his constituents that in the run-up to the election they would glean more from reading their tea leaves than from reading his leaflets if they want to know the truth about the NHS in west London.
Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
At the end of this Parliament, and before returning, I trust, to the same side of this Chamber in late May, I am pleased to update the House on NHS work force numbers. On the back of a strong economy, our NHS now has more doctors, nurses and midwives than ever before in its history, including 7,500 more nurses and 9,500 more doctors. The result is 9 million more operations during this Parliament than the previous Parliament, fewer people waiting a long time for their operations, and a start in putting right the scandal of short-staffed wards that we inherited and were highlighted by the Francis report. Indeed, last year the Commonwealth Fund said that under this Government the NHS has become the safest, most patient-centred and overall best health care system in any major country.
Mr Speaker
Let me point out that topical questions and answers should be brief. It is a rank discourtesy—[Interruption.] Order. It is a rank discourtesy to the House to expatiate at length and thereby to deny other Members the chance to put their questions. It will not happen. Simple, short, factual answers are what is required.
Sir Nick Harvey
In the past couple of days, a number of Devon and Cornwall hospitals have declared black alert status, meaning, essentially, that they are full and cannot cope with any more demand. Do Ministers therefore understand the public concern that the clinical commissioning group is considering closing beds in community hospitals, including Ilfracombe and South Molton in my constituency? Can anything more be done to help rural health economies that are trying to restructure but already struggling to cope with existing demand?
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
Let me take the Secretary of State back to a subject he likes to avoid—NHS privatisation. He tries to deny that it is happening on his watch, but we heard earlier about the ideological privatisation of cancer scanning in Cheshire and Staffordshire, despite its being more expensive than the NHS bid—and now it could get much worse. On the Friday before the recess, the Government sneaked out the public contracts regulations, which require NHS contracts worth over €750,000 to be opened up to full EU competition. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is indeed the case in these regulations, and can he explain what mandate he has from the public to open up the NHS to private bidders across Europe?
Mr Hunt
Since the last time the right hon. Gentleman and I met, the King’s Fund has published its assessment of the NHS reforms over the past few years, and its words were:
“Claims of mass NHS privatisation were and are exaggerated”.
He knows perfectly well that outsourcing grew at double the rate under the previous Labour Government than it has grown under this Government.
Andy Burnham
The King’s Fund report said that as a result of the Secretary of State’s reforms there is
“greater marketisation of the NHS”.
People will notice that he failed to answer my question. That is because he wants to sneak these plans through under the radar. I serve notice on him today that we will fight him all the way, right to the very last day of this Parliament. If passed, these regulations will mean that almost every NHS contract will be forced to be advertised across Europe, shattering the promise he made to protect the NHS from EU competition law. Is it not now abundantly clear that he has forfeited the public’s trust on the NHS, and that five more years of this Government will lead to huge acceleration in NHS privatisation?
Mr Hunt
I repeat:
“Claims of mass NHS privatisation were and are exaggerated”.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the reforms, let us look at a country that did not have them—Wales. The number of people waiting too long for A and E is nearly double that in England, the number of people waiting too long for urgent ambulances is nearly double that in England, and the number of people waiting for operations is 10 times that in England. That is our record—it is a record of success.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
T3. Not enough GPs want to practise in rural Wales. I am told that one of the reasons is that GPs registered in England have to go through a bureaucratic process to be able to work in Wales. Will my hon. Friend the Minister work with the Welsh Government to ensure that we have a common registration process so that GPs can move between England and Wales without having lengthy, time-wasting new bureaucracy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
I am very happy to look into that issue and to do what we can to support our NHS work force to move as freely as possible between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. GP numbers in England have increased because we have protected the NHS budget, unlike in Wales, where it has been cut by the Labour Administration.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
T2. A recent Ashcroft poll shows that only 15% of the public think that this Government have the best approach to running the NHS. Will the Secretary of State stand up at the Dispatch Box and apologise for his top-down reorganisation of the NHS and his Tory privatising Health and Social Care Act, and accept that the public will never trust the Tories with the NHS?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
I will tell the hon. Gentleman what the public think about the NHS: last year, under this Government, dissatisfaction was at its lowest ever level and satisfaction jumped the highest among Labour voters. And where did satisfaction go down? In Wales.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
T5. I have previously made Ministers aware that there are no beds for females in Dorset who need intensive psychiatric care. Our local newspaper, the Daily Echo, reports that such places will not be provided in Dorset for another three years. Meanwhile, patients are being sent as far away as Bradford. Do Ministers regard that as satisfactory? Are there enough resources coming to Dorset, or is it a local organisational issue?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
No, I do not regard that as satisfactory and I am happy to talk to the local commissioners. We have ensured that there will be real-terms increases in mental health funding for 2015-16, and that should be regarded locally as a matter of urgency.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
T6. Bolton’s accident and emergency department has been in crisis recently, partly because the clinical commissioning group closed the town’s walk-in centre. Will the Secretary of State support my petition calling for its reinstatement, or will he say, more predictably, “It’s not me, guv; I’m just the Secretary of State for Health”?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
I am accountable for what happens in the NHS, so let me tell the hon. Gentleman what is actually happening in Bolton: compared with four years ago, 2,756 more people are being seen at A and E within four hours. That is a record of investment and success.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
What alternatives do clinical commissioning groups have to a full-scale commercial procurement when their existing contracts for community health services approach the time when they have run their course?
Norman Lamb
That is a matter for local commissioners. There is no requirement on them to tender competitively if their judgment is that it is right for the local community that services remain with the existing provider. We have been very clear that that is a matter for local commissioners.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T7. My constituent Wilma Ord was prescribed Primodos in the 1970s, an oral hormone pregnancy testing pill that she blames for her daughter’s birth defects. As the Secretary of State is aware, it was announced back in October that an inquiry would be established to look into the whole issue. What progress has been made in setting up the inquiry and what assurances can he give my constituent, and the many other women and families affected throughout the country, that the inquiry will be fully comprehensive, transparent and independent?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (George Freeman)
I am delighted to report that I have met colleagues from across the House and patient representatives of that campaign on a number of occasions. We have appointed the chair and made sure that the terms of reference for the inquiry are clear and comprehensive. It is not, I stress, a judicial inquiry; it is a medical inquiry looking at the evidence.[Official Report, 19 March 2015, Vol. 594, c. 1MC.]
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
A constituent of mine has pointed out that, despite it being a long-term condition, drugs for cystic fibrosis are not subject to an exemption from prescription charges, apparently because, when it was first diagnosed, it was considered to be only a children’s disease. Will Ministers look into this anomaly?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
This issue came up in a debate on cystic fibrosis last year and I am very happy to look at it again. I looked at it subsequent to that debate, in response to an inquiry from, I think, the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), but I am happy to look at it again and get back to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
T8. When I asked the Minister last June what guarantees he would give to GP practices at risk because of the withdrawal of the minimum practice income guarantee, I was told that NHS England would ensure threatened practices “get to the right place.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 400.]Over the past seven months, those discussions have not alleviated the threat to two highly regarded practices in my constituency that face closure. Will the Minister agree to meet me and representatives of the practices to discuss what is really happening, and to consider what can be done to save them?
Dr Poulter
I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that the move away from the historical funding formula towards a per head or capitation formula is a move in the right direction. If there are certain local concerns, I am very happy to meet him to discuss them.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
May I commend the Government on raising the priority for dementia in their announcement last week? Will the Secretary of State and the Department of Health put all their resources behind towns such as Newark, which are trying to establish themselves as dementia-friendly towns and are working with shopkeepers, banks and the business community to make it easier for older people with dementia to lead fulfilling lives?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
I commend my hon. Friend on his work in that area. People with dementia want to lead as normal a life as possible, and being able to go out to the shops is one very important thing they want to continue to do. We now have 1 million dementia friends in this country. That is a great step forward, and with his help we will do even more.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
When does the Secretary of State expect NHS England to confirm a date for the national tariff for the supply of prosthetic services and equipment? The lengthy and, quite frankly, unacceptable delay on his watch is now causing really serious issues for those who need prosthetics, as well as for those who want to deliver the services.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
In addition to the work that Monitor does on tariffs for individual pathways, what work has it done to assess the base funding that acute hospitals need to maintain core services, which are so interdependent?
Mr Hunt
Monitor has done extensive work on this issue, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about it. If we are to meet the financial challenge that the NHS faces over the next five years, we need to have a very sensible discussion about what realistic efficiency gains need to be made, and I am sure that he will engage in those discussions.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
Medway clinical commissioning group is looking at putting GPs at the front of our accident and emergency department to help relieve pressures on emergency doctors. Do Ministers believe that that is a promising way forward?
Dr Poulter
There is certainly a lot of benefit from having general practice co-located alongside A and E so that people with more minor ailments or concerns can be seen by GPs. That can often take the pressure off A and E services, but more senior expertise is also on hand when required.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what steps he is taking to prevent avoidable deaths from sepsis?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
I am absolutely happy to do that. Overall, we have 1,000 avoidable deaths every month by some estimates, and a number of those are from sepsis. We have launched a big campaign to prevent those deaths. Indeed, we will shortly have the results of the Morecambe Bay inquiry, from which I think we will hear more about the issue. I want to thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning and her work with the all-party group on sepsis to raise awareness of this very important issue.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
GPs across the north-east say that they are facing a work force crisis, with falling numbers of family doctors. Does the Secretary of State not recognise the connection between people being unable to get an appointment to see their GP and the rising and major pressure on our A and E department?
Dr Poulter
I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to support the plans we have put in place to ensure that we increase the number of GPs by 2020, and to ensure that 50% of doctors leaving foundation training go into careers in general practice.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
In order to combat fraud, the previous Government quite rightly introduced five-year prescription charge exemption certificates. Now that the certificates are coming up for renewal, people are finding that they have to pay for their medicines once their certificate has expired, and they have even been fined. Unlike for a TV licence, there is no renewal reminder. Will the Government look at how to ensure that people are told they need to renew their prescription exemption certificates?
Dr Poulter
As my hon. Friend will be aware, 90% of patients receive free prescriptions either because they are older—over the age of 60—or because of long-standing or other factors. If his constituents are running into difficulties and have problems with renewing their certificate, I am very happy to look into that and to meet him to discuss it further.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Despite assurance from the Prime Minister, it is now clear that the drug Translarna will not be available until after NHS England has concluded its internal consultations. The Secretary of State and others have told me repeatedly that they have no control over the issue, but can the Minister give the House any idea when the drug will be available for young boys suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy in this country, in the same way as it is across Europe? The drug is saving young boys from going into wheelchairs earlier. Does the Minister have any idea when it will be available?
George Freeman
I have had a number of meetings with patient groups, campaigners and charities over recent months, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that due process is important. NHS England is looking at whether to make an interim ruling on the drug in advance of a decision by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and I have worked with NICE to ensure that its process is accelerated. We should get a decision from NICE this summer, and I hope that NHS England will make a rapid decision based on that judgment.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but as usual demand has exceeded supply.
Points of Order
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a genuine request for information, because I am ignorant about this matter. On 13 January, I forwarded correspondence from one of my constituents to the Prime Minister. My constituent was very concerned about what he perceived to be the Prime Minister’s wish with regard to encrypted communications
“to enable the government to snoop”
on the private individual.
As the months passed and I received no response, I followed the matter up, and on 23 February I received a copy of a letter sent directly to my constituent. It is on Conservative party paper and comes from the political correspondence manager at No. 10 Downing street. The correspondent was sorry to read of my constituent’s concerns and stated:
“The Conservative manifesto will therefore make very clear that a Conservative government will introduce the legislation”.
The final sentence of the letter states:
“I do hope you find this reassuring and that you will feel able to support us in the months and years ahead.”
It was my understanding that no humble Back-Bench MP was ever allowed to use their parliamentary offices or salaries for party political campaigning. It is also my understanding that No. 10 Downing street does not become the property of its incumbent’s political party. I would be grateful for your advice, Mr Speaker, about precisely to whom I can address my concerns about what strikes me as totally unacceptable behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker
Although I understand the considerable unhappiness that the hon. Lady might feel and that her constituent has experienced, it is not clear to me that this is a matter for the Chair. I say that in all sincerity—I have had modest advance notice of the matter, and it is not clear to me. The question of the letterhead is not a matter for the Chair; it may well have been judged proper in the circumstances to volunteer a view as to what a party to the coalition would intend for the future, rather than to purport to speak on the behalf of the coalition Government as a whole. In other words, it might be thought by some people to be a prudent judgment to answer on behalf of a party on party note paper, rather than on the part of a Government. That may be a matter of opinion.
I take what the hon. Lady says seriously, not least because she does not regularly raise points of order—certainly not frivolous ones that, believe it or not, some people are inclined to make. I therefore treat her with great seriousness. She will be with us, fortunately, in the House for a little while longer, and I feel sure that there will be an opportunity for her to air her concerns. She will look at the Order Paper and see what opportunities for questioning there are, and she will draw from her study the appropriate conclusion. Perhaps we can leave it there for now.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you do not consider this frivolous. You gave me a very considered reply when I asked for guidance on the unique situation of having a fixed-term Parliament, and ministerial visits around the country. We have just had Health questions, where Ministers referred to visits to Members’ constituencies—to look at things, presumably. What guidance can you give me, Mr Speaker? We are seeing targeted ministerial visits in this long campaign, which are obviously purely political visits to prop up candidates in marginal seat. I do not mind, as I said in my previous point of order, if these are political visits and they are paid for by Conservative central office or whatever. What I object to are political visits by Ministers to marginal seats, such as those in west Yorkshire, being paid for by the taxpayer. Can you guide me as to whom I complain to, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for his point of order, is that if he thinks there has been an abuse of public funds, it is open to him to raise that matter with the National Audit Office. However, the question of Ministers’ visits is not, and very properly not, a matter for the Chair. The only point I would make is that Ministers must visit the Chamber in order to answer questions—that is a matter of course—and Ministers must visit the Chamber, at the instruction of the Speaker, to answer urgent questions, something that happens rather more now than in the past. Beyond that, the day-to-day activities of Ministers—where, when, for how long, or in whose interests they perambulate around the country—is, thankfully, not a matter for me.
Mr Speaker
I do want to come on to the ten-minute rule motion, but—[Interruption.] Unlike some people, who are tolerant of the sound of their own voices but spectacularly uninterested in those of others, I will hear the hon. Gentleman. If there are a few Members who do not like it, they will have to lump it.
Mr Sheerman
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to make myself unpopular with anyone, but I would like guidance on a matter similar to that which I raised in a point of order two weeks ago: Ministers coming to constituencies and not telling the constituency MP. They are telling Government MPs, but not Opposition MPs. That is breaking a convention that this House has honoured for a very long time.
Mr Speaker
On that point the position is clear: it is a convention and not a rule. The convention should be honoured. What I have said many times in response to protests from Members on both sides of the House, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that the spirit of the convention should be observed. What that means is that a Member should give decent notice to the person whose constituency he or she is intending to visit, of the fact of that prospective visit. That is pretty clear, but it ought not really to be necessary for it to be constantly aired on the Floor of the House. I think people outside this place attending to our proceedings, who are often very critical of the way in which we conduct ourselves, would expect that grown-ups could treat each other with courtesy and respect in this matter, and indeed, perhaps, in a good many others.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), but may I just make the point that the more Ministers visit my constituency, the more my support grows? I am making no complaint.
Mr Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I repeat the point I have often made. The hon. Gentleman has served without interruption in the House since 1979, so it is coming up to 36 years in the House without a break. Before that, he served for four years in a different constituency from 1966 to 1970. The hon. Gentleman is now a celebrated denizen of this House and he must be doing something right.
Nature
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set biodiversity and other targets for 2040; to establish a Natural Capital Committee; to require local authorities to maintain local ecological network strategies; to identify species threatened with extinction; to make provision for access to high quality natural green space; and to include education about the natural environment in the curriculum for maintained schools.
The idea of our green and pleasant land is more a part of the Great British identity than of any other country I know—more than the rainforests of Borneo or the rolling savannah of the Serengeti. In recognition of the importance of our environment, the House has pioneered laws that have changed the world by protecting nature. Even as the bombs of the second world war were falling, MPs from all parties were debating how recovery would depend on protecting and restoring our natural landscapes. Looking back in Hansard, I found that hon. Members were urging the Government, especially in view of the new national health crusade, to take action on
“the countryside and its amenities, including the reservation of areas of natural interest against disorderly development and spoliation and the improvement of their accessibility to the public.”—[Official Report, 9 December 1936; Vol. 318, c. 2132.]
Even a century ago, people knew that our countryside was vital to people’s health and well-being.
With cross-party support, visionary MPs introduced the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to protect our national parks and areas of outstanding beauty. Since then, the House has legislated to protect thousands of species, in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and to provide countryside access for everyone, in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and it was the first in the world to create binding national targets to tackle climate change. I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition for reaffirming those vital commitments last week. That announcement was reported and commended around the world.
Today, I am proposing a nature and well-being Bill to take us further. We are the generation of David Attenborough and “Springwatch”. We are also the Danny Boyle generation—probably the only people in the world to understand why the Olympic opening ceremony started off with a flock of sheep and some farmyard geese. We all understand that nature is a part of our lives and a part of our identity, but we are also the generation that could preside over a terrible loss. We know that 60% of our native species are in long-term decline and that more and more of our countryside and wildlife are disappearing. Unless we do something about it, many of the next generation will never see a house sparrow in London, hear the song of the turtle dove or cuckoo, or smile at a hedgehog snuffling along their garden path.
Ultimately, nature’s loss is our loss too. No Government can meet their social and economic objectives at the expense of nature, and it is impossible to create a sustainable economy while we continue to take more from our natural world than we put back. Perhaps the most obvious example is our fisheries. Restoring our fish stocks to the levels of 50 years ago could bring in £1.4 billion a year and revitalise our seaside economy—one has only to ask the fishermen whose lines come up empty because the sea has been trawled to ruin. Or think of the bees. The Environment Secretary has rightly recognised the importance of nature’s pollinators to our farming sector—the biggest manufacturing sector in Britain—and I understand that she even has bees on the roof of DEFRA.
Neither will we ever have a truly fair society with a decent standard of living while environmental inequality remains, because it is the poorest and most vulnerable people who live along the most polluted streets, with no access to green space. It is a travesty that people still die years earlier in some places than in others because the air they breathe is dirtier and they have no safe green places to walk in or exercise. Natural England has estimated that we could save £2.1 billion for the NHS every year if everyone had decent access to nature.
We all want nature because, frankly, it is brilliant, but we also need it for our livelihoods. The first thing to do is to admit there is a problem and then make a commitment to change. I know that targets might not be in vogue in this House—there are people who do not always agree with them—but people outside this place understand what they mean, and I want to tell people that we will be the first generation ever to turn around nature’s decline. I want us to make that promise and to set targets for wildlife sites and species, with regular reporting to Parliament. In the next 25 years, we should ensure that British biodiversity is richer than today, measured by an index of wildlife. We should make sure that our most precious landscapes—places such as the north Norfolk coast, which I was lucky enough to visit last week—are in better condition than today.
We all know, however, that targets are pointless unless they help to change the way we behave, which is why I am also proposing new ways to put nature at the heart of decision making.
The present Government created the Natural Capital Committee, and the last Government conducted the national ecosystem assessment. That amazing work has begun to show how crucial our natural world is for our businesses and communities, but we routinely ignore our need for nature in the way in which we make decisions. I want to do what the Environmental Audit Committee recommended and set the Natural Capital Committee on a legislative footing, giving it new independence and new powers to report on progress. Its duty will be to ensure that when we make new law, the importance of nature is taken into account.
However, it is not enough to create new-fangled accounting mechanisms without changing what is actually happening in our countryside, and also in our towns and cities. One inspiring example is Wallasea island. Crossrail has recycled 4.5 million tonnes of earth from its works to build a new island, which I hope will be home to some amazing birds such as the spoonbill. Thousands of ducks and geese are already enjoying the site. Moreover, the development is expected to save £650,000 in flood defences, create new jobs, and protect the existing jobs that are supported by the fisheries and dockside businesses in the area.
We shall need a great many new homes over the next few years, so let us ensure that we provide them in a way that works for nature. The best businesses are already thinking about that. Barratt Developments has just teamed up with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to build 2,500 homes in Aylesbury. Some 50% of the development will be green space, and RSPB scientists will monitor the site over the next 20 years to ensure that we end up with more wildlife than we started with. That is good for nature, good for the people who live there, and good for business, but it must not be the exception. We need to make sure that we reward the businesses that look after nature, and that we set the right standards to help to give people what they need. That is why I am also proposing new ways in which to plan for nature at local level. Sir John Lawton has shown how important nature networks are in linking big green spaces, and the wildlife trusts have shown how mapping those spaces in local plans can help to speed up planning decisions and improve important services such as natural flood defences.
Today, our children are more cooped up than they have ever been before. The average distance between the areas where they play and their homes is a fraction of what it was a generation ago. We should set basic standards for access to green space so that everyone has a chance to enjoy nature. Of course, that does not mean that every house can have Richmond Park down the road, but it does mean that when planning decisions are made, we should consider how nature can improve people’s health, mental health and education. In built-up areas, that might mean planning for a new road bridge, or planting wild flowers to bring a patch of grass to life.
I am not alone in calling for a Nature Act. More than 20 organisations have joined the campaign for a nature and wellbeing Act, including the RSPB, the wildlife trusts, the Green Alliance and the Ramblers, as well as health and mental health charities. They recognise that even in tough times—perhaps especially in tough times—people need nature, and nature needs us.
Let me end by reminding the House that there are always great challenges for society to face. Today we are recovering from an economic challenge, but we are also planning to meet huge challenges for our NHS, and we are looking for ways in which to build enough homes. Let us follow the example set a century ago by those Members of Parliament who knew, even in wartime, that if we were to meet our biggest challenges, we would have to look after our natural world. Let us be the first generation to make a commitment in law to turn around nature’s decline, for its own sake, for our economy, for our communities and for our children. We should do that not only because nature is special—here in the House we can look at the peregrines that nest on the top of Victoria Tower, and I can see them from my office window—and not only because we need it for our economy and our health care, but because it is a part of who we are.
This will be an issue for the next Parliament, and I shall be watching all Members then. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir John Randall, Nick de Bois, Michael Fabricant, Richard Harrington, Rebecca Harris, Dr Julian Huppert, Simon Kirby, John McDonnell, Dr Matthew Offord, Miss Chloe Smith, Henry Smith and Mr Mark Spencer present the Bill.
Sir John Randall accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed (Bill 176).
Pension Schemes Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Pension Schemes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 2 September 2014 (Pension Schemes Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Steve Webb.)
Question agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this is will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 9, 44, 49, 56 to 65, and 117.
Steve Webb
I believe that the Bill is in a better state as a result of the two groups of Lords amendments that we shall discuss today. Many of them are Government amendments, designed to tidy things up or deal with errors, and some reflect their lordships’ desire for the affirmative procedure to be used in the case of certain statutory instruments. The amendments are largely technical, but I shall of course be happy to deal with them in more detail if the House wishes me to do so.
Lords amendments 1 to 9, 49, and 59 to 65 deal with defined ambition and collectives. The Bill contains key reforms to private pensions; encouraging and enabling “defined ambition” or “shared risk” pension schemes and “collective benefits”. In the following amendments, their lordships sought to refine or build on the legislation since it had left the Commons.
Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 6 introduce minor changes to ensure drafting consistency. Clause 27 provides for regulations to require a scheme providing collective benefits to wind up the whole or part of the scheme, while clause 37 provides for regulations to impose a duty on managers of non-trust-based schemes to act in the best interests of the members when making certain decisions. Both clauses refer to different types of obligation that may apply in relation to the scheme, including those that are part of the scheme—that is, provisions of the scheme—and those contained in legislation that applies to the scheme. The amendments provide for descriptive consistency in the clauses in relation to those different types of obligation.
Lords amendments 4 and 5 clarify “publication of documents” provisions. Powers in part 2 of the Bill may require trustees or managers of schemes providing collective benefits to have policies in relation to a number of matters, including the factors used to calculate member benefits, the calculation of transfer values, and steps to deal with a deficit or surplus in relation to the target. Clause 32 allows regulations made under part 2, which require trustees or managers to prepare or obtain any document, to include requirements relating to the publication of those documents and the sending of copies to a specified person. Specified persons could include members and regulators.
The publication of various policies is a key feature of the regime that we are seeking to introduce in order to ensure that it is clear how members’ assets and benefits will be managed or calculated by the scheme. It ensures that there will be transparency in regard to the way in which collective benefit assets are treated in certain circumstances, because there is a less direct relationship than there is in a money purchase benefit when it comes to a member’s entitlement in relation to contributions. We also have regulation-making powers to make certain requirements in relation to the policy. An amendment was required to put it beyond doubt that the provisions of clause 32 also apply to the policies specifically. The amendment ensures there is no possibility of a scheme’s “having” a policy that we cannot require to be published or sent to a specified person.
Lords amendment 7 puts the meaning of the amendment made by clause 45 beyond doubt. The change to section 67A of the Pensions Act in the clause makes any modification to an occupational pension scheme that would replace a member’s accrued rights with a right to a collective benefit a “protected modification”. Protected modifications can be made only if the member consents. Lords amendment 7 makes it clear that the provision applies only when the existing accrued right is not a right to a collective benefit.
Lords amendments 8, 9, 59 and 60 address an omission in the current legislation. While the changes made by the Bill were being checked, omissions in the Pensions Act 2014 came to light. The amendments that were needed all relate to overriding legislation. When legislation overrides conflicting provision in the scheme rules, there are circumstances in which that legislation needs to be treated as if it were part of the scheme rules. The amendments ensure that overriding requirements made under regulations provided for by schedules 17 and 18 to the Pensions Act will be treated as part of the scheme rules for the purposes of the Pensions Act 2004, in the case of Lords amendments 64 and 65, and subsisting rights provisions in the 1995 Act, in the case of Lords amendments 8 and 9. The amendments provide for consistency and clarity in the way in which the overriding provisions are dealt with.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of amendment 1 and those with which it is grouped. Let me make a number of points. There are two parts of this Bill, and we will come to the second part regarding the way it interacts with the pension budget flexibilities announced in last year’s Budget in a moment. I would like to put on record my thanks to the other place and particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench who have done such a sterling job on what is often a rather technical Bill. I also want to put on record my appreciation for the work done by Baronesses Drake and Hollis who have done so much to make this a better piece of legislation.
Let me pick the Minister up on a couple of things, particularly around clause 8. He referred in his explanation to clause 8 and the delegated powers contained therein. He will be aware that the debates in the other place focused for some time on the implications of clause 8 because, of course, it is a key and critical provision setting the definition of what are collective benefits, on which the rest of the clauses in part 2, and many of the associated delegated powers, depend. That is why it is so critical in its construct and its definition of the delegated powers associated with it.
In the other place, Baroness Drake made it clear that in her view the power to set regulations under clause 8(3)(b) should be subject to the affirmative procedure because a definition of what is or is not a collective benefit is critical to the whole scope of part 2, which deals with collective benefits. Clause 8(3)(b) would allow the Government to use regulations to avoid schemes being subject to the expense of meeting the detailed requirements set out in clauses 9 to 35 if they are deemed not to be proper collective benefits, but the clause, in granting the Government power to significantly alter by regulation the constituent benefits that are not included in the definition of collective benefits, has the ability potentially to remove members of schemes from the protection of the requirements in the other clauses in part 2.
The Minister will know that this could have considerable implications for members and the scope of the whole of part 2. The potential of this regulation to remove members from the protections they may already have by being in a designated collective benefit scheme which subsequently a change of regulation deems they are no longer in makes it in our view compelling that this should remain a power that is subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government’s reply to the scrutiny from the Opposition in the other place was to say, “Well, the affirmative procedure will be used in first use, but subsequently not,” but surely this is worth considering. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
In the other place, the Government gave a detailed response to this critique. As anyone who reads the debates will see, it revolved around the fact that the first use will be by affirmative procedure, but the affirmative procedure might be used in the first instance on something quite straightforward, such as that an obvious with-profits policy arrangement is not to be included in collective benefits, but the subsequent use of the regulation under the negative procedure might go-to the heart, to something much more fundamental such as an existing collective benefit scheme. We must be aware of the possibility that regulations could be used to weaken the protections scheme members have.
In response to this specific point, Lord Bourne said in the other place that the negative procedure will still provide a measure of protection, but we know that is not the level of protection that would be provided by the affirmative procedure. This is rather technical, but it does bear upon a very important aspect, which is that moving towards a negative position rather than a positive position through an affirmative vote could be a way in which the protections are weakened—I am sure against the Minister’s inclinations and desires. I would appreciate hearing his observations on that part of the debate in the other place.
More widely, much of the debate in the other place on this part of the Bill focused on clauses relating to the duties of fiduciaries or managers of the schemes. The Minister and I have had that debate a number of times, but given all the regulatory complication of setting up the independent governance committees and giving them fiduciary responsibilities to monitor the behaviour of private pension providers while exempting the private providers themselves, this just seems an unnecessary complication. Pensions are complex enough without making them that much more complex. The responsibility should be put directly on the decision makers in the pensions industry by applying a fiduciary obligation not to them themselves, but to trustees to do the job of governance throughout.
The Minister will be aware that Professor John Kay, reporting for the Government—and particularly for the yellow-tinged part of the Government, as the Minister will no doubt be aware—was clear that everyone managing someone else’s money or advising on investment should be subject to fiduciary standards of care. I have argued on a number of occasions—and if it is exhausting for me, it must be exhausting for those listening—for extending a clear fiduciary duty to those who have discretion over the management of other people’s money. The Australians have that principle at the heart of their system, and while that system is not perfect, that aspect of it makes it clear unequivocally that conflicts of interest must be resolved in favour of beneficiaries.
I am not expecting the Minister dramatically to change course at this stage, but I would just point out that the Financial Conduct Authority’s recent investigations into the pensions industry have provided substantial arguments in favour of the proposition that I and others have been advancing. We have now had numerous reports on how the market is not serving pension scheme savers well, whether they have legacy schemes or annuities, owing to a lack of transparency, charges and many other factors.
Steve Webb
As the hon. Gentleman says, we have discussed these issues before. Will he just clarify which of the amendments he is referring to, so that I can respond helpfully to him?
Gregg McClymont
I was referring to clause 8, to which the Minister has also referred, as well as referring to that part of the Bill more widely where it pertains to governance. I am sure that the Minister will be weary of the debates that we have had on these issues, and that he will be keen to set out his current thinking on this aspect of the Bill. He will be aware that this issue is central to his ambitions for collective defined contribution. If it were not, he would not have set out the Bill in this fashion.
I should like to put on record again my thanks to the other place and in particular those on the Opposition Front Bench, including the good Baroness Drake and the good Baroness Hollis. I am grateful, too, for the constructive spirit in which the Government in the other place have approached the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s observations on the issues relating to delegated powers and, more widely, on the governance of the pension schemes that he rightly wants to make permissible under the Bill.
Steve Webb
I shall respond briefly to the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am grateful to him for his comments, and I should like to extend my thanks to our noble Friends in another place for bringing the Bill forward on our behalf. I also share his respect for his colleagues, Baroness Drake and Baroness Hollis, for their knowledge and their contribution to the debates.
As the hon. Gentleman says, the issue of whether the affirmative or negative procedure is used in regard to regulations in clause 8 was debated at length. He pointed out that Baroness Drake wanted the affirmative procedure to be used in all cases, while the Government originally planned always to use the negative procedure. The Government then responded to the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and agreed that, on first use, the affirmative procedure would be used. Obviously we could say that everything should always be decided through the affirmative procedure, but there is a balance to be struck here. The Committee wanted that, but the Government do not consider that to be appropriate because we sometimes need the flexibility to act quickly if schemes are being inappropriately caught by the collective benefits definition.
There is always a trade-off in these circumstances. Sometimes in the world of pensions, things happen that we do not expect. People might be in the wrong place, for example, or their rights might be at risk or inappropriately protected, and the Government need to be able to move quickly rather than having to go through the rather lengthy parliamentary process that the affirmative procedure requires.
We accept, however, that clause 8 is a key provision and I can put on record that it is not our intention for members who are in schemes providing collective benefits, and subject to the provisions, suddenly to lose the important protection that the regulations made under part 2 of the Bill will provide. If the situation were to arise in which those protections were to be taken away, we would want to understand the situation and ensure that it was appropriate and necessary before taking action and laying regulations. As the hon. Gentleman said, even under the negative procedure there is scope for praying against the regulations if a particular concern should arise, and for a debate to take place.
Most of my experience has been from the Opposition Benches, and during the passage of primary legislation, the Opposition always seem desperate for everything to be conducted under the affirmative procedure while the Government want nothing, but many of the affirmative statutory instruments that the hon. Gentleman and I have dealt with, over the past however many years it has been, have been over in 10 minutes. We get very exercised about the need for affirmative scrutiny, but when we get to that scrutiny, it can occasionally border on the desultory. I hope that we are striking the right balance in recognising that these are important matters and providing affirmative protection on the first use and further parliamentary scrutiny on any subsequent use through the normal processes.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 11 to 43, 45 to 48, 50 to 55 and 66 to 116.
Steve Webb
This group of amendments relates primarily to the new pensions freedoms announced by the Chancellor in the Budget last year, which will generally come into effect on 6 April this year. I shall begin with the pension guidance and guarantee, now known as Pension Wise, covered by amendment 10 and amendments 66 to72. The Government intend that all those who stand to benefit directly from the new pensions flexibilities provided by the Taxation of Pensions Act 2014 should have access to guidance. The amendments to clause 47 and schedule 3 are technical amendments to ensure that that is the case.
The amendments adjust the definition of pensions guidance in new sections 333A and 137FB of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to extend pensions guidance to survivors of members who have flexible benefits, rather than just the members of pension schemes. This is needed because in some circumstances pension schemes may provide benefits to survivors of members of the scheme other than insurance-based products or cash lump sums—that is, flexible benefits—without their becoming members of the scheme.
Amendments 11 to 18 and amendment 50 provide advice safeguards. Clauses 48 and 51 were amended in the Lords via Government amendment. These contain the provisions creating the advice safeguard, which requires schemes to check that financial advice has been received before an individual exchanges their safeguarded rights for those that can be taken flexibly. Clause 48 makes provision for Great Britain, while clause 51 makes corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. Amendments 11 and 15 improve the drafting of clauses 48 and 51, while amendments 12 and 16 ensure that the requirement to take advice also applies when a member takes an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum from benefits that are safeguarded.
On Report in the other place, a second group of amendments to those clauses were made in response to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Amendments 13 and 17 specifically provide for the only exception to the advice requirement that is intended to be in effect by 6 April—namely, an exemption from checking that advice has been received in the case of those with safeguarded wealth of £30,000 and below. Amendment 50 provides that regulations creating this exception are subject to the negative procedure, while regulations creating any other type of exception are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 14 provides more detail on the nature of the “appropriate independent advice” that is to be required under the safeguard. It provides that “appropriate independent advice” must be given by an “authorised independent adviser”, who has permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to carry out a regulated activity specified in regulations. The Financial Conduct Authority sets out the standards for regulated activities in its rules, and that will allow it to set the standards for advice provided under the advice safeguard. Amendment 18 makes corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.
Let me now deal with amendments 19 to 21, 23 to 25, and 38 to 43, which are amendments to clauses 55 and 56, consequential on the Taxation of Pensions Act 2014. They allow a person to leave any remaining money purchase funds to a nominee or a successor. Schemes will be able to offer both nominees and successors a drawdown fund, so they need to be included in the clauses which deal with such arrangements. Amendments to clauses 60 and 61 do the same thing for legislation covering Northern Ireland, while amendments to clauses 72 to 74 make small changes to the definitions of terms used in part 4 of the Bill.
Let me now deal with amendments 22, 26 and 73 to 116, which are technical amendments to reflect the extension of the statutory right to transfer benefits and to ensure that the transfer process continues to operate smoothly after the requirement to take “appropriate independent advice” comes into force in April. Without these amendments there is a risk that the new transfer rights would not operate as intended after the new flexibilities come into force. Schedule 4 of the Bill amends the existing transfer rights provisions contained in part 4 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to give scheme members a statutory right to transfer a particular category of benefits, and gives scheme members with flexible benefits a statutory right to transfer these rights up to and beyond their scheme’s normal retirement age. Amendments 73, 92, 94, 96 and 115 would make consequential amendments to reflect numbering changes made elsewhere in schedule 4.
Amendments 22, 82 and 83 ensure that clause 55 and regulations under clauses 56 and 57 override any pension scheme rules which conflict with the statutory right to transfer overriding provisions for the purposes of the definition of “scheme rules”. These provisions amend the Pension Schemes Act 1993, the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004, while amendments 26, 105 and 106 make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. Amendment 75 replicates existing powers in the 1993 Act and will be used to preserve the effect of existing regulations under those powers, while amendment 98 makes identical provisions for Northern Ireland legislation.
Amendments 76 and 78 provide powers to extend the period within which a member who has received a statement of entitlement must take the cash equivalent of their accrued rights, and for the right to take the cash equivalent to lapse. Amendment 80 provides a power to extend the time in which the trustees of a scheme must do what the member requires. Amendments 88 and 89 make similar provision to extend time for pension credit members, and for trustees to act on members’ instructions. Amendments 99, 101, 103, 111 and 112 make similar amendments to the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
Amendments 79 and 102 make changes to section 98(1) of the 1993 Act and clarify that a member’s right to take a cash equivalent falls away where the trustees’ duty to carry out the member’s wishes is extinguished because they have been unable to confirm that the member has taken appropriate independent advice. Amendments 81, 86, 93 and 95 ensure that the definitions of scheme rules in the 1993 Act and the 2004 Act work for personal pension schemes. Amendments 82, 83 and 105 ensure that the definitions of “scheme rules” in the 1993 and 2004 Acts also apply for personal pensions, while taking account of any provisions that override these rules. Amendments 104, 109 and 116 do the same for Northern Ireland. Amendment 87 inserts a power to disapply the right of a pension credit member to transfer their pension credit rights in relation to prescribed descriptions of persons. Amendment 110 makes a similar amendment to Northern Ireland legislation. The remaining amendments in this group make a number of drafting, technical and consequential amendments to schedule 4 of the Bill.
Amendments 27 to 37 relate to public service scheme transfers. These are technical changes to improve drafting and ensure that the new safeguard applies where it should. The remaining amendments 45 to 48 and 51 to 55 are general amendments to part 6 of the Bill and are what are often known as the “back of the Bill” provisions. Amendments to clauses 80 and 81 would extend provisions to Northern Ireland, while the amendment to clause 84 would ensure that pension flexibilities provisions come into force at Royal Assent. I hope that what I have said has been helpful, and I commend the amendments to the House.
Gregg McClymont
The Minister raced through his text, much to the chagrin of the whole House I am sure, as we were enjoying it so much. Let me pick up on a couple of issues. We are dealing with the part of the Bill that has created some complexities because, to put it politely, it dovetails with the 2014 Act. If we were being less kind, we would say that some tensions are created because we cannot examine this Bill while, side by side, scrutinising that Act. I put that point on the record, although it has been discussed previously.
Lords amendments 13, 14, 17, 18 and 50 refer to the much-discussed guidance that those eligible to access their pension pots from April will be offered. The Minister mentioned Government amendments being tabled in the other place. Of course, the amendments are welcome, both as a necessary second line of defence and because they show that the Government are listening to the Opposition in this place and in the other place, and to the campaign led by interested pensions organisations outside the House. Why is it so important to have that second line of defence? As the Government accept, it is simply because it is one thing to offer guidance online from gov.uk, in person from citizens advice bureaux and by telephone through the Pensions Advisory Service, but what happens when an individual discusses buying a product from a provider is another thing entirely.
Much of the debate on this Bill and other pensions Bills in this Parliament has revolved around that issue. According to the FCA studies and a variety of sources, decisions often end up being much more in the interest of those selling the product than those buying it. The Government have recognised that when someone comes to consider buying a product, the provider must check that they have received the appropriate guidance, either from the services I mentioned or from other sources. It is welcome that they have accepted the argument of the Opposition and others on putting in place a second line of defence, which the Minister calls the “advice safeguard”.
That brings us to one question that relates to part of the 2014 Act, as well as this Bill: how do we ensure that individuals are equipped to make what at times are complex financial decisions about what to do with their retirement income? Much of the legislation pertaining to this important aspect lies in the 2014 Act and, on one level, is outwith the bounds of what we are discussing today. But it is important to put on the record that significant questions remain about how the guidance guarantee will work from April. That view has been heard repeatedly from those in the pensions world and I am sure that the Minister, if he is not having sleepless nights about it, is paying close attention to it.
The impact of the new flexibilities, which will be introduced from April, on eligibility for means-tested benefits was the subject of much discussion in the other place. This pertains to the guidance amendments and, more widely, to the 2014 Act, which of course goes hand in hand with the Bill. Baroness Hollis asked a series of important questions of the Minister in the other place and the Government about how this new system of pension flexibilities will work in harness with existing eligibility for benefits and, more widely, with Department for Work and Pensions benefit rules. I have to say that it is not that reassuring to hear from the Minister in the other place that all will be revealed before April. As things stand, there is still no clarity over how the new flexibilities will interact with DWP benefit rules, which will concern the whole House.
Steve Webb
I hope that I can respond helpfully to the two sets of issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I thank him for using the attractive word “dovetailing” to describe what is happening between DWP and HM Treasury legislation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the second line of defence. I think that there might have been some confusion in what he said. I apologise if the speed with which I went through my remarks put him off the scent. I had assumed that nothing I said would affect what he was going to say, which is why I went so quickly. To clarify: the second line of defence, which is the requirement on providers to ask searching questions of people choosing to do things with their pension pot, is not in the Bill at all. The amendments that refer to advice—as in independent financial advice and regulated advice—are the safeguards for people who are transferring from a defined benefit pension into a defined contribution pension with a view to accessing the flexibilities. The Bill requires them to have taken independent financial advice, and the amendments help to specify exactly what that is. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not confused. The amendments relate to the advice safeguard, which is about things such as DB to DC transfers. But he is right that the issue of a so-called second line of defence is an important one. The Government have listened. We anticipate that the Financial Conduct Authority will bring forward its detailed rules on how that should work in practice and we will be working with the trust-based pensions sector to do the same through the pensions regulator. I agree that those who raise such important issues both within and beyond the House deserve credit for doing so. I am grateful to him for the credit that he gave to the Government for listening to those concerns.
The second set of issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned were those raised by Baroness Hollis in another place about the interaction with means-tested benefits. He will know, I hope, that my noble colleagues met Baroness Hollis before Third Reading in the Lords, and another meeting is planned to ensure that her concerns are properly addressed. I can tell him that it is largely business as usual. The intention is that the principles of the current rules relating to the treatment of pension funds will remain in place after April 2015. Obviously, we are in a new world, and we will have to consider carefully the impact of pension flexibilities and freedoms on income-related benefits and social care, but the Government want to ensure that someone’s decision to use a flexible pension product does not have a significant effect on how their means-tested benefits or social care charges are assessed.
The hon. Gentleman asked one specific question. I might have some cash in an ISA that the Government would account as capital, whereas if it were in a pension fund they might not, so why not just shove it into a pension fund? It is fine for someone to transfer money from an ISA into a pension pot for the sole purpose of improving their retirement provision, as we do not mind people putting money into a pension to retire on, but if they have done it with the intention of increasing their benefit entitlement we can still take account of the money. That mirrors existing provisions. In other words, if someone has some money in the bank, blows it on a foreign holiday or a sports car and comes along and claims benefit without the capital, one thing we will ask is where the money went. We have deprivation of capital rules so that if someone has artificially engineered their finances to get within the scope of means-tested benefits, we can deem them still to have the money. In the example the hon. Gentleman gave, if someone takes their ISA balance and flips it into a pension simply so they can get more pension credit we can simply say that we will treat them as though they still had the cash.
We think it is right to treat ISAs and pensions differently. ISAs are immediately accessible and are not long-term savings vehicles, so we think that that distinction is important. I can confirm that we will continue to have our conversations with the noble Baroness to ensure that we have addressed her concerns, but the spirit of what we are doing is that of business as usual, with the same broad approach as we had before the reforms were introduced. I hope that that responds to the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and I commend Lords amendment 10 to the House.
Lords amendment 10 agreed to.
Lords amendments 11 to 117 agreed to.
House of Commons Commission Bill (Allocation of Time)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the House of Commons Commission Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at today’s sitting.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(c) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker or Chairman shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker or Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(8) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(9) (a) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8).
(b) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
(c) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith:
(i) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(ii) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
(d) The Speaker shall then put forthwith:
(i) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(ii) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
(e) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(f) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with
the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(g) As soon as the House has:
(i) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments; or
(ii) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
(10) (a) any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) (a) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10).
(b) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
(c) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(d) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(e) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with
the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Reasons Committee
(12) (a) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
(b) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(c) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(d) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (c), the Chair shall:
(i) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
(ii) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(e) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
(14) (a) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(15) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(16) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(17) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(18) The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(19) (a) Sub-paragraph (b) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(b) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(21) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
The motion provides time for the House of Commons Commission Bill to be considered today. It guarantees up to six hours of debate, with up to four hours on Second Reading and a further two hours in Committee and on the remaining stages. How much of that time is used in considering the Bill is of course a matter for the House, and it does not look as if such restrictions on debate will turn out to be necessary, but importantly the motion also provides for us to consider all stages of the Bill today. In view of the non-contentious nature of the Bill, the absence of any amendments, and the important business that follows, I am hopeful of swift progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Swift progress indeed.
Question put and agreed to.
House of Commons Commission Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I hope not to detain the House for long in considering a very short and, I think, widely supported Bill. The House is familiar with the background to the Bill, which arises from the report of the House of Commons Governance Committee, which was established following the halting of the recruitment process for a new Clerk of the House in September last year. The Committee’s report was fully debated in the House on 22 January. As I emphasised during that debate, the Chair and members of the Committee did an admirable job. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), in particular, and to the members of the Committee from both sides of the House who worked with him, because they successfully reconciled a number of different views and presented the House with a coherent package that clearly, as shown in our debate in January, commands its confidence.
Most of the Committee’s recommendations are for the House to take forward in other ways and as a member of the House of Commons Commission I can assure the House that that is exactly what is happening. The Commission has published three updates so far on progress in implementing the recommendations and will continue to keep the House informed. A very small number of recommendations from the Governance Committee that relate to the Commission require legislative action, hence the need for this Bill.
The House of Commons Commission is established under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. To meet the recommendations of the Governance Committee, the Bill has three core provisions, all of which take the form of amendments to the 1978 Act. First, the Bill increases the number of Back-Bench members of the Commission from three to four. That will allow for a wider range of views across the House to be represented and will reduce the likelihood of the Government inadvertently finding themselves with a majority on the Commission.
Secondly, the Bill provides for the appointment of two external members and two officials to the Commission. The appointment of these additional members is designed to provide a wider perspective to support the Commission’s work and to embed the closer integration between setting the strategic direction and the implementation of resulting policy decisions that the Committee called for. The evidence to the Governance Committee suggested that the link between the current Management Board, which is to become the Executive Committee, and the Commission needed to be strengthened. This amendment will provide for that to happen. As a start in that direction, the existing external members of the Management Board have been invited to attend meetings of the Commission and they have started doing so.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for finding the time to make this modest change. Can he update the House on whether it will be possible to have the Clerk and Director General in place at the beginning of the new Parliament so that these provisions can take effect immediately?
Mr Hague
It should certainly be possible to have the Clerk in place. The recruitment process is well under way and the period for applications closed last week, on 16 February, and an interview panel has been established. It is very much our intention on the Commission that a new Clerk of the House will be appointed before Dissolution. My hon. and learned Friend will recall that the Governance Committee recommended that the Clerk should be in place and in a position to be one of those determining the appointment of the Director General, so there is a sequence to this. The process of recruiting the Director General has also begun, but given that Dissolution is only 21 House of Commons days away, that will not be completed before Dissolution. It will be well advanced, however, and it will be up to the new Commission, early in the next Parliament, including the new Clerk, to complete the appointment of the new Director General.
Thirdly, the Bill adds to the functions of the Commission a specific requirement to set the strategic priorities and objectives for the services provided by the House Departments. It is important that the Commission is given this specific responsibility in view of the number of different bodies involved in the governance of the House. This amendment to the 1978 Act will place direct responsibility on the Commission to provide strategic leadership for the services provided by the Departments of the House. It will then be for the Commission to set priorities and the House administration to respond accordingly.
As a member of the Commission and, I think, like all other members of the Commission, I am very supportive of the changes proposed, which should make the governance of the House more representative, more transparent and more cohesive. We can say more about the individual provisions when we move into Committee, but I think they are straightforward and fully in line with the Governance Committee’s proposals. Indeed, we have worked with the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, with the Opposition and with officials from across the House to ensure that the Bill is consistent with the Committee’s report. I am particularly grateful for the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench in taking this forward so rapidly.
It is my firm expectation that with the support of the House today the Bill can progress through both Houses before Dissolution so as to ensure that the new Parliament can benefit from the governance of the new Commission at the earliest possible stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I begin by offering the apologies of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who is out of the country today. The task of representing Her Majesty’s Opposition therefore falls to me this afternoon.
As the Leader of the House said, we support the Bill. We thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and his Committee for the work they put in and the speed with which they produced their report, which has allowed us to make these straightforward alterations ahead of schedule.
For those who are not familiar with Commons procedures, it is worth touching on the role of the Commission. The Commission is not like a Select Committee: it does not have the powers of a Select Committee or perform a scrutiny function; it does not summon witnesses or produce reports. That role is performed by the Finance and Services Committee—to become the Finance Committee—and the Administration Committee. The Commission is a governance body. Clause 2 states:
“The Commission must from time to time set strategic priorities and objectives in connection with services provided by the House Departments.”
As the House of Commons Governance Committee highlighted, one of the defects in recent years has been that the Commission did not necessarily understand its own role, and it certainly was not understood by the wider membership of the House and beyond, so we welcome not only the changes being made but the new provision which, for the first time, I think, sets out explicitly the role of the Commission to make strategic choices.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
While the hon. Gentleman is talking about the responsibilities of the Commission and how it will work, may I ask whether it is still envisaged that the commissioners will be elected, and if so, will that be by the whole House or by the individual parties?
Thomas Docherty
I will come on to that shortly.
One of the major challenges facing Parliament when we—or perhaps our successors—return in May is the need in the next Parliament to make a decision on restoration and renewal. I pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for their work on tackling the early stages of thinking on restoration and renewal. Restoration and renewal is not optional. We will have to spend money—taxpayers’ money—and Parliament must take huge decisions on the appropriate timetable for carrying out those works and how to ensure best value for taxpayers. The Commission will have a crucial role in providing leadership, so it is absolutely right that we ensure that it accurately reflects the views of the House. It is also important that the Commission has external members who will be able to provide strategic advice. It is no criticism of Members of this House, but not all of us have business experience or are used to grappling with some of the issues that the Commission will have to deal with.
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will understand that it is not for me to speak for other parties and their internal processes. He is probably slightly more familiar than I with how the Conservative parliamentary party operates. It is clear that two of the members will be the Chairs of the Administration and Finance Committees, so that is a matter for post-election arrangements. The question was asked during the debate on the Governance Committee’s report, so let me say clearly that the Opposition do not believe that the commissioners who are not Select Committee Chairs should be paid an additional sum to carry out this work, in part because we do not believe it is appropriate in the current climate and our constituents would not regard it as sensible, and in part because serving on the Commission should not be more onerous than being a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee or, indeed, the Finance and Administration Committees. What is important is getting people who come forward and are selected by their party because they have a particular interest or knowledge.
We welcome the progress made on the appointment of a Director General. The Leader of the House is right to say that it is necessary to complete that process after the election, but we do not see that as a significant obstacle to the Bill’s progress.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I start by repeating my thanks to the Leader of the House for finding time to bring this short Bill before the House. I know it is never easy at this point in the parliamentary cycle, but it is important that the newly composed Commission proposed by the Governance Committee can start work immediately after the general election, and the Bill will enable that to happen. We will have a new governance regime for the new Parliament—something that those of us who served on the Committee were keen to achieve.
I am glad that the proposals outlined in the report are being implemented following the debate on 22 January, particularly because there was such a warm welcome from all parts of the House for the report. The Bill will help to clarify the role of the Commission as the place where the decisions on what happens in our part of Parliament are made.
Our Committee found that many hon. Members feel disconnected from the administration of the House, and our proposals will change that. In the membership, first, the number of parliamentarians will rise, with the ex officio members supplemented by four rather than three Back Benchers. My understanding is that they will be elected—perhaps the Leader of the House can confirm that—but with party balance in mind, of course, so that we do not accidentally end up with one party predominant on the Commission. Secondly, the external members will bring to the Commission experience of business practice, both public sector and private, which I am sure will be welcome. Finally, having the management on the Commission—the Clerk of the House and the Director General—will mean that those who have to implement the decisions are part of the decision-making process, which should tighten things up considerably.
I think that those improvements will maintain the important presence of the political parties and the Speaker, but increase the influence of Back Benchers because of the fact of election. The portfolios that have been suggested—assuming that that proposal goes ahead—will ensure that not only the House Committees but other important interests are represented at the top and fully understood there. The presence of the Clerk and the Director General will connect up the whole system far better. Hopefully, the changes will strengthen the House of Commons Commission, make it more responsive to Members, closer to its administration and more in tune with best practice.
We heard evidence that the Commission should be strengthened because it sometimes lacks the authority and capability to provide consistent strategic direction, and it is less good at taking a long-term view or setting a strategic framework for the House as a whole, rather than in response to events. That is important and is, in a way, a structural issue. Administration and governance of the House should have a longer term perspective, but Members, by our nature, tend to concentrate on one Parliament at a time—very wisely and not unnaturally, I think, given that the electorate do the same thing—and this can lead to essential works being put off time after time. At some point, the nettle has to be grasped, and the upcoming restoration and renewal programme is an example of precisely that. The new strategic role for the Commission is a key step in providing for better long-term governance of the House.
This is a short Bill, so this will be a short speech. I just wanted to say that this was the first time in 40 years that Members had considered these issues. I pay tribute to the Chair and the Governance Committee membership at large, because we worked very hard on this. I shall be proud to see the Bill become law and our recommendations put into effect. I join in commending the Bill to the House.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Ind)
I begin by expressing my gratitude to the Leader of the House for the way in which from the establishment of the Committee he embraced its work. Inevitably, when a Select Committee dominated by Back Benchers comes forward with reforming recommendations, there is an inbuilt tendency—there certainly was when I was sitting in his place—to think, “This hasn’t been invented here. We ought to look at all these proposals with great scepticism and no doubt we can improve them.” In one area the right hon. Gentleman and our Front-Bench did indeed propose improvements in respect of the recommendations in the report. He, together with my hon. Friend the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, simply said that this was an agreed all-party report which appeared to make sense, and that he therefore committed himself, along with my hon. Friend, to implement it.
There is an irony about the way in which things come up in this place. The provenance of the Committee was—I put it delicately—a difference of emphasis regarding the future official leadership of the House, which was dominating the news at the time. Out of that came the House of Commons Governance Committee, and I am extremely grateful to the House for deciding that I should chair it. I was extraordinarily fortunate in having on the Committee seven other Members drawn from a range of parties who showed astonishing dedication and commitment to working, in some cases, three days out of the four that we have here each week, from mid-October through to December in order to achieve the outcome. Well, we got there, and I think it was to everybody’s advantage that we had the report out before Christmas, rather than afterwards.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that we got there thanks to his amazing chairmanship. It was amazing to see so sophisticated and capable an operator steer us through, when we had a lot of differences of emphasis on the Committee at the beginning. I hope he does not mind my interrupting him to put that on the record.
Mr Straw
Not at all—least of all today.
Those of us who are now Hegel and Marx—at least a bit, in my case; I hope I do not offend the hon. Gentleman—can genuinely say that a dialectical process took place in the Committee, where there was thesis, antithesis and synthesis from a variety of sources. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who was energetic in the Committee and was not going to let anything go, but out of that energy—sometimes it felt as though I had a terrier locked on my ankle!—we got a better report.
One of the things that emerged during our inquiry was the opacity of the current arrangements for running this place—the lack of connection between the Commission and everything else underneath. One key Committee, the Administration Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), was in some kind of limbo. It did not have executive powers, although everybody thought it had. It had to negotiate with others. It had a membership that was put there principally by the Whips. In my view, had it not been for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and two or three others almost exclusively had sat through the Committee over the past five years, it could not have operated at all. That was one indication of the opacity and less than optimal way in which these arrangements operated.
There were other such indications—for instance, the fact that the non-executive members who give advice to the administration of the House were on the Management Board, not on the Commission, which is a slightly eccentric way of doing these things. We had very good evidence, including from the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who represents a large chunk of Scotland. I may say parenthetically that he and I were having a conversation about the difficulty of getting to his constituency. As we know, he is Viscount—these days, Mr—Thurso. He was talking about the fact that he would get an aeroplane to Inverness and then would drive. I asked what would happen if he were to go by train. He said, “Well, I would get a sleeper to Inverness and then another train.” I asked, in my naiveté, “Which station?”, to which the right hon. Gentleman replied, “Thurso, of course.” It must be reassuring to have a station named after you.
To return to the Bill, the right hon. Member for that large chunk of Scotland has chaired the Finance Committee. He has also been a member of the Commission. That was a very good exemplar for us to build on.
There are many recommendations of the Committee that do not need legislation; these recommendations do, and I believe strongly that with these changes we will have an administration for future Parliaments that is better and more effective than it is at present.
On the question whether the four Back-Bench commissioners should be paid, Members must consider that in the next Parliament, and do so rapidly. I am clear that if at least two of those Members have executive responsibilities for chairing important Committees, they must receive the same kind of emoluments as any other Chairman; otherwise, given the amount of time that will have to be devoted to these positions and the fact that they will be much more public, as it were, within the firmament of the Commons, people of serious calibre will not be attracted to undertake them. We do not want these positions and the other two on the Commission for Back Benchers to be seen as some sort of consolation prize for those who have failed to be elected to the chairmanship of some apparently prestigious subject Select Committee. That is extremely important, and I hope the Whips will bear that in mind, not least when they come to the timetabling.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it depends to some extent what portfolios are given to the other two as to whether one would want to see these as paid positions? If, for example, one of those posts was to play an important role on the restoration and renewal project or to play a very active role with visitors to the House, it could be an onerous position that might require that.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Bill proves that great things come in small packages. Brevity in a Bill can lead to excellent clarity of statute, a model that anybody forming a Government could look to follow in the future.
I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for having been able to bring the Bill before the House so that the provisions can be put into statute to enable the next Parliament, we hope, to get a flying start as the new Commission is set up.
I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House and others who paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), as I did when we debated these matters. May I assure him that I am called after the railway station, not the railway station after me? It is an excellent report which found an extremely good way forward and has found favour with everybody.
I should make it clear that I do not make these short remarks in my position as the spokesman for the Commission. The Commission’s position is set out in the written statements that I have issued in my name as the spokesman. That makes it clear that progress is being made to have the Clerk in place before Dissolution; and because of the sequential nature, as recommended by the Committee, the Director General recruitment has started but cannot be completed until that recruitment is in place, and that will be an early order of business for the new Parliament. Other than that, I would say that the Commission has sought simply to give effect to everything that was set out in the report as much as it can and as quickly as it can.
Speaking personally, I am delighted to see the Bill before the House. I do not want to go into any of the detail particularly. It does the important job of putting into statute the provisions that needed to be changed in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, and we had the chance to debate the other matters earlier.
One small regret is that we did not find room in the Bill for an enabling clause, which would have permitted a future Commission to look at bringing the administration estimate and the Members Estimate Committee together, which was a sort of recommendation—a “think about” recommendation—that would have been useful at a later stage. However, I completely accept that, in order to get the Bill through quickly, that was a provision that had to wait for another time. My worry is that House of Commons Bills do not come along that often, so it may be a very long time before there is a possibility to do that.
The only other point that I would make, since it has been mentioned both by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House and others who have spoken, concerns election remuneration. It is important that these posts be elected by the whole House so that the whole House has confidence in each of the Members. I also feel, as I mentioned before, that the four posts should be equally remunerated. The reason for that is that I have not the slightest doubt that both of the posts that are currently not filled by Chairmen of Committees, where there is no question on this, will end up with Cabinet-style portfolios, and should end up with Cabinet-style portfolios. One of the most obvious places for this to happen is around human resources, change and diversity. It is an area that we do not scrutinise particularly well. One of the commissioners should take specific responsibility for that, and one of the commissioners who has done so extremely well in this Parliament would have been the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). There is a strong case for using commissioners—not saying that commissioners should not do the work, should just turn up and make some decisions, but actually saying that this is a new Commission, operating in a different way, and these commissioners should be used to undertake work.
Apart from that point, this is an excellent Bill that puts into effect the recommendations of the Governance Committee, and I, too, commend it to the House.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for my late arrival. The business of the House has obviously moved on faster than I anticipated. I am sure if I was sitting once more where you are now sitting I would have frowned very much upon someone trying to speak at this point, but as proceedings are moving along swiftly, I hope I might be indulged.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
For the avoidance of doubt, of course the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience and so much to contribute, is hereby indulged.
Sir Alan Haselhurst
You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I join in complimenting the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and the shadow Deputy Leader of the House on co-operating with colleagues to ensure, first, that there was a good report, and then that it was brought forward so swiftly. In the last four and a half years, I have identified weaknesses and inconsistencies in the management of the business side of the House, which the strengthened Commission will help to overcome. I have detected great weaknesses in the connection between the decisions made by the Commission and the political parties in the House, and also weakness in communication between Members of the House as a whole. The way that the Committee has recommended that the Commission be composed in the future addresses all those weaknesses, and enables us to have a more coherent system of management, which I hope will be more easily explained to a very diverse audience in the House, not just among Members but among the other important people who have passes in the House and who serve us in various ways. We may look forward with some confidence to the implementation of the plan that has been presented to the House, and I have every confidence in it.
Thomas Docherty
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond briefly to two points made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). I may have picked him up incorrectly. The Opposition do not think that the Commission members who are not Chairs of Select Committees should be elected by the whole House. It is a matter for the parties to elect them. If I can extend the principle of Select Committees, members of Select Committees are not elected by the whole House; they are elected by their parties. Their role on the Commission will be to represent, as the Leader of the House has already said, the views of those parties. As Members of Parliament, it would not be democratic for Labour Members to have a say on who represents the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or the minority parties. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, the parliamentary Labour party position is that it would be for those individual parties.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the finance commissioner, for example, should be elected by the whole House, even if he is not saying that the commissioners without portfolio should be elected by the whole House?
Thomas Docherty
That is something that we will look at. My position is that the current arrangements for the Select Committee Chairs have worked well in this Parliament and they should continue in the next Parliament.
It is critical that there is no ambiguity about the position of the parliamentary Labour party. We do not believe that the other commissioners should be paid, because the work is no more onerous than being a member of the Finance and Services Committee or the Administration Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee, and they do not receive payment. My understanding is that the Commission meets once a month and it would be slightly strange if the only member of the Commission who was not receiving an additional payment ended up being the shadow Leader of the House, because the shadow Cabinet are not paid. The Commission itself does not have an onerous meeting schedule—
John Thurso
I quite understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, I just fundamentally disagree with it. It is not in the Bill, so we can leave it until later.
Thomas Docherty
Perhaps that is a sign of our democracy at work.
As I say, that is the position of the parliamentary Labour party. We are absolutely clear. We want to see more cost-saving measures. We welcome the steps that the Commission is taking in looking at the shared services. That was something that came out of the Governance Committee’s report. We are clear: my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and I have said on more than one occasion that it is absurd that we continue to have two catering operations and two research operations. We already have shared services. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work on this. In the next Parliament the goal should be to reduce the costs of our democracy, not to drive them up further.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
In responding to the Second Reading debate on behalf of the Government, I want to thank those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, particularly for their positive comments about the Bill. I am grateful for the support offered by members of the Governance Committee and the official Opposition. A number of Members have raised individual points, to which I will seek to respond.
First, I again thank the Opposition spokesman for setting out in his opening remarks the role of the Commission, from which we could all benefit—Members of Parliament and the wider public. He also set out his party’s position on the election of commissioners. I hope that he would agree that that is not a matter for the Bill. It therefore does not set out how the process should be carried out.
We then heard from the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who stressed the importance of connecting the Commission with Members. I think that we all share his hope that the Commission will be more responsive, more in tune and more in keeping with best practice. I agree with his point about the Commission not always being good at providing direction. The specific function added by the Bill will provide greater clarity on the leadership of the House, and the new membership will ensure that the leadership is fully representative of Members and staff.
We then heard from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Like all Members who have spoken, I would like to thank him once again for the key role he played in the House of Commons Governance Committee, and for his willingness to do something that has not been done for 40 years. I think that he put it very delicately when he said that there was perhaps a difference of emphasis on the issue of the leadership of the House—how very diplomatic of him. However, he went on to underline in slightly less diplomatic terms some of the less functional, or possibly even dysfunctional, aspects of the Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of pay for commissioners. Clearly that is a matter for the House, rather than the Bill, but I am sure that those arrangements, whatever they might be in future, will take account of the public’s desire for the cost of politics not to go up—although I fully understand the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, which is that if all the commissioners are paid, the shadow Leader of the House would be left in a rather impecunious position, as the only member who would not receive a salary for the role.
Thomas Docherty
For the avoidance of doubt, that was not my main argument. The right hon. Gentleman said that there is a significant work load, and my point was that there was no suggestion that the shadow Leader of the House—I can say this because she is safely out of the country—is seeking to be paid. If the logic is based on the work load, I should point out that her work load is significantly higher than that of other commissioners.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, although I must say that it was not needed, because I had not suggested that the shadow Leader of the House had primed him to make a bid for additional funding for her post.
We then heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). With regard to his claim that he was named after the railway station, rather than the other way around, I say, “Nice try.” I am sure that is not entirely factual. I would like to thank him for the key role he plays on the Commission, which is important for all Members of Parliament, and he does it very effectively. We always enjoy listening to his responses to questions on the Commission, particularly on the subject of mice, on which he is an expert. He rightly underlined that the commissioners should have specific responsibilities. Renovation and restoration is one area where there is a very clear opening for someone to undertake or be involved in a very substantial piece of work.
My right hon. Friend also highlighted the fact that there is no enabling clause to bring together the Members estimate and the administration estimate. I accept that that is worth further consideration, but getting it right will require a little more time and we do not want to hold up the Bill by trying to pursue it. We have already touched on the subject of whether the extra members should be paid and the position that would leave the shadow Leader of the House in—although, she has not made a specific request for funding for her position.
Finally, we heard from the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). I would like to thank him for the key role he has played on the Administration Committee. He, like a number of Members, stressed his hope that the new Commission will improve communications and coherence. That is one of the key messages that have come out of the debate.
This has been a short debate, which demonstrates that the modest provisions in the Bill have support from across the House. I will therefore detain the House no further and hope that the Bill can now make rapid progress. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
House of Commons Commission Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chair (Mr Dai Havard)
With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule stand part.
Tom Brake
Clause 1 deals with changes to the membership of the Commission. It amends the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, which established the Commission and defined its membership. The amendments set out in clause 1 extend the membership from the current six Members of Parliament to 11 members in total.
Under subsections (2) and (3), the new Commission will consist of seven parliamentary members, two external members and two official members. Subsection (4) provides that the external members, like other members, will be appointed by resolution of the House and that those members cannot come from Parliament itself—they must be genuinely external.
New subsection (2C) specifies that the official members are the Clerk and the Director General of the House of Commons, when the latter is appointed. The new post of Director General is not otherwise defined in statute, so the Bill provides, in new subsection (2C)(b), for the Commission to appoint an alternative official if the post is vacant or ceases to exist. That allows the Commission the freedom to change the name of that senior post at a future point without recourse to legislative change.
Subsection (5) provides a definition for members of staff of the House of Lords. There is no need to provide an equivalent definition for Commons staff because the term “staff in the House Departments” is already used in the 1978 Act.
Finally, subsection (6) gives effect to the schedule, which makes further provision about the membership and procedures of the Commission, which we will debate later. The clause and the accompanying schedule implement the legislative recommendations of the House of Commons Governance Committee regarding the membership of the Commission.
Thomas Docherty
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I will be extremely brief. We welcome this clause, which is a logical extension. I see no need to continue this debate any longer than necessary.
Tom Brake
Clause 2 amends section 2 of the 1978 Act. It extends the role of the Commission to include the setting of strategic priorities and objectives for services provided by the House departments. That function is added to the Commission’s current statutory responsibilities for staff appointments, numbers, pay and pensions. This amendment to the 1978 Act implements in full a recommendation from the House of Commons Governance Committee and makes explicit in statute a role that the Commission otherwise fulfils by default. The precise way in which the Commission carries out that function is not prescribed in the Bill, in order to allow the Commission flexibility to decide the most appropriate way to discharge its responsibilities.
Thomas Docherty
Again, I will be as brief as possible. As I said on Second Reading—all that time ago—I am frankly astonished that we have gone 30-odd years without having a Commission set out that one of its core functions is from time to time to set out strategic priorities. I think that is a very obvious point that should be addressed. When external members are selected and the parliamentary parties choose their representatives, I hope that the parliamentary parties and the Commission will bear in mind the qualities that are needed. The Commission’s job is not to micro-manage the House service; it is to set strategic priorities. That is therefore a key requirement in external member appointments and the choice of members to serve for the parliamentary parties.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Tom Brake
Clause 3 sets out the commencement procedures for the Bill. These are designed to ensure that the reformed Commission can be established as quickly as possible. This is achieved through bringing the new Commission into being when the last of the parliamentary members has been appointed, but allowing for the appointments process for other members of the Commission to continue prior to this date.
For the benefit of the House, I will quickly set out the detail of how these commencement provisions will operate, as I am conscious that they are not straightforward. From the day that this Bill is passed, it will be possible to appoint the new members of the Commission. This will ensure that the process for appointing the parliamentary and external members of the Commission can start as soon as possible and that the new Director General and the Clerk can join the Commission at an early stage. These appointments, and the Commission’s new function of setting strategic priorities and objectives for services provided by the House departments, will take effect on the day after the last of the parliamentary members has been appointed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Mr Hague
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This has throughout been a matter for the House. The role of the Government has been to facilitate and support the House in reaching a decision and in making these changes. The House has demonstrated its support for the recommendations of the Governance Committee implemented by this Bill. The Bill is one strand—an important strand—of the package of measures that is currently being taken forward by the Commission and the House. I am sure that this package overall will help to bring the governance arrangements of the House up to date and deliver improvements for Members, staff and the public.
Once again, I thank everyone who has contributed to this work and strongly support it as Leader of the House. I commend the Bill to the House for its Third Reading.
Thomas Docherty
Again, I will be brief. I join the Leader of the House in thanking not just the Governance Committee and its staff but all the House service, including the secretary of the Commission, Mr Twigger, who is also the Clerk of the Finance and Services Committee, and Helen Wood, the Clerk of the Administration Committee, for all their work in taking this forward.
I am slightly disappointed by the Leader of the House. Those of us who have been watching the documentary series about the House of Commons will recall him saying that he once had a 24-hour speech prepared. Given the quickness with which we have moved through this, perhaps he could have been tempted to give us an excerpt from that speech. I think we still have four and half hours left if he wants to fill up the time.
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful for that very helpful intervention.
As regards making good progress, it is absolutely crucial that the Finance and Services Committee and the Administration Committee move very quickly after the general election to fill the two posts on the Commission. I hope that the Committee of Selection will therefore make one of its early priorities finding time to establish at least initial versions of the Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee so that we can fulfil this process.
This has been a good and very consensual debate. We wish the Bill all the best in the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Sittings in Westminster Hall
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That–
(1) this House approves the following recommendations of the Procedure Committee in its First Report of Session 2014-15, Business in Westminster Hall (HC 236), and Fifth Report, Business in Westminster Hall: Government response and revised Standing Order No.10 (HC 1035):
(a) that the final debate on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in Westminster Hall be extended from half an hour to an hour (First Report, paragraphs 5 to 11);
(b) that debate in Westminster Hall take place on ‘general debate’ motions (“That this House has considered [a specified matter]”), rather than motions for the adjournment of the sitting, provided that such motions are expressed in neutral terms (First Report, paragraphs 17 to 22 and 26, and Fifth Report, paragraph 6);
(c) that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be given overall responsibility for the business at all sittings in Westminster Hall, subject to the ability of the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee to nominate subjects for debate on Thursday afternoons (First Report, paragraphs 27 to 29);
(d) that the Chair in Westminster Hall should have the power to order a disorderly Member to withdraw from the sitting, and that if a disorderly Member refuses to withdraw when ordered by the Chair, the Chair should have the power to suspend the sitting and to report the conduct of the Member to the House (First Report, paragraphs 30 and 31); and
(e) that the provision of the existing Standing Order No. 10 enabling the House to appoint not more than four members of the Panel of Chairs to sit in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker be repealed (First Report, paragraph 34); and
(2) with effect from the start of the next Parliament, Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall) accordingly be repealed and replaced with the following revised standing order:
“Sittings in Westminster Hall
(1) On days on which the House sits there shall also be a sitting in Westminster Hall–
(a) on Mondays beginning at 4.30pm and continuing for up to three hours, if the Backbench Business Committee has reported its determination that a sitting in Westminster Hall to consider an e-petition or e-petitions should take place on that day;
(b) on Tuesdays and Wednesdays beginning at 9.30am, which shall be suspended from 11.30am till 2.30pm and may then continue for up to a further three hours; and
(c) on Thursdays beginning at 1.30pm and continuing for up to three hours.
(2) The exceptions are as follows.
(a) That there will be no sittings in Westminster Hall until the House has concluded its debate on the Queen's Speech at the commencement of each Session.
(b) That if the sitting occurs on a Tuesday or Wednesday which is the first day on which the House sits immediately following a periodic adjournment of the House of more than two days, the sitting shall be between 9.30am and 2.30pm.
(3) When a sitting (including the time when a sitting is due to commence or resume), or any part of a sitting, in Westminster Hall coincides with a sitting of the House, the Chair shall suspend the sitting to allow Members to participate in any division called in the House or a committee of the whole House, and the time taken for any such suspensions shall be added to the duration of the sitting in Westminster Hall specified in paragraph (1) of this order and to any time specified by the Chairman of Ways and Means under paragraph (6) of this order.
(4) Any Member of the House may take part in a sitting in Westminster Hall.
(5) The quorum at a sitting in Westminster Hall shall be three.
(6) The business taken at any sitting in Westminster Hall shall be such as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint, and may include oral questions. The Chairman of Ways and Means may specify the finishing time of any business taken at a sitting in Westminster Hall; and the motion under consideration shall lapse at that time if not previously disposed of.
(7) Notwithstanding paragraph (6), the business taken at any Thursday sitting in Westminster Hall shall be such as the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee shall determine; and so far as possible the time available at such sittings during a Session shall be divided as nearly as practical equally between those committees, subject to the agreement of the Chairs of those committees.
(8) If a motion is made by a Minister of the Crown that an order of the day be proceeded with at a sitting in Westminster Hall, the question on it shall be put forthwith, but such motion may be made only with the leave of the House and may not be made on a Friday.
(9) If any business other than a motion for adjournment or a motion to which Standing Order No. 24B (Amendments to motions to consider specified matters) applies is under consideration at a sitting in Westminster Hall, and not fewer than six Members rise in their places and signify their objection to further proceedings, that business shall not be further proceeded with in Westminster Hall, and the Chair shall report to the House accordingly, and any order under paragraph (8) above relating thereto shall be discharged.
(10) The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman may take the chair in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker; and any member of the Panel of Chairs may also take the chair at a sitting in Westminster Hall when so requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
(11) If any Member persistently defies the authority of the Chair at a sitting in Westminster Hall, the Chair of that sitting may order the Member to withdraw from that sitting; and if the Member does not do so, the Chair may suspend the sitting and report the conduct of the Member to the House.
(12) Any resolution come to at a sitting in Westminster Hall (other than a resolution to adjourn) shall be reported to the House by the Deputy Speaker and shall be a resolution of the House.
(13) If at a sitting in Westminster Hall the opinion of the Chair as to the decision of a question (other than a question for adjournment) is challenged, that question shall not be decided, and the Chair shall report to the House accordingly; and any such question shall be put forthwith upon a motion being made in the House.
(14) At the end of each sitting in Westminster Hall, unless a question for adjournment has previously been agreed to, the Chair shall adjourn the sitting without putting any question; and proceedings on any business which has been started but not disposed of shall lapse.
(15) The provisions of Standing Orders No. 29 (Powers of chair to propose question), No. 36 (Closure of debate), No. 37 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question), No. 38 (Procedure on divisions), No. 39 (Voting), No. 40 (Division unnecessarily claimed), No. 41(Quorum), No. 43 (Disorderly conduct), No. 44 (Order in debate), No. 45 (Members suspended, &c., to withdraw from precincts), No. 45A (Suspension of salary of Members suspended) and No. 163 (Motions to sit in private) shall not apply to sittings in Westminster Hall.”
Sittings in Westminster Hall have become an established feature of House of Commons life. However, the Committee felt that there was room to make some small improvements to the second Chamber, which has remained largely unchanged since it came into use in November 1999. Although not welcoming all our proposals, the Government have supported many of the Committee’s recommendations in its report of 10 September 2014. I shall focus on those in this brief speech.
First, we recommend the introduction of two one-hour debating slots to take place at the end of Tuesday and Wednesday sittings. These hour-long debates will replace the half-hour debates at the ends of those two days and extend the sitting in Westminster Hall by half an hour. It is hoped that the hour-long debates will provide some additional flexibility for Members. This change, if approved by the House, will allow more colleagues to intervene or take part in a debate and provide the opportunity for the Opposition Front Bencher to make a short contribution. I stress that the emphasis really is on “short”—just a few brief observations. Additional tidying-up measures will see the Backbench Business Committee assume responsibility for allocating one 90-minute debate per week in Westminster Hall. As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, this has been trialled over the past year and has proved to be a success, so we wish to make it a permanent part of the House’s procedures.
We recommend that overall responsibility for the business of all sittings in Westminster Hall should be given to the Chairman of Ways and Means. Such a move would provide a single point of authority for all sittings and remove uncertainty about the oversight of Thursday sittings. The appointment of business for each day will continue to reflect the requirements set out in Standing Orders, protecting the nomination of debates by the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee. An advantage of transferring responsibility for Thursdays to the Chairman of Ways and Means is that on the rare occasions that neither the Backbench Business Committee nor the Liaison Committee have nominated a subject for debate, the Chairman could nominate a replacement subject.
The Committee recommends that those chairing Westminster Hall debates should have the power to order, as opposed to ask, a disorderly Member to leave the second Chamber. If the Member does not comply with that request, the Chair has the power to suspend the sitting and report the conduct of the Member to the House. Let me be clear: the purpose of giving the Chair such a power of last resort would be to make it more likely that it need never be used.
Finally, in a continued drive to make the procedures of the House more relevant and accessible to the public and its Members, we recommend that debates taken in Westminster Hall be termed “general debates” as opposed to “Adjournment debates”. The title of such debates must remain genuinely neutral and free from argument or implied opinion.
I hope that the recommendations that I have briefly outlined will find favour with the House.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I will follow the example set by the Chair of the Procedure Committee by being equally brief. We welcome the fact that the Government have found time to debate not just this but two other reports. We are disappointed, however, that time has not been found to debate the report on private Members’ Bills. I hope the Minister will tell us when we will debate the report, which suggests sensible, modernising steps that were agreed unanimously by the Committee, which also entered into a negotiation on them with the Government over an extended period.
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, of which I am also a member. I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted the recommendation to switch Monday and Thursday sittings. I have always found the Leader of the House to be incredibly humorous, none more so than when he told the Committee that the Government were keen to preserve Thursday as a full day of business. Having attended many Thursday sittings, I am not sure that they are a fair reflection of all the business timetabled and I still believe it would be more helpful to colleagues for important Select Committee debates to take place on Monday afternoons and for e-petitions to be discussed on Thursdays.
In the spirit of going forward, however, we welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the other changes, particularly the useful innovation of one-hour debates. My recollection is that the proposal was for Opposition Front-Bench contributions to be very brief, but our position is that such debates would operate in the same way as a one-and-a-half-hour debate. Oppositions tend to have substantive policy—we certainly do—and it would be unfair to try to cram that into a few brief remarks.
I thank the Chair of the Committee for the way in which he set out the report and the Government for finding the time for the debate. I hope the motion can be agreed without dissent.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and that of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), relating to business in Westminster Hall.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on receiving his OBE at the Palace today, and I am grateful to him for returning to the Chamber. I know he has been keen for the House to consider and decide on the outstanding work of his Committee before Dissolution. I am pleased that we have been able to facilitate that this afternoon.
We will consider three of the outstanding reports of the Procedure Committee today, but there is further House business to attend to, including reports by the Procedure and the Standards and Privileges Committees, the Standing Order changes necessary to bring into effect the recommendations of the House of Commons Governance Committee report, and the House of Commons Commission Bill that we have just considered. I expect there to be further opportunities for the House to consider those issues before 30 March, and it is the Government’s intention to provide time for those outstanding reports—including the report on private Members’ Bills—that have been agreed, so that those issues on which there is a wide consensus can be resolved before the end of the Parliament. I stress the importance of there being a wide consensus.
Thomas Docherty
I have listened carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House’s choice of words. It is our view, with the best will in the world, that a wide consensus is not the same as a Government veto. If the Government do not like a substantive part of the report on private Members’ Bills, they should say so publicly, which, ironically enough, is one of the things that the report seeks to get them to do in relation to private Members’ Bills. The Government simply not wanting to table a motion is not an excuse for not debating the issue in the House. The House is supreme and it should decide, not the Government.
Tom Brake
I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. He has now made two forceful bids for that report to be debated. It is worth underlining, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be as aware as anyone of the range of views on the issue of private Members’ Bills and how the process could be improved, ameliorated or changed.
Mr Charles Walker
Given that we have strayed into the area of private Members’ Bills, I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know this is slightly naughty. The Government’s opposition to so much of that report seems implacable, so it is probably best that it is not debated in this Session, unless that opposition relents.
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification and apparent counter-bid to block any proposal to debate that particular report.
I would now like to move on to the motion and thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he set it out. The motion is the result of the Procedure Committee’s “Business in Westminster Hall” report, published in October 2014, and the follow-up report, which included the Government response and a revised Standing Order No. 10, published in January.
I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee for the comprehensive way in which he set out the implications for the House of agreeing the motion. I am also grateful for the work of the Committee and pleased that the report recognises that the Government accepted the majority of the recommendations in the original report.
The changes that will be introduced if the House approves the motion represent a sensible package of evolutionary changes to the work conducted in the second Chamber. Westminster Hall has proved itself as a valued resource since its introduction in 1999. Indeed, I can confirm that I used to make extensive use of Westminster Hall, usually for debates on the future of my local hospital, St Helier, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and I continue to campaign to this day, although that is not the purpose of this debate. The changes will, I hope, add further to the status of Westminster Hall. We have already seen some of the changes during this Parliament. For example, the use of additional time on Mondays for the consideration of e-petitions by the Backbench Business Committee is testament to the sort of valuable work that is conducted in Westminster Hall.
The Procedure Committee’s recommendation for the provision of one-hour debates on Tuesdays and Wednesdays—by extending sittings for half an hour—will provide useful additional flexibility and is a welcome recognition of anecdotal evidence that many Members who wish to raise issues feel constrained by the limits of a 30-minute debate, but would not necessarily wish to apply for a 90-minute debate. That change will be welcomed by Members, without placing additional onerous requirements on Ministers and Opposition spokespeople. The arrangements set out in chapter 2 of the Committee’s original report, to provide an opportunity for Opposition spokespeople to participate in such debates, are sensible, although my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will have heard a request from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for clarification on the precise role that Opposition spokespeople will play. I and others would certainly appreciate clarity from the Procedure Committee on whether the proposal is optional or the Member who has initiated the debate will have to request it.
Similarly, the changes that mean that debates in Westminster Hall will be considered on neutral general motions, not Adjournment motions, is entirely sensible. Clearly, there are people among the wider public who understand what an Adjournment motion is, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of members of the public, and perhaps Members of Parliament, would be more comfortable with “general motions” as a clear description of what is being debated.
Mr Walker
On speeches by Opposition Front Benchers, the report says that
“so long as they are brief we recommend that Opposition spokespeople be able to participate in hour-long debates in Westminster Hall. We trust that Chairs in Westminster Hall, backed by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Panel of Chairs, will offer robust guidance to Opposition spokespeople on the appropriate length of their speeches.”
It is not the Committee’s intention that Opposition spokespeople get the same amount of time as a Minister.
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, although it still leaves slightly open the question of whether it is optional. The Chair could choose not to allow the Opposition spokesman or woman to speak. I am sure that can be clarified in the future.
Many in the House are keen that our work is as open and transparent to members of the public as possible, and this is a small step in the direction of giving the House’s procedures greater clarity and consistency.
The Government did not agree with three issues in the original report. Those issues are set out in the Government response and the subsequent report containing the revised recommendations. I am grateful to the Committee for being willing to accept the Government’s view on those issues, and for bringing before the House a set of proposals that should have widespread support from across the House.
With regard to the use of substantive motions in Westminster Hall, the Government agree that the main Chamber is the proper place for debates on amendable business, not least in view of the practical difficulties surrounding voting in Westminster Hall. The Government do not wish to rule out the possibility of taking some substantive business in Westminster Hall at some point—for example, to remove pressure on the Chamber—but much more work would need to be undertaken on the practical and procedural implications. For that reason, the Government did not support the recommendations of the Committee for the repeal of paragraphs (9) and (12) of Standing Order No. 10, although we accept that those provisions have not been used.
The Committee recommended that the current sittings on Mondays and Thursdays be swapped so that Select Committee debates chosen by the Liaison Committee and Back-Bench debates would be taken on a Monday, and any debates on e-petitions would be scheduled on a Thursday. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife said, the Government are committed to maintaining the integrity of Thursday as a full parliamentary day, which I hope all Members of the House will respect. The Committee’s proposals, which the Government could not support, would send a contrary signal, particularly given that there would be no business in Westminster Hall on many Thursdays.
The Committee proposed an earlier start and finish time in Westminster Hall on Thursdays. Without evidence of widespread support for this measure, the Government opposed it. I am grateful to the Committee for deciding not to press that proposal.
I again thank the Committee for its work. I ask the House to support the motion. If approved, the new Standing Order would be introduced at the start of the next Parliament.
Mr Charles Walker
I just want to say that I am satisfied.
Question put and agreed to.
Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s Consent
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House approves the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in its Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, on Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent (HC 871), and accordingly:
(a) endorses the practice of not requiring consent to be re-signified when a bill has been carried over from one session to the next;
(b) orders that, where it is required, Queen’s and/or Prince of Wales’s consent be signified at third reading, whatever the nature and extent of the prerogatives or interests engaged; and
(c) endorses the practice of noting the need for consent in relation to a particular bill by including a note on the Future Business section of the order paper that consent is to be signified on third reading as soon as this requirement is known.
In its report on “The impact of Queen’s and Prince’s Consent on the legislative process”, published in March 2014, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee made several proposals to change the process for obtaining and signifying consent to Bills before Parliament. The Procedure Committee agrees that consent should not be re-signified when a Bill has been carried over from one Session to the next, and we recommend that the House should formally endorse that practice.
In a departure from the recommendations made by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Procedure Committee suggests that consent should continue to be given by a Privy Counsellor, as we have seen no evidence that any Bill has been delayed by the fact that a Privy Counsellor was not present. The Committee’s view is that continuing the current signification process is more open and transparent.
Currently, consent can be signified either on Second Reading or on Third Reading, depending on the extent or nature of the way in which the prerogatives or interests of the Queen or Prince of Wales are affected. However, even when consent has been signified on Second Reading, amendments at subsequent stages can require consent to be re-sought and re-signified on Third Reading. We therefore share the concerns of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that the signifying of consent at different legislative stages can add confusion to the legislative process.
On 30 October, the other place agreed that, where necessary, whatever the nature or extent of the interests or prerogatives engaged, consent by the Queen or Prince of Wales should be signified in that House on Third Reading. Following the decision of the other place and the recommendations of our colleagues on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, we recommend that, where it is required, consent should be signified on Third Reading, whatever the nature and extent of the prerogatives or interests engaged.
We recommend that the House should formally endorse the practice of noting the need for consent in relation to a Bill by including a note in the future business section of the Order Paper that consent is to be signified on Third Reading, as soon as this requirement is known.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I will be even briefer than I have been by my standard today; we have important business to discuss.
I thank the Procedure Committee for its work. It is right that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee offered no substantive evidence that requiring signification by a Privy Counsellor in person had delayed Bills—Governments have found enough ways to hold up Bills that they do not particularly like—and we therefore think this is a sensible way forward.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I rise to speak in support of the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and that of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). The proposals arise from the report of the Procedure Committee published in December 2014, which was itself the result of earlier work by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I am grateful to both Committees for their work. As was stated in response to the report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in June 2014, Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent is a long-standing parliamentary requirement for certain Bills, so it is for Parliament to decide on these matters.
The Procedure Committee’s proposed changes are entirely sensible. They will increase transparency by noting under future business when a Bill requires consent, simplify the procedures by endorsing the practice of not requiring consent to be re-signified when a Bill is carried over between Sessions and increase consistency between Bills by ensuring that consent, when required, is always signified on Third Reading. The Government are happy to support these small and sensible tidying-up reforms. We will continue actively to co-operate with Parliament on its requirements in relation to the legislative process. I hope that the House will support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions and e-petitions
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That–
(1) this House approves the recommendations contained in the Third Report of the Procedure Committee, E-petitions: a collaborative system (HC 235), concerning the establishment of an e-petition system jointly owned by the House and the Government, and of a Petitions Committee with responsibility for overseeing both the e-petition and the existing paper petitioning system;
(2) the following new standing order accordingly be made, with effect from the start of the next Parliament—
“Petitions Committee
(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Petitions Committee, to consider public petitions presented to the House and e-petitions submitted through the House of Commons and Government e-petitions site.
(2) The committee shall consist of not more than eleven members.
(3) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.
(4) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.
(5) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the evidence taken before the sub-committee.
(6) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.
(7) The committee shall be responsible for determining whether a sitting should take place in Westminster Hall under paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall) to consider one or more petitions or e-petitions, and shall report any such determination to the House.”; and
(3) the following amendments to standing orders be made, with effect from the start of the next Parliament—
Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall)
In paragraph (1)(a), leave out “Backbench Business Committee” and insert “Petitions Committee”.
In paragraph (1)(a), leave out “e-petition or e-petitions” and insert “one or more petitions or e-petitions”.
Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business)
Leave out paragraph (5).
Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs)
Add the following new sub-paragraph to paragraph (1):
“() the Petitions Committee.”
Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee)
In paragraph (8)(b), leave out “paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 10” and insert “paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10”.
Of the Procedure Committee’s three debates this afternoon, this is the big enchilada: the one that the House—or at least those in the Chamber—has been waiting for with bated breath.
On 8 May, the House agreed to establish a collaborative e-petitions system. In the intervening time, the Procedure Committee has worked hard to come up with a workable and robust set of proposals. In brief, we are proposing the following system. A petition will need to attract the support of six people before going live, and it will remain live for six months. Oversight of the joint e-petition system will be undertaken by a House of Commons Petitions Committee, which will have an elected Chair and elected Members. The Committee will be able to correspond with petitioners on their petition, and to call them for oral evidence. It will be able to refer a petition to the relevant Select Committee, and to seek further information, either written or oral, from the Government. May I say that oral evidence will be requested only in exceptional circumstances? The Committee will obviously be allowed to put forward petitions for debate. It will be supported by excellent House of Commons staff.
May I remind hon. Members, who may be drawing breath at the thought of the creation of another Committee, that the House had a Petitions Committee from the early 19th century up until 1974? It is not the Procedure Committee’s intention to create an additional Committee, but for the new Petitions Committee to replace an existing Committee. However, that is for the business managers to decide.
In his evidence to us, the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), said:
“I think it is important to have a committee in some form to highlight to the public that Parliament treats this seriously, to make sure that Government departments respond properly and fully, and to be able to recommend debates where necessary.”
The Petitions Committee will decide which petitions merit further action. It will take the existing threshold of 100,000 signatures as the established starting point for considering whether there should be a debate in the House. However—this “however” is very important—in this age of mass campaigning, the Committee will also be mindful of smaller petitions that although not benefiting from the support of well-funded and organised pressure groups are nevertheless deemed to be of great importance to a community and it will perhaps be mindful, in extreme cases, even of a petition from an individual.
The Petitions Committee will seek to improve engagement with petitioners. Often, those submitting and supporting a petition will not get the exact outcome they want, but they will hopefully feel that their concerns have been appreciated and heard through constructive engagement with the Committee, and through receiving responses from the Government and—on occasion—the relevant Select Committee. Moderation of the site will be carried out by e-petition staff.
It is also our intention for the e-petition system to contain a facility that allows our constituents to alert us when they have signed a petition—after all, we all greatly enjoy and love hearing from our constituents. That facility would be provided through the provision of an e-mail address, and a strong suggestion that when our constituents provide us with an e-mail address they also provide us with their home address so that we can verify that they are our constituents.
The threshold of six signatures has been identified because it requires the lead petitioner to seek support for his or her position, but ensures that in seeking that support the demands on the individual are not too onerous. Within the current system, around one in five e-petitions that have been submitted have attracted fewer than three signatures, and 42% have attracted fewer than six. This is a petition system; it should not be for individual representations as those are best made to the relevant Member of Parliament. To emphasise the parliamentary oversight of the system, and in line with the House’s historic role as the principal recipient of public petitions, we have recommended that the site’s URL be e-petitions.parliament.uk, with a clear link from the Parliament website to the e-petition site.
On the important matter of privilege, a petition should not be privileged simply by virtue of having been approved by staff of the Petitions Committee. The House publishes much material on its website that is not a proceeding in Parliament and is therefore not privileged. The point at which an e-petition becomes a proceeding in Parliament will be when it is considered by the Petitions Committee. Only when the Committee has considered the petition and considered it fit for presentation to the House will it constitute a proceeding in Parliament. Notwithstanding the issue of privilege, it is possible that a petition published on an e-petition site, and endorsed and established by the House, could attract the more limited protection of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. Therefore, the Petitions Committee staff drawn from the House will need to exercise their usual great care in the moderation of petitions, to ensure that no potentially actionable material is published in an e-petition without the explicit authority of the Petitions Committee.
A petition will be open for signature for six months. After that, the title of each e-petition will be recorded in a list in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, together with the number of signatures it has attracted. Should a Member wish to pursue it, the paper petition system will enable the formal presentation of the subject of an e-petition on the Floor of the House.
In bringing forward debates we recommend that the Petitions Committee assume responsibility from the Backbench Business Committee for determining debates on e-petitions in Westminster Hall. Importantly, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), is supportive of that change. If the Petitions Committee decided that a petition warranted debate in the main Chamber, it could approach the Backbench Business Committee and ask for that time to be provided. However, the Backbench Business Committee is under no obligation to grant that time—there will be no land grab.
For paper petitions, we have concluded that the rules and procedures should remain as they are, with one exception, which is to provide the Petitions Committee with the power to consider paper petitions and take appropriate action, alongside petitions coming through the electronic system. I believe that change will strengthen the paper petition process.
Let me return to the vexed issue of cost. The cost of the new system we are proposing is set out at the back of our report, but we estimate the one-off start-up cost at £188,000, with an annual running cost of around £115,000. Those costs will be shared between the House and the Government. There could also be an additional cost of £39,000 to enable data from the site to be made available through data.parliament.uk. That cost will be borne by the House, if approved by the Finance and Services Committee.
In addition to the cost of setting up and maintaining an electronic petition system, we estimate that the staffing cost will be about £200,000 per year, equating to a team of four full-time equivalent people—Officers of the House. The cost of those House staff will be borne entirely by the House. Finally, the running cost of the Petitions Committee, depending on its practices, is expected to be around £50,000 per annum. If anybody is doing a running total, I believe that those numbers add up to about £395,000—if they do not, any hon. Lady or Gentleman who discovers that my maths is wrong can approach me later. For further details of costs, I refer colleagues to the recently published memorandum from the accounting officer that is available in the Vote Office.
To conclude my rather lengthy remarks, I thank my excellent Committee Clerks. They are heroic in every way—patient, intelligent, insightful and rather brilliant, and I thank them for the huge amount of effort that they have put into this report. I also thank the Government digital service and the former Leader of the House, who is sitting next to me, for his efforts in bringing this Committee to life. A joint Petitions Committee overseen by a Committee of the House is one of the most amazing things that has happened in this place for some time, and he is to be congratulated on his foresight in allowing it to become possible. I also thank the current Leader of the House for the support he has given our Committee in bringing forward these proposals.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I rise briefly to commend the comments of the Chair of the Procedure Committee—while he is thanking everybody else perhaps we might thank him for his stewardship of that Committee. I also apologise for joining the debate slightly late as I was in a Statutory Instrument Committee.
In this work the modern world intercepts with our traditions, and the Chair of the Procedure Committee has spelt out clearly why the proposals in the report are the right way to take the issue forward in a way that recognises public interest. There has been a lot of public enthusiasm for e-petitions, as I saw during my involvement with a petition that was created by a constituent and aimed to push the issue of pancreatic cancer up the agenda. E-petitions are a good tool for interacting with the public in an engaging way, but they must be managed properly in how they intercept with this place. The Chair of the Procedure Committee is to be congratulated on setting out a sensible way forward that I hope the House will take advantage of.
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for missing the start of his remarks. You have been so admirably brisk this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I was caught elsewhere in the Palace when the debate began—[Interruption.] It did not happen like that in my day, but the present Leader of the House is so efficient.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. Some time ago when I was Leader of the House, the House resolved to ask the Procedure Committee to consider this matter. I take no issue with the way it has been brought forward as there has been an excellent examination of it. The Committee has made very good recommendations that will enable us to do something for the next Parliament and beyond that will be regarded as important: enable people to interact directly and collectively with their Parliament on issues that matter to them. There is a very rich history of petitioning Parliament. If the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) were here, he would be able to explain it to us in great detail. Petitioning is at the heart of Parliament, along with voting Supply. It is one of the central missions of a Parliament and in recent years it has fallen into disuse.
I give credit to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). At the start of this Parliament, the e-petition system was developed so that people had a mechanism to petition what they thought of as their Parliament. In reality, they were petitioning the Government. It was only by virtue of the Government’s reference on to the Backbench Business Committee that there was an expectation—no more than that; nothing was written formally into Standing Orders—that petitions that attracted substantial support would get formal responses from Government, which is something I introduced or, that those with more than 100,000 signatures, would be eligible for debate in this House. The way in which the Backbench Business Committee has consistently and positively responded to that has enabled people to believe that they were petitioning their Parliament, but they were not. We have debated before in this Chamber the distinctions between Government and Parliament. Those distinctions are important. It was clearly the public’s belief that they were petitioning both Government and Parliament. They were not really distinguishing between the two. They wanted the people who had Executive power to listen to them and respond. They wanted their representatives to take their issue and to hold the Government to account, or to have the opportunity to express their view. The proposals will enable that to happen in the next Parliament. I think it will rapidly become a very meaningful part of our new reformed relationship between the public and Parliament.
The Deputy Leader of the House and I visited the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We saw, in the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament in particular, a lot of good practice, which we were very keen to bring back here. I know that the Procedure Committee has looked at that experience too. Of course, the scale is immensely different. In the order of magnitude, there is a greater scale of petitioning to this Parliament than to the Scottish Parliament.
In truth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made clear, very large numbers of petitions do not attract substantial support and do not raise broader issues of public policy or accountability. It will be for a Petitions Committee to examine the flow of petitions and isolate those that are important enough to be debated. What I think will become a significant part of our practice here will be the opportunity to bring petitioners before the Select Committee on Petitions to present their case. People will literally have their day in the court of Parliament. They will be able not just to present but explain their petition. As my hon. Friend made clear, through the mechanism of enabling them to tell their Member of Parliament that they have signed a petition, they will be able to update their MP on the progress of that petition. There will an opportunity for MPs, if they wish, to join in that process of examining the merits of a petition and examining how Parliament and Government are responding. I think that that will be a dramatic improvement in accountability.
We have seen during this Parliament some positive indications that the public believe that this Parliament, in the past four-and-a-half years, is more likely to debate issues of relevance. Other measures have contributed—the use of urgent questions and so on—but the petition system has been a part of that. We are seen here to be responding on issues of importance and relevance in a timely way for members of the public. This will add to that. I think the public will recognise that and use it—whether they use it will be the deciding factor.
I pay tribute to the Government Digital Service and to my former colleagues in the Leader’s Office, who have managed this system. They have demonstrated how this can be done effectively, efficiently and economically. The new system will, to a large extent, rest on that and we should certainly give them credit for that. The Government and Parliament working together is a powerful illustration of how we can bring our activities together to benefit the public.
On cost, one of the recommendations of the Wright Committee, as yet unrealised, is a critical examination of the number of Select Committees. We are resolving here to have one more Select Committee. I make no bones about that: I think it is the right thing. However, Members in the next Parliament should be prepared to examine critically—it will not be me—the structure of Select Committees and whether there are more than we need to do the job they are required to do effectively. There should be no part of Government activity that is without a Select Committee scrutinising and holding them to account. To some extent, however, we have some overlap. It will be important for the House to take an active decision at the start of the next Parliament on how many Select Committees there should be and on their future structure.
Having made that more contentious point, I would like to return to the consensus and say a final thank you to the Procedure Committee and to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for the efficient and effective way in which they have taken the request from this Chamber and turned into it a practical way forward for the next Parliament.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am conscious that we have an important debate on mental health to follow, so I do not seek to delay the House unduly.
I begin by praising the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). I think it was the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) who suggested to him that if we, as Parliament, got this right, it would be the most significant reform since the setting up of Select Committees in 1979 and that he would have left his mark in a positive way at the end of this Parliament. The Committee’s report will set us on that right track.
If I may pick up on the final point made by the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I do not think it is contentious to highlight the issue of cost. That is something we have talked about already this afternoon. The Opposition are clear that this is not an additional Select Committee, as the Chairman himself stated. It has to be a replacement for one of the Select Committees. It is clearly not for us today to determine what the next Parliament does, but there are one or two Select Committees that are not Government scrutiny committees which could be looked at. On cost, which the Chairman highlighted so boldly, it is worth pointing out that a lot of those costs are already being met by the Government. The taxpayer pays for both and this would move the costs from the Cabinet Office to Parliament. When the Leader of the House responds, I hope he will confirm that the Government will seek to assist in mitigating those costs to Parliament as the new system is implemented.
The Procedure Committee rightly raised concerns about the misuse of e-petitions by campaigning organisations. We are absolutely clear, as has already been said, that genuine petitioning of Parliament is a constitutional right that goes back to the 17th century. This is not designed to be a mechanism to allow well-funded vested interest groups to seek to engineer debates. That is why it is absolutely appropriate that when an e-petition reaches the 100,000 threshold it still has to be considered by a Select Committee before it is granted time. We also think that the proposals for granting privilege are sensible. This is not, and should not be, a back-door mechanism for ingenious Members to try to attach privilege, having failed with other mechanisms to circumvent the courts.
I wish to make a few critiques of the current system, many of which, to be fair, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has already highlighted. A couple of Sessions ago, the Procedure Committee published a report stating that the greatest challenge facing the electorate was the confusing nature of the e-petitions system. When the e-petitions website was established in 2010, it gave the erroneous impression that members of the public were influencing Parliament, but as he acknowledged, they were not; the e-petitions were influencing Government to ask Parliament to do something. It is absolutely right, therefore, that this be a joint system. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, has a different perspective—he would prefer separate systems—but we are clear that there should be a single system, not just for cost reasons but in order to provide members of the public with the opportunity to have greater influence over our democratic process. Such a system should make it clearer who is being petitioned—that, as the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, it is Parliament that is being petitioned, not the Executive branch.
I wish now to be positive about the success of the past four or five years. In that time, we have had some fantastic debates. One of the best was the Hillsborough debate one Monday afternoon, during which we heard powerful speeches from both sides of the House. That began with an e-petition—one of the earliest e-petitions. For that reason, and provided we enter into this in the correct spirit, I would like to see more of these powerful, public-led debates influencing our democracy. As my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has said several times, we are clear that Parliament must do more to reconnect with our constituents, who ultimately are our bosses, and e-petitions are a useful tool for doing that.
There has been talk about the system in the Scottish Parliament, which, like the Government, the Procedure Committee visited. However, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to caution against taking a straight read across, given the scale of the system there. Members of Parliament must remain constituents’ key advocates—the e-petitions system should not replace that; it would not be possible to replicate the system in Scotland with 10 times the number of constituencies. Furthermore, the Scottish Parliament does not have the full range of issues to cover that the Westminster Parliament does, and therefore it is right that the Clerks service is there to support it.
We fully support the proposals—they are an excellent way forward—and we hope that they will be implemented to great acclaim in the next Parliament.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Leader of the House, I should tell the House that I am aware that there is a problem with the annunciators. It can be confusing for Members if the information upon which we rely is wrong, and it has been consistently wrong, one way or another, all afternoon. Those who put these things right know about it, and work is being undertaken and it should be better soon.
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
Indeed, the annunciator froze altogether during our consideration of the Pension Schemes Bill earlier, which I hope was not a comment on the complexity of the discussion.
I rise to support the motion in my name and that of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and I join in the congratulations to him on his OBE today. I also join in the warm welcome, from all around the House, for the report and the changes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), my predecessor, said, the right to petition Parliament is an historic right. There was a time in the late 18th and early 19th centuries when the Table of the House groaned beneath the weight of the hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions against the slave trade and slavery and so on, which were part of changing the political culture and the sense of what was politically possible. Given, therefore, that new technology enables millions of people to get in touch with us directly on a wide range of issues, it is right that we make these arrangements.
I also join in paying tribute not only to the Procedure Committee, which has done outstanding work on this subject, but to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for strongly supporting this system when he was Leader of the House and for making it simple and straightforward for me to continue with that support. The system that has been running in this Parliament, which the Government established after 2010, can be considered very successful. I think that more than 10 million individuals have signed one or more of 32,000 e-petitions, more than 150 of which have reached 10,000 signatures and received a formal response from the Government. To date, 37 e-petitions have reached 100,000 signatures, making them eligible to be considered for debate, and 31 of those have so far been debated, either in the Chamber or Westminster Hall, with one more planned for debate next month. It is a straightforward means by which people can submit a petition, raise an issue and press for action. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) just said, we have seen important debates as a result—Hillsborough is a good example, but also on the badger cull, Sophie’s choice, female genital mutilation and so on. These were important debates in which there was no shortage of Members wishing to take part and which provided among the most constructive and memorable debates this Parliament.
Last May, the House agreed unanimously to a motion supporting the establishment of a collaborative e-petitions system, and since that debate, the Procedure Committee has been working hard to bring to the House proposals for such a system. The motion is the result of that work, and I am grateful for how the Committee has engaged with officials in my office and from the Government Digital Service in reaching its conclusions. The fact that the current Government system has worked so well is reflected in the Committee’s recommendation that the joint system be based on the existing Government e-petition site, redesigned and rebranded to show that it is jointly owned by the House and the Government. I support that approach. The use of a platform already developed will save time and minimise the costs of the new system.
The Procedure Committee recommends some useful changes to the process of e-petitioning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne set out. I need not go through them in detail, but the changes requiring an additional five signatures to that of the creator of a petition before moderation and standardising the duration of petitions to six months are sensible changes. The most significant recommendation in this, the big enchilada, as he described it—not the words I was going to use to describe this important reform—is the creation of a Petitions Committee. It will be a major change and should be the catalyst for a fundamental change in the relationship between Parliament and the petitioner. The greater range of available outcomes and the use of House staff to moderate e-petitions should all improve the engagement of this House with petitioners. All those things will be a very important step forward.
There will be a cost to the House in agreeing the motion—those costs were set out by my hon. Friend—but there is agreement, certainly among the Front Benches, that the establishment of a new Committee will require us to consider a corresponding reduction elsewhere. However, that will be a decision for the new Parliament, which is now not far away. In response to the question about the Government’s mitigating the costs, it has been agreed that we will share the costs. That will certainly mitigate the cost to the House, and my hon. Friend set out the precise numbers involved.
If the House approves the motion, the necessary changes to Standing Orders will be implemented at the start of the next Parliament. The current Government e-petition site will close when Parliament is dissolved on 30 March. The aim will be to establish the new site as soon as possible after the election of the Chair and members of the new Petitions Committee at the start of the next Parliament, allowing time for the memorandum of understanding and terms and conditions for the site, as appended to the Procedure Committee report, to be agreed between the Petitions Committee, on behalf of the House, and the Government.
I urge all Members to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Backbench Business
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mental Health and Unemployment
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered mental health and unemployment.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling us to have the debate, and also to those who supported the application: the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker)—whom I, too, congratulate on receiving his OBE today—and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).
Let me begin with a story that I think helps to illustrate what the debate is all about. It demonstrates powerfully not only that progress has been made, but that more progress is needed to ensure that we really tackle mental health issues in the workplace. This is the story of Anne-Marie, in her own words.
“I was suffering in silence because managers and colleagues didn’t know what I was going through. At work they just didn’t have the knowledge to deal with a mental health illness. So I didn’t bring it up because I was afraid of being judged or being looked down on.
If I had a broken leg, they could have physically seen it, and workplace adjustments would have been made. Every job by law has a first aider so if someone hurts or burns themselves or falls down the stairs, there is someone to assist them or professional help is available. But what happens when my mind goes into crisis? Where do I go in the workplace? I was taking my problems home and I was causing further damage to myself. But in the workplace where are there avenues for us to turn to or people to speak to?”
Eventually, Anne-Marie was away from work because of her illness. It was some time before she left hospital and returned to work, and when she did, things did not go well. She says:
“I remember returning to work and I felt so lost. I wasn’t sure what I was supposed to do and I didn’t really know where I was. I had a meeting about why I was off and how they could support me. I wasn’t in a place to tell them my needs or say ‘This is what I require’. So I just went back to work and was very unhappy, which led to me being off again.”
There are thousands of Anne-Maries all over the country: thousands of people who are having experiences of that kind. With the right occupational support, however, people can be helped to remain in the workplace—reasonable adjustments can be made—and with the right back-to-work support, people can return to work and work can be good for them. I hope that the debate will convey that message.
Anne-Marie’s story appears in an excellent report by the charity Mind called “We’ve got work to do”, and it makes the case—a compelling case, in my view—for changes in the operation of back-to-work support. For most people, work is a normal part of everyday life. An occupation and a sense of purpose can play a critical part in promoting recovery and social inclusion. Good work can be good for people’s health. I wanted to secure this debate in order to highlight the fact that more than a third of people with mild to moderate mental health problems, and nearly two thirds of people with severe mental health problems, are unemployed, although the vast majority desperately want to work.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I am extremely interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and agree with all of it. In some cases, however, work itself can be the cause of mental health issues—for instance, when there is bullying or poor management. The work that we do in the Chamber makes us feel good about ourselves, and work can do that, but it can also be a cause of mental health problems.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why I chose my words carefully. I said “Good work can be good for people’s health”, but, equally, bad work can be bad for people’s health. Poor employment practices and bullying cultures can indeed make a difference to the quality of a person’s mental health.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Leadership in companies is crucially important, as are management and caring about colleagues. We sometimes forget about such things as care for people and leadership, but they should be inculcated in all our companies and other organisations.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Gentleman has underlined a point that I intend to make later, and I hope that others will do so as well. Good mental health is everyone’s business, and it is certainly part of the work of business to look after the mental health and well-being of staff. It is key to reducing sickness absence, and to improving productivity. It has so many benefits for the individual. So the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Leadership and culture are critical, whether in a business organisation or a public service or whatever.
The vast majority of people do want to work, and this is no small issue. Among the under-65s, nearly half of all illness is mental illness, and the cost to the UK economy exceeds £100 billion a year. The good news is that over the past five years public attitudes towards mental health have begun to change. Indeed, they have changed quite rapidly.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I hope the right hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a change, but many Members still have people coming to see us who have admitted they have a mental health issue when they have applied for jobs and who are sure that is one of the reasons why they did not get to the next stage of the job interview.
Paul Burstow
That is undoubtedly true and indeed some people do not go through the recruitment process in the first instance because they believe they will be discriminated against or they are fearful of disclosure. Those are serious issues to do with lack of parity and lack of equality, and the discrimination people both impose upon themselves but that also exists within our society. It is why tackling the issue of stigma is so important and why we should celebrate the progress that has been made but also be challenging the Government to continue to support campaigns like Time To Change because they are clearly demonstrating progress.
The stigma has not gone, but it is going. Time To Change, the anti-stigma campaign set up by Mind and Rethink Mental Illness and funded as part of the Government’s mental health strategy, recorded the biggest annual improvement so far in public attitudes to mental health. It found a 7% rise in people’s willingness to work with someone with a mental health problem—from 69% to 76%. We still have to go further, but that is a mark of the progress that has been made, and I hope we can see more.
The Government have made parity of esteem between physical and mental health the clear goal of their mental health strategy, and progress is being made. However, when it comes to employment and the way people with mental health problems are supported, we still have a long way to go. Four different sets of data lead me to that conclusion. First, according to the OECD, unemployment rates for people with severe mental health problems in the UK are five times higher than for people without a mental health problem. Secondly, a clinical commissioning group outcome indicator on employment and severe mental illness was included in the 2014-15 indicator set. It published its first set of results last December, and it shows a worrying decline in the number of people in paid employment with a severe mental health diagnosis, from 43,000 to 35,000, a significant 20% drop. Thirdly, the CQC’s community mental health survey for 2014 showed that 34% of respondents on the care programme approach, and over half of respondents not on the approach, said they did not receive support from someone in NHS mental health services in getting help with finding or keeping work, but they would have liked that and would like to have been told how to access that support. Fourthly, of the 150,000 people with mental health problems on employment and support allowance who have been placed on the Work programme, just 6.7% have been helped into work. That is compared with a 25% success rate for those without a health condition.
For me, what this shows is that there is a huge amount still to do. It is worth saying that while the national average employment rate for people with severe mental health problems has dropped to 5.7%, a number of areas are achieving high levels of employment for people with severe mental illness, such as Wokingham, mid-Essex and Aylesbury, all of which are achieving employment rates of 20%.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be scope for the use of individual placement and support for those with serious mental health issues? I know the Government have been piloting some individual placement and support programmes. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether they are proving to be successful in getting people with severe mental health problems back into work.
Paul Burstow
Yes; I want to come on to that, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the pilots, where they have got to and the intentions going forward. It is inescapable that back-to-work support that is designed primarily around physical health problems and disabilities is poor at meeting the needs of people with mental health problems. Where the support is well-designed, it has so far not got the reach or take-up necessary to make a difference. The Access to Work mental health support service was described in the Sayce review as
“the best kept secret in Government”,
because despite its success rates—90% retention rates, for example—very few people have been helped: just over 2,500 people with a mental health problem since the service started in 2011, on the most recent data I could find. The potential is good, but more needs to be done to ensure the take-up of such programmes, so that people can benefit from the advantages that they provide.
Over the past two years, I have had the opportunity to chair an independent commission on mental health for the think-tank CentreForum and to co-chair a task and finish group on mental health and employment with Marjorie Wallace, the chief executive of the charity SANE. That group’s work has led to the NHS adopting an employment-based indicator, and to the development of a new commissioning incentive for NHS organisations to provide for adults who are in contact with secondary mental health services to help them to gain or retain employment. The group is also helping with the drafting of a new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality standard on schizophrenia containing a specific reference to employment.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I have been listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that the incidence of mental health problems increases the risk of unemployment? Does he also acknowledge that unemployment itself has the capacity to induce and exacerbate mental health problems in those who find themselves in the distressing situation of being unemployed?
Paul Burstow
The short answers are yes and yes. In particular, severe mental health problems such as schizophrenia can lead to an increase of 65% in the likelihood of not being in employment unless properly supported. There is clearly an issue there.
SANE’s report into schizophrenia and employment revealed that, of those who were not engaged in employment or related activities, 59.4% said they would like to be. About 45% of people who receive a diagnosis of schizophrenia recover after one or more episodes, but about 20% show unremitting symptoms and disability, with the remaining 35% showing a mixed pattern with varying periods of remission and relapse. There are therefore issues about how we should tailor support for people with those conditions. Even though health care professionals acknowledge the importance of work, they often hold the view that people with schizophrenia would be better suited to low-skilled, low-responsibility or non-competitive work, but that is a fallacy. It is a mistake and it needs to be challenged vigorously. We need tailored programmes that fit the individual’s circumstances, abilities and needs.
The evidence of the beneficial nature of work for people with schizophrenia includes increasing social skills and enhancing the opportunity for the development of friendships; learning new skills; financial rewards; and the stabilisation of the condition. Employment brings clear health benefits for people with schizophrenia. Research shows that those in paid employment are over five times more likely to achieve functional recovery than those who are unemployed or in unpaid employment.
Last year, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), along with Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions, launched a programme to pilot better ways of co-ordinating mental health services and employment services. The pilots are testing a number of different approaches based on the recommendations of the RAND report. This work points the way to a more tailored approach to meeting the needs of people with mental health problems. As I said earlier, the Work programme helps just 6.7% of people with mental health problems into work. In some cases, the way in which different parts of the back-to-work system works has the unintended effect of pushing people further away from the workplace, and that is not what anyone wants.
So what is next? First, the goal needs to be clear. We have said that we want to close the scandalous 20-year life-expectancy gap that exists in regard to mental health, and we must do more to tackle that issue. We also need to close the opportunity gap. Currently, just 5.7% of adults in contact with secondary mental health services are in paid employment, yet in some areas employment rates are as high as 20%. The goal should be to achieve at least a 20% rate of employment by 2020 across the whole country. That means building on the learning from the pilots. It also means acting on the evidence of what works. In particular, it means much more use of the individual placement and support that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) has just mentioned.
Individual placement and support has been shown to be twice as likely as any other employment support scheme to enable people with severe mental health problems to enter work. IPS works to secure paid employment that matches the person’s interests and aspirations by co-producing a plan of action, rather than requiring them to undertake certain activities. Support continues once the person gets a job and, as these schemes are often based in secondary mental health care services, they are integrated with the person’s health support. A recent psychological well-being and work report by RAND for the Government estimated the cost-benefit ratio at 1:41 for this approach. In other words, the Government save £1.41 for each pound they spend on IPS models. Where IPS is in use, it is delivering very positive outcomes. For example, WorkPlace Leeds, which is part of Leeds Mind, provides a specialised service, using individualised, tailored and collaborative approaches to enable clients to meet their goals. WorkPlace Leeds uses the IPS model, including CV building; interview skills; job searching; tailored applications; confidence-building; one-to-one sessions; advice on benefits; and practical assistance to overcome barriers such as child care difficulties or public transport issues. It also offers peer employment support interventions to develop confidence and a shared understanding of the struggle to get back to work. It recognises that there are no quick fixes, that the journey can be a long one and that it can sometimes take a lot of support for clients to achieve goals—I am thinking of things such as volunteering or training along the way. Work is the focus—that is the outcome people are striving for—but there is a recognition that the journey is important and needs to be properly supported. Perhaps that story of what happened to Anne-Marie could have been different if she had had access to that sort of support when she returned to work.
That support is delivered in partnership with the mental health, social care and housing services, all of which play a crucial part, and with the secondary mental health service. WorkPlace Leeds has also worked in partnership with Jobcentre Plus to identify the gaps in service provision—that is crucial to the evolution of services in this area. In other words, there is a joining up at the local level, with a devolved approach that actually seems to work. The annual cost of this approach in Leeds has been put at £5,819, compared with the £13,700 cost to the Work programme of supporting an employment and support allowance claimant.
So I hope that one thing that will come out of the pilots—I look forward to hearing the Minister’s aspiration for this Government and indeed future Governments—is that a future Government will put in place a programme to improve access to IPS, rather like previous Governments introduced a programme to improve access to psychological therapies. We need that level of drive and determination to make sure that this evidence-based practice becomes the norm, not the exception it is at the moment.
Finally, surveys have found that mild to moderate mental health problems, including stress, anxiety and depression, are the most common reasons why people are signed off work. The figure cited is that this costs the economy £26 billion every year: That is an average of more than £1,000 for every employee, so it is in everybody’s interests and it is everybody’s business to make sure that we properly support people in the workplace. Although there are great employers who really get mental health and its impact on their employees, as well as their business, and do take the necessary steps, there is still so much more to be done.
In bringing my remarks to a conclusion, I wish to ask the Minister whether we could make better use of the Health and Safety Executive, a sometimes maligned body which some years ago developed new tools relating to stress audits, which could be used by employers. If the company in Anne-Marie’s story had used a stress audit, it may well have identified some of the things it could change before she got to a crisis and had to leave work. I hope that the Minister will be able to say more about how the HSE and the work it has done in the past could be updated and become part of its day-to-day practice in the future.
With that, I hope that today’s debate will not only generate a useful exchange across the Chamber, but demonstrate again that there is a commonality of purpose: a recognition that for far too long these issues of mental health had not been given the time, focus or priority they should get, that they are getting that now and that we will make progress in the next Parliament. If we do not, we are not just costing our society a huge amount—we are costing individuals a fortune.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
May I say what a privilege it is to follow the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow)? This debate is important and it sends a message that, again, this Chamber is discussing mental health. I have said, and I will say it time and again, that the more we talk about mental health, the better. Talking about mental health on the Floor of this main Chamber sends a clear message that this House—Members from all parts of it—is taking mental health seriously.
Clearly, work is central to most people’s lives. Mountains of research suggest that the right type of work is good and positive for somebody’s mental health. In this debate, I want to focus on three main areas. The first is mental illness and the benefit system—we cannot talk about unemployment without mentioning the benefit system. The second is how we manage long-term mental health problems in the community. Realistically, there are individuals who will not be able to work or hold down full-time jobs, so we need mechanisms by which we can support them in the community. The third area, which is related to unemployment, is how mental health is dealt with in the modern workplace in the UK.
Many people may ask: why is mental health in the workplace important? Well, to coin a phrase from Bill Clinton, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Bad mental health is bad for the UK economy. The UK report on mental health in the workplace, commissioned in February 2014, estimated that it cost the UK economy some £70 billion a year—4.5% of GDP. In the current economic climate, a reduction in that figure, which was drawn up using Department for Work and Pensions data and OECD and Eurostat labour market figures, would be welcomed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is also another important issue here, which is that it is good for the individual. In a decent modern society, we should ensure that people’s mental health is not harmed by the work that they do. We must remember that it is not just the individual who is harmed, but the families as well.
The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about the number of individuals who are on employment and support allowance, some 46% of whom have mental health problems. We have heard the rhetoric over the past few years about trying to be tough on welfare claimants and about getting people off benefits. No doubt we will hear more of that in the run-up to the general election. But I am not sure that such rhetoric helps the people with mental health problems who are claiming benefits.
The evidence is clear that the work capability test has been a complete disaster for people who have mental health conditions. It has also been a complete financial disaster for the Government. It does not work for the people it is supposed to support and it does not help the taxpayer.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions the situation in the workplace with regard to mental health. I was very interested in what the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) said about the Health and Safety Executive enlarging its role in this area. What does my hon. Friend think about that? Does he think that it could play a role?
Mr Jones
I do, yes. There seems to be this feeling that business should be afraid of the Health and Safety Executive. I know from my previous life that it is good not just at dealing with stress but at driving up standards and productivity in the workplace. It ensures that the working environment is safe, so, yes, there is an opportunity there.
Like other Members, I have seen in my constituency the merry-go-round system of the work capability test. It goes a bit like this: a person is assessed by Atos, by people who have no mental health training whatever; he or she fails a fit-for-work test and is then put in a work-related group; he or she then appeals that decision and has their benefits reinstated. Then, ludicrously, within a matter of months, that person gets recalled to Atos, and they are on that merry-go-round again. That is not only bad for the individual but a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, as there is the cost not just of the assessments but of the appeals. The appeals system has been overloaded with people and has had to employ more staff, and that is not an efficient way of dealing with these individuals.
Charities in the north-east, such as Mental Health North East, have explained this expensive merry-go- round and have done very good reports on the numbers. Hundreds of people in the north-east of England are on the merry-go-round system, which has a tragic effect not only on the individuals but on their families. In some cases, it puts back people’s mental health rather than improving it. We should not shy away from the fact that there have been some cases nationally in which, because of the Atos system, people have taken their own lives. No Government should be proud of that.
People are under pressure, not just from the work capability test but from the economic downturn. Statistics came out last month that showed that the number of suicides now, at just over 6,000, is higher than it was two and three years ago. Surprisingly enough, the north-east of England is the region with the highest number of people—young men, mainly—committing suicide. I find it very uncomfortable that in 2015 we have a system that puts these pressures on individuals and that the major killer for men aged 20 to 34 is suicide. We need to address that, not just because it is the right thing to do but because of the economic case. That is 6,000 people who are not making a contribution to the economy of this country. We should also remember that 6,000 families will be hugely affected by the loss of a loved one. Each one is a personal tragedy and each one, like a ripple, has an effect on an entire community. It is important that we address the issue because we cannot have avoidable deaths going unchecked. Whatever happens after May, dealing with suicide and mental illness must be taken forward on a cross-party basis.
As for the Government’s response to the Atos merry-go-round, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) is right that after four years they have finally worked out that it is not an effective way of dealing with people with mental illness on benefits and have put in place pilot schemes that go broadly in the right direction. However, like the right hon. Gentleman, I want to ask the Minister what the time scale is for rolling them out across the country. I am also of the opinion that we need to take people who have mental health issues out of the system. I do not argue for one minute that they should not be assessed at all, but putting them through the Atos system is not the way to do it. If we can ensure that they get the individual help and care that they need, that will not only help them return to work or gain access to work but save the taxpayer a great deal of money.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, but does he not agree that at the heart of this is the knowledge that we need sensitively trained and highly professional people to deal with these individuals, not an Atos-type untrained person? That is certainly the case in my constituency. We need highly trained people, whether they come from the health sector and are fully professional or whether, as in my constituency, they come from the voluntary and social sector.
Mr Jones
I am pleased that my hon. Friend raised that, because I was coming next to the important role there is for the community and voluntary sector. We need to explore an alternative system. If we conclude that some people cannot work, we need to be able to offer them alternatives, and like the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, I am a big believer in voluntary and charitable work. If people cannot hold down a permanent job—it may not necessarily be their fault; it may be that some employers do not understand that someone who has a severe long-term mental health problem will not be able to turn up to work every day—why not allow them to do voluntary work, which both improves their position and gives something back to society? Social isolation is one of the worst things possible for people with long-term mental health conditions. Enabling such individuals to make some contribution to society would also help them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, the charitable and voluntary sector has a key role to play, not only in getting people back to work but in the long-term management of people with long-term mental health conditions in the community. The Government talk a lot about the community and voluntary sector, and the Heath and Social Care Act 2012 contained a provision that I considered helpful—I was scorned by some of my colleagues for thinking this—which was that third sector bodies could be commissioned to deliver local services. In practice, that has not happened because the contracts that are being let are too big and too complex, and many third sector organisations that do fantastic work locally do not have the capacity to bid for them.
The present system is a scandal. The Just for Women Centre in Stanley, in my constituency, is a great organisation run by Linda Kirk, a former business woman, and Lestryne Tweedy. The centre caters for women who are suffering from domestic violence or mental health-related issues and those who have been on probation. The model is very simple: it uses counselling and crafts to support the individual and look at their underlying mental health issues before moving on to getting them into work. The centre uses individual tailored programmes, which can lead to individuals being with the centre for two years, but the success rate is fantastic and the cost is less than £800 per job placement. That contrasts starkly with the nearly £4,000 the Government pay companies such as Ingeus and others that get people into work.
The situation is even worse than that. Not only can small charities such as the Just for Women Centre not bid for the contract but, disgracefully, if women who come to the centre are also on Ingeus’s books and the centre gets those women into work, Ingeus rings them up and asks them whether they have got into work, they say yes, and Ingeus claims the money, but the Just for Women Centre—the charity—does not get a single penny of it. I hope the Minister will look into the details of this, because it is not just happening in County Durham. We need a method whereby small charities can access the contracts, because I think they would do the work a lot cheaper and more cost-effectively.
We also need a system for managing people long-term in the community. Another fantastic centre in Durham is the Waddington Street Centre, which through education, therapy and other activities, manages people in the community. I pay tribute to Steve Wakefield and his staff, and the chair, Professor Fred Robinson. Like the Just for Women Centre, the Waddington Street Centre cannot access any of these contracts and has to rely on charitable donations. We all know that the charitable sector is being cut, so we need some method whereby those organisations can get access.
Finally, I want to focus on mental health in the workplace, because it is a subject we do not talk about much. As I said, mental health issues cost this country some 4.5% of GDP; most Chancellors of the Exchequer would salivate over the savings to be made by reducing that by 1% or 2%. The question is why mental health in the workplace is not a higher priority for the Government and for UK plc. Part of the answer is the workplace culture—the belief in this country that by working every hour God sends, we will be more productive, and also the belief that any talk of mental health in the workplace is fluffy and vague.
However, some businesses, such as BT, have taken a board-level decision to address mental health issues in the workplace. I congratulate the Communication Workers Union on its work with BT management to put in place support mechanisms and awareness campaigns on mental health and the early warning signs of problems. The results of this approach speak for themselves. In BT’s case, the number of employees off work on sickness absence because of mental health problems has decreased by 30% over the past five years. Among those who have been off work more than six months for mental health reasons, there has been an astounding 80% return rate, compared with the national average of less than 20%.
James Morris
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech and the examples he gives from BT are very interesting. Is it not the case that we need to flip the way we think about mental health in the workplace? It is not a problem to be managed, but an opportunity to be taken. Many people on a mental health recovery journey can be some of the most creative and productive employees in an organisation, so we need to embed that approach into HR practice and drive productivity that way.
Mr Jones
I agree. The focus should be on mental well-being, rather than mental illness, in the workplace. I spoke to the managing director of BT and asked why the company adopted the approach that I described and whether it was aiming to be a good corporate citizen. The answer was no. The firm does it for hard, brass-tacks reasons—it is good for business. It sees the fragility of poor mental health among its employees as a risk to its business model. I am sure that is the case in other types of business too. BT has recognised that and put the appropriate mechanisms in place. We need a system for that to be rolled out among other companies in the UK.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. I thoroughly agree with what he says about mental health in the workplace. Will he pay tribute to the work of organisations such as Mind that are producing training packages for dealing with mental health issues in the workplace? As he says, those are a huge cost to organisations and to the individuals involved. Mental health issues are the No. 1 cause of absenteeism from the workplace, and systematic training is needed across all workplaces.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman says about bringing people with mental health difficulties back into employment. I hope he will acknowledge the work done by Disability Confident, a scheme supported and run by the DWP which recently ran a presentation in my constituency. A number of large employers were brought to the presentation and for the very first time challenged with the opportunities that exist, as opposed to defining mental health issues as a problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great scope for such an initiative to be taken beyond the pilot stage across the whole country?
Mr Jones
Indeed. The test is to make that a must for business. The next Government of whatever shade should make it compulsory. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) referred earlier to the Health and Safety Executive, which has a key role to play in that. Mental health issues should not be seen as a threat to businesses. The challenge is to help businesses of whatever size to perform better not only by being good to their individual employees, but by being more productive as part of the economy.
There is a huge challenge here. We must take this issue seriously. It should be seen not just as one of health. It must be tackled across Government. Whichever party is in Government after May, and especially if it is my party, I will be arguing strongly that we need a cross-Government initiative so that all Departments ask what is being done to promote good mental health, not only within the Department but in the development of vital policies. If we get this right, it makes economic common sense and can grow the UK economy. That is the dynamic that will make people sit up and think about making this a reality.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
Mental health in the workplace is undoubtedly hugely important, but mental health is a continuum throughout life. It starts in the earliest years when it is a matter of the relationship between a baby and their mother and father. If we can improve those early years, we improve children’s chances of having good mental health throughout their lives.
Mental health is about resilience and building resilience. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be concerned, as I am, that headmasters in primary and secondary schools now talk about the levels of self-harm in their schools. It is extraordinarily worrying that young children at primary and secondary school are self-harming. They feel so desperate, so out of control, so out of touch, perhaps, with their peers, that the only way they can relieve that pressure is through harming themselves, through cutting themselves. Of course, mental illness manifests itself in other ways, such as depression and a feeling of isolation.
If we are to enable workplaces to flourish, we need to ensure that our young people can flourish. I urge the Government, in looking at the mental health piece, to see it as a joined-up continuum. Without good mental health in the early years and in schools, we will not have good mental health in the workplace, despite the best efforts of employers.
The truth is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) have identified, the longer one is out of work, the less chance there is of rejoining work. A couple of years ago, President Obama’s mental health adviser came to speak in the United Kingdom, and a huge amount of work has been done in the United States about exclusion from the workplace. It is simply the case that if people have a mental health crisis at work and leave that workplace for even a short period, their chances of returning are diminished, and the longer they are away, the less chance they have of getting back into any form of work. We need to be mindful of that. I congratulate the Minister for recognising that. I know that he is doing some important thinking in this area. An article yesterday in the Evening Standard described the efforts, led by the Minister, to ensure that people who have been out of work for a long period have the pathways back into work.
Why is work important? It is important because a lot of the time it is fun. It is not fun all of the time; nothing is fun all of the time. But a lot of the time work is fun. It is challenging. It is where we socialise. It is where we meet and make friends. It is where we become part of a team. It is where we achieve. It is where we have success. It is sad to think that there are people who have mental health problems—a period of mental unwellness—who are excluded from this environment, from all those successes, all the things that we enjoy and, on occasions, take for granted.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham—I call him my hon. Friend because I have known him for so many years and we have talked about this on so many occasions that it would be churlish to call him anything but my hon. Friend—made a very insightful and incisive point: what does success look like? Success will not always be going straight into a full-time job. Actually, success might be never going back into a full-time job. Success for one individual might be leaving their home and going out to do some voluntary work for the third sector, perhaps starting off by working one or two days every couple of weeks, moving to one day a week, and then to three or four days a week. It means engaging with the community, being part of a team and being valued and appreciated as an individual. I hope that the option of progressing back into full-time work will be available to all people, but let us not set that as the only benchmark, because for some it will be unobtainable. We need to ensure that there is a way back to some form of engagement in the workplace that meets the spiritual and emotional needs of people recovering from a mental health setback.
A number of colleagues have rightly focused on the efforts of British Telecom, and I would also like to mention Legal & General. They recognise that mental health impacts on all their performers, including their high performers. A good employer should not want to lose anyone for the wrong reasons, but they certainly do not want to lose their best and most productive employees. I do not think that there is anything wrong with British Telecom making a commercial decision that it is in its interests to ensure that it supports its work force. Indeed, it is to be applauded for doing so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam observed, where are the other employers? We know that they are out there, because it cannot just be two—BT and Legal & General. They need to make some noise. We do not want them to be shy. We want them to stand up, shoulder to shoulder, and say, “This is important to us.” If more companies said that, others would want to stand up and say it too, and then we will get a movement going—we like nothing more in this place than getting a movement going. We will have many voices saying in unison, “This is important to us.” Those voices might employ just a few people locally, but they employ up to tens of thousands nationally.
As has already been observed, we cannot separate mental well-being from physical well-being. Many employers now have company gyms and all sorts of schemes to get their employees fit and healthy physically, but mental well-being is just as important—perhaps even more so—and that is where more focus and emphasis is needed.
We must also ensure that people who are going through a period of difficulty and turmoil have good coping mechanisms and strategies. Again, the employer can be at the forefront of that. It is not always the case, but too often people who are struggling can find that their coping mechanisms revolve around substance abuse and misuse, and that is in no one’s interests—not the employee’s, not their family’s and not their employer’s. We need employers to be at the forefront by not only looking at their staff’s physical health, but placing a huge premium and emphasis on their mental well-being.
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend is making some incredibly important points. What does he think about a possible requirement—voluntary or otherwise—on companies to report on their human capital, because it is an important risk factor for investors if companies do not properly look after their staff and have higher turnover rates as a result? I wonder whether that might push employers to focus on these matters more.
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I will conclude my speech by answering it. Most companies like to talk about the importance they place on human capital, but I suspect that very few do it very well. That is why I think it is so important for good employers to stand up and say, “This is what we are doing and it can be audited, so you can prove for yourselves that we are doing what it says on the tin.” I am not into naming and shaming companies, or coercion—that is the wrong way to go—but there has to be a premium and a reward placed on good practice. I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham in saying to Government that we need to give that some thought. We do not want to come up with a stick; we want to come up with carrots so that good employers are celebrated, and celebrated loudly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on setting the scene very well for each and every one of us. I also thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his impassioned plea on behalf of those who have mental illnesses and need employment. Several right hon. and hon. Members have made very detailed contributions. We look forward to the Minister’s response, because this issue concerns us all.
These are the sorts of debates that I like to be involved in because they are about the nitty-gritty of our constituencies and the issues that people bring to our offices every day and wish us to speak on. I deal with this issue in my office every day when we see people who are struggling to cope with mental health illnesses and problems. These are made worse by the times we live in and the pressures on those in work and those on benefits. The hon. Member for North Durham mentioned benefits. Of late, I have seen greater need in people who suffer from depression as they have had to deal with issues that they never in their life had to deal with before. Poverty.org has said that people who are working are at much lower risk of mental illness than those who are unemployed or long-term sick or disabled. The proportions of those assessed as being at high risk are between 10% and 20% for those who are working, about 30% for those who are unemployed, and 50% for those who are long-term sick or disabled.
One of the biggest issues that I see in my office is the benefits system. A lady in my office—one of my staff members—now deals with nothing but benefits issues. That is because of the enormity of the change that has come about. The hon. Member for North Durham referred to the “ESA merry-go-round”. We have all experienced that. I have had cases where constituents have had to be assessed for ESA three times in one year. I fail to understand why that happens. Is there that dramatic a change within four months, or six months? I understand the need for the system, but not the need for a regular three-times-a-year assessment of someone who is clearly ill.
I want to give an example, as we all can; the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about one of his constituents. I will not mention any names but I will tell the story. I recently helped a young lady of 32 with her disability living allowance form. She suffers from a very serious case of chronic inflammation of the bowel. Over the past five years, she has had to go down to part-time hours, and she eventually lost her job due to her periods of sickness. This in turn has led to her suffering from depression, which has made her illness worse, and she is now at a stage where she cannot go out to work and being in the house just makes everything worse in her life. She said to me, “Even if I am well, Jim, who is going to hire me with my record? I just can’t see any light in my future.” That was a terrible thing for this young girl to say. After that appointment, where the girl said little and her mother outlined most of the illness, I asked myself, “What is the system doing to help her and others in her situation?” Undoubtedly, inability to find a job or to work is a massive factor in mental health. These constituents—there are many of them—worry and concern us. With all due respect, I seriously question that the system is right in this circumstance.
The hon. Member for North Durham referred to isolation. I want to make a point on behalf of those in rural isolation. My constituency is split about 50:50 between urban and countryside, so I am aware of the rural isolation of people who live alone, who are unemployed, who have little or no family contact, and who find every day a challenge in their homes—those who, as a result of their unemployment and rural isolation, become depressed. We have to reach those people as well. This is an issue that burdens me greatly.
The poverty.org website states:
“Research suggests a connection between the conflict and the risk of mental ill-health within Northern Ireland”.
Everyone present knows of the 30-year conflict in Northern Ireland, during which a great number of people were affected emotionally and mentally by what took place. The website states that
“the greater the extent to which someone’s area or life is affected by it, the greater the likelihood that they have poorer mental health. How far the conflict explains the overall levels of mental ill-health in Northern Ireland is less clear…Among those who chose to answer questions about their experience of the conflict, 7% indicated that they themselves had been injured during it, while a further 36% indicated that a close relative or friend had either been injured or killed. Putting these two figures together implies that in the early years of this decade, around half a million people had been affected by the conflict in this way.”
That gives an idea of the magnitude of what took place in Northern Ireland: it has affected those of us who came through it.
The figures show that mental health is a greater issue in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. When someone is under pressure or stress and worried about whether they will live or die, they turn to drink, drugs or other things, and that affects their lifestyle. Ultimately, a great number of people in Northern Ireland suffer from depression and mental health issues because of our country’s past.
There is an advert in Northern Ireland—I suspect there are similar ones across the whole of the United Kingdom—that shows a young boy who is the life and soul of the party. He is the one telling the jokes and who is involved in everything that is going on, but when he leaves his friends and goes home, the door closes and he becomes a different person. Sometimes a person’s outward appearance can be bubbly and seemingly cheerful, but the fact is that, when they return home on their own, depression sets in. Colleagues in the workplace can address such issues, and that is also a job for family and friends.
The Prince’s Trust has found that between 10% and 20% of teenagers from Northern Ireland will suffer from depression at some point in that short period of their lives. More than one in three—35%—of youngsters there had experienced mental health issues, compared with the United Kingdom national average of almost one in five, which is 19%. There is a greater level of depression among younger people in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. The Prince’s Trust also revealed that long-term unemployed 16 to 25-year-olds are twice as likely as their peers to be prescribed anti-depressants and believe that they have nothing to live for. We have a role to play in addressing that.
I will mention the suicide rate later. Unfortunately, a large number of young people who were unable to cope with life took what they felt was the only way out. I know that the Minister’s response to the debate will be positive—it always is—and I would like him to address what we can do together to try to solve some of the problems. I look forward to hearing his contribution.
Ian Jeffers, director of the Prince’s Trust in Northern Ireland, has said that the trust’s report comes at a time when long-term youth unemployment has shot up by 197% since the start of the recession in 2008. Having said that, it would be remiss of me not to mention February’s unemployment rates, which show a clear drop of 17.9% in unemployment among young people over the past 12 months, so steps are being taken to create employment opportunities. If we look at overall employment in Northern Ireland, we see that almost 10,000 jobs have been created over a recent period.
Ian Jeffers says:
“Unemployment is proven to cause devastating, long-lasting mental health problems among young people…Thousands wake up every day believing that life isn’t worth living, after struggling for years in the dole queue. Across Northern Ireland, 5,450 young people are facing long-term unemployment”—
there is still work to do—
“and there is a real danger that these young people will feel hopeless, as well as jobless.”
The research highlighted that people suffering from depression would be less likely to ask for help in that circumstance.
The poll, which gives a very accurate flavour of what is happening, revealed that more than one in three, or 34%, of young people said that they always or often feel down or depressed, compared with a national average of 32%, and the long-term unemployed are significantly more likely to feel that way. One in four, or 29%, said that they feel like an outcast, compared with 24% nationally, and the report found that the long-term unemployed are significantly more likely to feel that way. More than one in five, or 21%, admitted that they feel like a “waste of space”. How often have Members heard that comment? It may have been said frivolously on many occasions, but such young people react in a much more difficult and serious way. That figure is against a national average of 17%, and the long-term unemployed are more than twice as likely to feel that way.
The youth charity the Prince’s Trust has said that it will support 58,000 disadvantaged young people this year. About 280 of those surveyed were not in education, employment or training, 166 had been unemployed for more than six months and 135 had been jobless for a year or more. Almost one in five young people looking for a job at present cannot find one in today’s marketplace.
I believe that it is our job to look at and address the issue of people who are not qualified. There is a problem in Northern Ireland among young Protestants who for some reason do not have the educational qualifications that they should have. I understand that it is a devolved matter, but I suspect that there are other parts of the United Kingdom where people do not have the qualifications they need.
The statistics are horrifying; yet they are not a complete shock. The number of young people who come to my office for benefit and housing help is very sad, when I think of how much I loved having my first job and getting my first pay cheque. We have a generation of young people who are waiting on their benefit cheque with nothing else to live for. Is it any wonder that we have a serious problem with mental health issues?
Suicide in the community is a great worry for all of us as elected representatives. Every one of us has dealt with families—with people we know personally, or with their families—who have lost loved ones who took their own lives because they felt that there was no way forward. I have asked myself this question, as many others have probably done: if I had known, could I in some way have persuaded that person not to do what he or she did? It is always a very difficult question to answer, but the fact is that we do not know. All we can do is to do our best in this world: to speak to the people who come to see us and to try to give them some hope that they can look forward with positivity. Those are some of the issues, but if such people are coming off the back of terrible depression or terrible pressure, they do not know where they can go next.
The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency states on its website that 14,968 deaths were registered in Northern Ireland in 2013, of which 303 were suicides—the second highest number on record in Northern Ireland after the 313 recorded in 2010—and just over three quarters, or 229, of the suicides in 2013 were young men. That highlights why this debate on mental health and unemployment is so important. It is a chance for the House to shine a light on how we can help such young people to move from their mental health problems into employment, and how we can help them to achieve their vision, goal and challenge for the future.
The link between unemployment and mental health issues is clear, and it is time that strategies were put in place to deal with those issues. Are we getting this right at present? I do not believe we are, but that does not mean that we should stop trying. For the sake of families throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we must and we can do better.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I was not sure whether I would make it to this debate, given my other responsibilities, but I am very glad that I have. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling the debate, and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for opening it.
This is an important debate, not only for those with mental health challenges who are unemployed, but because it is something that I think strikes at the heart of what we are all doing in politics. With millions of people affected—one in four people will be affected by a mental health challenge in their lifetime—this issue lies at the heart of what it is to be human, to be British, and to be part of a democratic society. Right now in this Chamber, across the House, in our offices and across the country, probably one in six or seven people is struggling with some form of mental health challenge. That says to me that it is part of the normality of the human condition, and surely as Members of Parliament and Government, and as law makers, we must bear that in mind when making the laws of the land.
Across the Conservative Benches, and perhaps across the House, it often seems that our objective in politics is to seek the greatest level of utility for the greatest number of people. It strikes me, however, that GDP growth, incomes, salaries, and the growth in physical goods and services that we consume, is not necessarily the best aim. Indeed, I am not sure that that is the fundamental aim we all share, and it seems that a better motto, modus operandi and objective—one that I suspect we all share—would be to create the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. It is not that as politicians we can work out how to make people happy—that would be preposterous and ridiculous—but some things are certain to make people unhappy, or to create stress and the sense of a lack of control that leads to a greater prevalence of mental health challenges.
When I first arrived in Parliament in 2005 I co-wrote a pamphlet entitled “The Forgotten”. My chapter was on those with depression who, almost by virtue of that condition if they are going through an experience at the time of an election, are kind of disfranchised from society and the democratic process. One of my burning passions is to ensure that everyone, no matter what their background or mental health condition, is able to participate in the democratic process, and is also never forgotten.
We certainly do not know how to create happiness—I would be very nervous if anyone suggested that they know how to create happiness for somebody else. However, when it comes to public services and law making we can do a lot to remove the causes of unhappiness, depression, or the exacerbating factors that lead to greater levels of depression and mental health challenges.
On the causes of mental health challenges, there is certainly a degree of genetic propensity—that is becoming ever clearer as scientific research progresses. There are also specific causes of such challenges in life, such as bereavement, certainly of a close family member. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his comments on the fact that in troubled zones during times of war or conflict the incidence of mental health challenges rises immediately because of changes to what is going on around people. Mental health challenges can be brought forward or exacerbated by accidents, or by the loss of a job or a divorce. Those are known causes or accelerating factors for mental health challenges, and are things for us to consider when making policy.
One area is almost entirely within our control—this is why I am delighted to participate in the debate today—because we can have an impact on the welfare and benefits system, and on how the state enables or helps people to find employment, or to get training or education. I was particularly mindful and supportive of many of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about the systems we introduce for getting people back into work, or identifying whether they have challenges. One of the greatest forms of stress and pressure—which can cause depression and trigger other mental health challenges—is a feeling that our life is out of our control. We have a complicated benefits system, and people have to jump through many hoops to achieve recognition within it.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to tailor-make back-to-work programmes and recognise that on some occasions it might take longer to get people capable of working? We also need a system that allows people with long-term mental health issues who are not going to work at least to make some positive contribution to society.
Adam Afriyie
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head—that is precisely it. The distribution of traits within mankind and the British population is like a bell curve. Every person is unique. There are very few identical twins. Certain mental health conditions require a longer period of adjustment before people are able to participate in the workplace or in voluntary activities that make a contribution to society. Any system must be flexible enough to recognise that difference.
On the feeling that one’s life is out of one’s control, let us imagine—I will create a caricature here—someone from a tough background with literacy difficulties, perhaps dyslexia, who has just gone through a divorce and is presented with forms up to 70 pages long when trying to get some form of support from the state. The idea that someone who is in a very difficult state can navigate this incredibly complex system is tantamount to mental cruelty. There have been cases in the press recently where parents of children with difficulties have had to deal with a stream of health workers, disability benefit support staff, jobcentre workers and council workers knocking on their door. That can create a huge amount of stress and a sense that life is beyond one’s control. We have to be mindful of that and ensure that public services fit people who are going through a mental health episode.
I want to say some positive things about mental health, unemployment and employment. Mental health challenges are part of the normal human condition. Probably one in four of us here will struggle with a mental health challenge at some point in our lifetime. I am sure that all MPs have seen people in their surgeries who present with a problem—for example, they are unemployed and are having difficulties finding work and navigating the benefits system—and realise that there is something more behind the initial problem. Sometimes it will be depression, bipolar or paranoia, and they will need further assistance and support.
If we are to have a society that is at ease with itself, the stigma of mental health conditions needs to disappear. It is part of our job—not just in this debate, but in our daily lives—to ensure that we are relaxed about talking about mental health conditions, no matter what they are. In many cases, I welcome the idea that people joke about mental health conditions. I do not mean that people should do so in a derogatory way, but that jokes are part of our normal discourse. Whether in Parliament, in Westminster or in a business, people stand by a coffee machine and talk about so and so breaking a leg when they were skiing. Everyone has a laugh about it, asks the person how they are and then writes their name on the cast. I do not want mental health challenges to be part of a sort of corridor whisper. We should be able to laugh and talk—“so and so is having a bit of trouble at the moment”—and be very relaxed about them, because they are part of our human condition.
Another positive thing about people with mental health challenges in the workplace is this: yes, British Telecom has recognised the benefits of employing people who may have challenges, but a raft of smaller firms have also recognised those benefits. In my working career in the world of business in the 20 years before I entered politics—I suppose this is work as well—I came across many enlightened small businesses that, on many occasions, competed for people with mental challenges such as depression or bipolar. I will try to put this subtly. When somebody is struggling with bipolar and is in a good period, they can be exceptionally creative and productive. That is very useful, provided one recognises that when they are in a down period they need flexibility and understanding. A lot of small businesses would benefit from recruiting people with certain mental health challenges for particular roles in their organisation.
It is my experience, from having observed businesses over the years, that those that recognise these challenges and show flexibility actually perform exceptionally well. So even being less altruistic, this is a great opportunity to create work forces that are up to the mark, dedicated and loyal and which go the extra mile in the good times, because people with mental health challenges are a great resource on which to draw. As others have said, however, it would be helpful to have guidelines or suggestions, perhaps from the public sector but certainly from bodies such as Mind and others, on how to work with people with mental health challenges, particularly for small businesses.
I hope that Opposition Members will bear with me for a moment, because I want to touch on the coalition’s welfare changes, many of which were initiated under the previous Labour Government. In many respects, we should take our hats off to the direction of travel. One of the greatest pressures is to be young and unemployed and to feel unwanted, as it can exacerbate the feeling of isolation from society. However, although the welfare changes that the coalition has made or is seeking to make might not be perfect, they do represent the correct direction of travel. I know that many Opposition Members agree. If we can help somebody into work—not in a brutal way—we can give them that sense of meaning, control and well-being that comes from knowing that even if they have a mental health challenge they are still welcome in the work force. These are positive things that MPs can do to enfranchise the large minority that struggles from time to time.
Mr Jones
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman—if it is the right type of help. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I mentioned, for someone suffering from a long-term mental health condition, this merry-go-round system we have is pretty brutish and needs refining. Otherwise, it will not only waste taxpayers’ money but create a lot of unhappiness and fear among people with long-term mental health issues.
Adam Afriyie
I think we agree. Indeed, I was about to focus on how we could significantly improve the way the system works for people with mental health challenges. First, on public services, particularly welfare-to-work arrangements, we need to be very finely attuned to the processes undertaken. Somebody with a mental health challenge might initially appear to be absolutely fine, but if they are put through a very mechanistic—the hon. Gentleman said “brutish”—process that makes no allowances for such challenges, it can do more harm than good.
Mr Jones
I do not disagree, but one of the fundamental flaws that I and others have been raising for several years is that Atos assessors are not mental health trained. Having assessors with expertise in mental health would be a huge step forward in helping those individuals, yet the Government have ignored the matter for the last few years.
Adam Afriyie
I am not sure the Government have ignored it. I have been in meetings where it has been carefully discussed, so it is certainly on the agenda. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point, however, and I am sure we will get to it on the other side of the upcoming election. Thus far, the focus has been on shaping the overall system in the right way, but unquestionably it will need refinement to ensure that in the first level of interaction the system quickly identifies people who might require a greater focus on their mental health and well-being than the average person.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that once we are through this short period before the election, and if we are both fortunate enough to be here afterwards, I will be happy to work with him and others in the Chamber to ensure that mental health conditions are better recognised or integrated within the process. We had a huge mountain to climb just to change the system in the first instance, but greater sensitivity is certainly needed now.
Four or five years ago, in Windsor, I knocked on the door of a very elderly lady. She had found in her letter box a form connected with a consultation on whether a local development should proceed. She was clearly struggling with a mental health condition at the time, and was agonising over whether she should fill in the massive form. There was another form from the council, and another relating to planning. I almost did not have the heart, but just about had the heart, to say to her, “The form is merely about a consultation, and, given the hundreds of forms that will be sent back, what you write on this one may have only a very small impact on the outcome. You might be better off seeing your family, having relatives to visit, and actually enjoying your life.”
What I gleaned from that encounter was that having to deal with lengthy forms and deeply bureaucratic processes may—unnecessarily, in many cases—take away the quality of people’s lives, particularly when those people are unemployed. That, I believe, should be a secondary focus for us, and for any future Government. We should think about the way in which we ask people to participate in our bureaucratic procedures to obtain assistance and return to work. We should ask ourselves whether the length of forms is a problem, and whether matters could be dealt with a little more quickly on the telephone or face to face, given that that some people might be struggling with a challenge at the time.
I know that we are having a quiet afternoon in the Chamber today, but I think that we have a responsibility to continue to talk about this issue—not only in debates such as this, but in the context of every brief that we may hold, every Committee in which we may participate, and every Bill that we may examine. We must keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that a very large proportion of the British population are struggling with mental health challenges. Every policy that we create must be designed to reflect that, and to accommodate such people.
Here is one more idea that may be of use at some point in the future. I love the idea of the market. I love the idea of businesses competing to hire employees, and I love the idea that competing small businesses—as well as one or two larger ones—that are desperate to hire staff at a time of low unemployment will one day place an imprimatur on their websites and recruitment pages, declaring that theirs is a mental health-friendly working environment. Indeed, it would be curious if they did not do so. I believe that if small and medium-sized businesses—indeed, all businesses—do not take that route, they will be hamstringing themselves and preventing themselves from taking advantage of the best employees that they can recruit from the marketplace.
This is my vision for politics. I want to see a country that is at ease with itself, and with people from different backgrounds and different walks of life. A country that is at ease with itself must acknowledge that, at any one time, a large minority of its population will face mental health challenges, but that those people are equally part of society. The policies that we create in this place must be user-friendly, and take account of people from all sorts of backgrounds and with all sorts of conditions.
I am optimistic about the future. Why? Because there is no doubt that Labour, Liberal Democrat, Independent and Conservative Members all recognise that the issue of mental health represents a serious challenge for a large proportion of the population, and I am confident that any future Government will pay more attention to it than we have in the past.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I thank all Members who have contributed to what I think has been a very interesting and rich debate. I especially thank the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for introducing, in a wide-ranging speech, all the issues on which others have expanded.
There is clearly widespread concern about the poor employment outcomes and poor employment experience of people with mental health disorders. Those concerns are wide-ranging. There is obviously a concern about the poor employment rate among people with mental health problems and the fact that unemployment is both a cause and a result of poor mental health. Particular concerns were rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the implications for young people who experience unemployment at the very start of their adult lives. There are also concerns about people with mental health illnesses being dismissed or exiting work prematurely, about a lack of not just joining the workplace but progression in the workplace—relatively reduced chances for promotion—about lack of support in the workplace for people with mental health problems and, as was highlighted in the debate this afternoon, about so-called presenteeism, which is damaging for both the health and well-being of the individual and business productivity.
Such concerns about the cost both to the individual and society have been highlighted a number of times this afternoon. Poorer mental health outcomes are suffered by poorer people, who are less likely to be in employment. We also know that 39% of sickness absence is as a result of mental health problems, amounting to 11.3 million working days lost to our economy each year.
We have also heard concerns about the wider context in which mental health problems in the workplace arise and are then addressed. There are problems with people accessing therapies and treatments to deal early with mental health difficulties, and we have rightly heard quite a bit about stigma and discrimination and what can be done to tackle that.
I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) about the importance of dealing with mental health difficulties among children and young people and intervening early to address them. Many mental health problems begin in childhood—before the age of 18—yet we know that only 6% of spending on therapeutic mental health services is through child and adolescent mental health services, so there is clearly a massive imbalance in the way in which we are spending our resources to address the problems in the pre-adult years, as compared with picking up the pieces afterwards when so much damage has been done.
Concerns were also expressed about the extent to which programmes that should be helping are not doing so. We heard quite a lot about difficulties with the benefits system and problems with some of the work support programmes, which mean we cannot be complacent about an employment rate of 37% among people with mental health problems against an overall employment rate of 77%.
As we heard, in most cases being in work is beneficial for mental health, although in her 2013 report for the Government on mental health and work Dame Carol Black rightly set out a number of caveats to that, including the quality of the job and the degree of autonomy or control that is enjoyed by an employee. However, we also know that people who are not working because of a mental health problem represent the largest proportion of those who would like to be in employment. The reasons why they are not working are partly to do with lack of access to the therapies and care that would make work possible.
We have heard on many occasions of significant delays in accessing so-called talking therapies, and we must be concerned that one driver of the rise in the number of people being placed on the support group of employment and support allowance because of mental health problems may be that people cannot get access to the health care they need.
We must also pay attention to the particular anxiety identified by the independent reviewer, Dr Paul Litchfield, about the very large number of young people in the support group or the work-related activity group of ESA who have mental health difficulties. The fact that we are parking some of those young people on to a benefit without properly intervening early, and the fact that the way in which the system operates exacerbates and encourages a disregard of early intervention, is something I know the Minister expressed his own concerns about in his appearance before the Select Committee recently.
Repeated reports have recommended the much more effective joining up of employment support and mental health services. I very much welcome the introduction of specific indicators for mental health and employment in the NHS outcomes framework, but we also know that there are long delays in accessing therapies and that doctors can be reluctant to identify a mental health problem or sometimes fail to recognise that a patient could work or that work would be beneficial for that individual. The introduction of the fit note offers doctors the opportunity to provide more useful fitness advice to patients with mental health conditions, but there remains a significant challenge to ensure that health care service professionals support rather than work against the grain of increasing and sustaining employment.
We also know that stigma and employers’ fear play an important part in the poor employment outcomes of those with mental health disorders. Half of employers say that they would not employ someone with a mental health condition, although I strongly suspect that a large majority of them in fact already do so. Too often, sickness absence as a result of a mental health problem leads to dismissal under capability procedures or to early exit or early retirement. The introduction of fees for employment tribunals under this Government makes it harder for an individual who has been forced out of work to gain redress, which I guess could make it more likely that employers will put people under pressure to leave a job.
As has been said, we need the workplace environment to be much more effective in supporting people with mental health disorders. A few days ago, I met representatives from my own union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and they highlighted some of the difficulties that their members were facing at work. They talked about the stressors that people face at work, including unrealistic performance targets, zero-hours contracts and the insecurity associated with them, low pay and the difficulty of balancing family and working life.
Those problems are not confined to one particular industry sector. Workers in the public sector—teachers, probation officers, police officers and people in the armed forces, for example—also experience high levels of pressure and stress. We should also note that those pressures cut across all levels of jobs, from the most senior to those in basic and entry-level jobs. In fact, stress is particularly high among lower-paid workers who do not enjoy autonomy and control over how their working day is spent, or who feel that they have low status at work. Stress levels among low-paid and more junior workers can be particularly high.
There are lots of opportunities for us to intervene to improve workplace support. We have heard some helpful and imaginative suggestions and examples this afternoon. I hope that the Minister will comment on the role of the Health and Safety Executive in relation to this agenda. There is a real opportunity for managers to work with trade union workplace representatives to address some of the issues. There is also an important role for the public sector, as an exemplar employer, to adopt appropriate strategies to support staff as well as proactively recruiting those with a history of mental ill health, as was rightly suggested by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie).
Sir Stephen O’Brien, who is chair of the Barts Health NHS Trust, was recently commissioned by the Leader of the Opposition to advise my party on a mentally healthy society. He has suggested that accreditation schemes could do more. In addition, we need to pay attention to manager training and to providing information in the workplace to enable people to self-refer to mental health services, as well as to the positive use of the fit for work scheme, which is something the USDAW representatives told me that people were quite fearful of. The scheme could be helpful in supporting people to get back into work quickly, and I hope that employer bodies will take positive steps to engage with and reassure their workers about the way in which they are using the new scheme.
The Government also have an important role in supporting into employment those who are out of work as a result of a mental health problem. Despite the raft of initiatives and pilots described in the Government’s disability and employment strategy, the number of people being placed in the employment and support allowance support group is rising, and labour market programmes that ought to be getting more people back into work are continuing to let them down. The Work programme has been a failure for those with a mental health condition, as the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, getting just 6.7% of them back into work. The black-box approach and the national contracting regime have shut out specialist provision, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and others. We have also seen a 20% reduction in the number of specialist disability employment advisers in jobcentres. As the Minister acknowledged in a written ministerial statement on 18 December, the Access to Work programme last year suffered from significant delivery problems, which will have inhibited access to some of the support that could have been provided through the mental health component of the programme. That could have enabled more people, more quickly, to have functioned better at work.
There is a problem with the Work programme’s absence of a specialist programme for people who have been placed on ESA for mental health and indeed other chronic health conditions and disabilities, which means they are not getting the tailor-made support they need. That is why Labour has said that we would introduce a specialist programme of work support for those who have been on ESA for more than three months, which would mean that by commissioning that support locally, we will be able to make much better use of the kind of specialist organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that have expertise in mental health and employment, and will be able to offer appropriate support.
I agree with the comments made about the opportunity presented by the individual placement and support programmes run from a number of NHS trusts. I had the privilege of visiting the IPS team in south Manchester a few months ago, where I heard about the successes it achieves, both in placing people into, and sustaining them in, work, and in reducing the incidence of hospitalisation. We know, including from an international study—the equalise study—that such interventions can be cost-effective compared with other vocational support for some people, yet too often people are being referred to this kind of support too late. I will be interested to hear the Minister update us on the Government’s thinking on IPS and what the current learning is. I would also be interested if he commented on what I was told in south Manchester, which was that the NHS is funding these IPS programmes but if Work programme providers have referred or introduced someone to that IPS service, the Work programme provider claims the outcome payment. It seems mad that the Department for Work and Pensions is paying a Work programme provider when all the work is being done and all the cost is being borne in the NHS. I hope the Minister might be able to say something about that.
Mr Kevan Jones
That is exactly what is happening to the charity I mentioned in my contribution. It is doing all the work and the Work programme provider is doing nothing for individuals, apart from making a phone call at the end to ascertain whether that person has actually got a job and then claiming the money from the Government.
Kate Green
That is absolutely not how those contracts should be working. If subcontracting to specialist organisations is taking place from the Work programme, the organisations to which those subcontracts are being let should be properly rewarded. We face a number of problems in this area. First, a lot of local organisations do not have the opportunity or the wherewithal to participate in these programmes at all. As my hon. Friend says, those that can or try to participate find that the programmes are utterly economically unviable for them because they are not paid for the work they do.
Finally, I wish to pick up on the discussion introduced by a number of colleagues about the operation of the benefits system, and how that bears on those with mental health conditions and their chances for employment. The hon. Member for Windsor was absolutely right to talk about the complexity and forbidding nature of some of the system. I hope the Minister is not going to tell me that universal credit is going to resolve all that, because I do not think it will. In particular, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the gateway into the system is as much a part of the problem as the way in which the benefits system is designed. Although it is right that moving people into employment is in many cases going to be good for their mental health, moving them into poorly paid jobs which leave them still struggling to make ends meet will not make them feel that their well-being is being holistically addressed. Poorly paid, poor-quality jobs are, in the long run, just not going to be consistent with good mental health. I also say to the Minister—and he will know this—that there has been a massive upsurge in sanctioning benefit claimants under this Government, which must mean that a number of those who are being caught are those with mental health problems.
Of course there must be conditions for benefits and sanctions for wilful non-compliance, but inappropriate sanctioning causes not only financial hardship for many but huge anxiety and stress. Despite repeated protestations from Ministers that there are no targets for sanctions in Jobcentre Plus, we hear again and again anecdotal reports that such targets—at least at managerial level—do exist. It is also true that the new regime is now much more punitive. Sanctions bite harder and last longer and a culture has grown up in which claimants are being sanctioned inappropriately.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I was told of a case in the west midlands of a Work programme participant who was unable, because of his mental health condition, to discuss his situation in a public forum, as was required by his provider. The resulting anxiety left him unable to engage at all with the Work programme and he was sanctioned for 14 days.
It would be useful to know what analysis Ministers are undertaking of the people affected by sanctions who have a mental health condition. It is really quite shocking that we have so little information on their fate when a sanction has been imposed. I want to be clear that, under a Labour Government, there will be no targets for sanctions, that we will insist that assessors and decision makers at every stage of the process from the work capability assessment to the imposition of conditions to decisions about sanctions properly take account of the mental health of the claimant, and that expert advice will be available to ensure that relevant information is considered, with penalties on assessors for poor advice.
May I also highlight the concerns that arise from the recent regulations to allow data-sharing in relation to universal credit recipients with a range of other service providers, including housing associations, credit unions and debt advice agencies? Constituents have said that they are concerned that this could lead to data-sharing about their mental health, which they have not authorised and do not want to happen. The Minister must be clear about what protections will exist when the new regulations take effect.
In conclusion, I am glad that we have had this debate this afternoon and that we have shared our aspirations for the best employment chances and rights at work for those who suffer mental illness. As we all know, warm words will not be enough. There must be a rigorous focus on access, support and measurable outcomes. One in four of us will suffer mental illness at some point in our lifetime. We cannot afford the waste of potential when, so often, worklessness is the result.
The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for approving this debate and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—but like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne I will call him my hon. Friend for the purpose of this debate—for securing it.
I am afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will try your patience by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on his OBE, which he collected this morning. I can see from your furrowed brow that you were not aware of that, but you are now. He has been congratulated rather a lot today, but I felt that it would have been remiss of me not to do so from the Dispatch Box.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. One can never be congratulated too much, and it is right that the hon. Gentleman’s contribution should be acknowledged.
Mr Harper
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were also able to join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend and embarrass him still further.
It has been a very good debate. It is an important matter for our constituents because mental health conditions are very common, with one in six people being affected at some time in their life. That statistic has been mentioned a few times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) who put on record his contribution on the subject early in his parliamentary career. All Members made the clear link between mental health—whether good or bad—and someone’s employment position. Many Members also highlighted the fact that labour market outcomes are poorer for people with mental health conditions than for the population as a whole and those with health conditions in general. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and others said, the vast majority of people with mental health conditions want to work.
I listened carefully to the statistics that my right hon. Friend quoted about people with severe mental health problems. In the spirit of trying to cheer him up a little, noting that he referred to some positive data from the Time to Change campaign about the changing views of employers on mental health, let me reassure him that although I am not in any way complacent, as the gap between those with a mental health problem working and those generally working is significant and far too wide, there was at least some improvement between the last quarter of 2013 and the last quarter of 2014, when the employment rate for those with a variety of common mental illnesses went up by 2.6%, with a further 70,000 people in employment. That is obviously positive and a step in the right direction. I will not overclaim for it, as it is just a step, but perhaps it shows that the good work of the organisations involved with the Time to Change campaign means that employers are open both to keeping people who develop a mental health problem in work and to employing people with mental health problems. We might be seeing the start of improvement in those employment figures, but I do not want to claim more than that.
We are doing a lot, but clearly there is also more to do. I want to pick up on a couple of points mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I absolutely agree with her comment early on in her remarks referring to employers who say that they would not employ someone with a mental health problem. She was absolutely right that if they employ a reasonable number of employees they almost certainly do, although they might not know that they do. Perhaps the employee does not know that they have a mental health problem either.
The statistics suggest that anyone who employs more than six people is likely to have at least one member of staff with a mental health problem. Perhaps they ought to look around their workplace, think about the people they employ who have a mental health problem and think about how well they support that person, not out of any sense of altruism, although it is of course the right thing to do, but, as the hon. Member for North Durham said, because it is the right thing to do for the business. The person will be more productive, will stay working for that business for longer and will be beneficial. That was a point well made.
Looking at the cast of characters in the Chamber, I recall clearly that three years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, the hon. Member for North Durham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, who was then the Health Minister, participated in a debate in which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman spoke about their own personal experiences. They were both nervous during the debate about how their comments would be taken outside this place. I followed it quite closely, and it was heartening to see that their remarks were taken positively, not just by the organisations that one would expect—those that are familiar with these issues—but more widely and, interestingly, among members of the public. They kicked off an interesting process and since then a number of other right hon. and hon. Members have talked about their own experiences both inside and outside the House. It is right that more Members are encouraged to do that.
The hon. Member for North Durham put it very well when he said that the more we talk about these issues, the more we are open about them, the more the House debates about them and the more we talk about mental health issues in the same matter- of-fact way—I mean that in the most positive sense—as we do about physical health issues, without making a huge drama about them, the more employees and employers will be encouraged to have those sensible conversations in the workplace.
Members spoke about a number of support mechanisms. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) mentioned the improving access to psychological therapies programme and the shadow Minister referred to the various talking therapies that are available. Those programmes have a proven record of delivering and were started by the Labour party when it was in government. They have been continued by us and expanded. By next month, they will have been expanded so that 15% of people who could benefit will have access, covering about 900,000 people a year. Next year, we will introduce for the first time access standards and waiting time standards in mental health services, and an £80 million investment will ensure that 75% of people will receive the IAPT treatment within six weeks, and more than 50% of people who are experiencing their first episode of psychosis will receive a treatment within two weeks. There is more to do, but I think that that is significant progress.
The hon. Member for North Durham talked about the work capability assessment and the performance of Atos in delivering that. With just a teeny bit of partisanship, I will remind him that it was his party’s Government who introduced the work capability assessment and appointed Atos as the contractor. We inherited that arrangement and spent quite a long time putting it right. I detected in what he said that he is not the biggest fan of Atos, so he will be pleased to know that it is exiting the contract to deliver that service in Great Britain. In fact, Maximus takes over next week, and ahead of that, in the next few days, Members will receive a communication from that company. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that one of the areas that Maximus takes very seriously and has itself highlighted, and where it is keen to improve WCA performance, is mental health. I hope that he will engage with Maximus, using his local expertise and his personal experience, to help to improve that performance.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am glad to see the back of Atos, but the fact is that for the past God knows how many years, the key issue raised has been the people doing the assessments. I have no problem with people with mental illness going through an assessment, but people with no mental health experience whatsoever have been responsible for concluding whether those individuals are fit for work. I just hope that the new provider employs people with mental health backgrounds to do those assessments, because that would be a huge step forward. It would be better for the Government and, more important, better for the individuals affected.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point. One of the things that Maximus plans to do is to increase the number of people it employs who are mental health specialists. I think it was the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is no longer in his place, who said that the people who undertake work capability assessments are not qualified, but that of course is not correct: they are all properly accredited health care professionals, although it is true that not all are mental health care professionals. Among other things, Maximus proposes to increase the number of mental health specialists it has, as well as the number of health care professionals with knowledge of specific health conditions, including but not only mental health conditions; and to ensure that it has across its organisation mental function champions to discuss mental health cases with other health care professionals, to bring that expertise to bear.
Mr Jones
That is a welcome move, but may I make a little suggestion? If Maximus is going to employ people with mental health backgrounds to conduct assessments, will the Minister ensure that anyone going for an assessment who has a clear mental health condition—it is why they are on employment and support allowance, for example—is assessed only by someone who has that expertise? That will save a lot of time and money for Government and will help the individual.
Mr Harper
It may not be that clear. Often, people going for an assessment do not have just a single health condition. It is important to remember that the assessment is not a medical diagnosis; it is about the impact of somebody’s health condition or disability on their ability to work. The assessor is not carrying out a diagnosis of a mental health problem; the assessment is about the impact of the condition on an individual’s ability to work.
The hon. Gentleman should look at the communication he gets from Maximus. I am sure that the company will be delighted—I mean that genuinely—to hear from him about his constituents’ experience, because it is genuinely committed to improving the performance of the work capability assessment. Of course, Maximus has experience in delivering health care assessments through other contracts around the world. The signs are positive for how the company will engage with the contract.
James Morris
My hon. Friend makes an important point about individuals not having a single health condition, whether that is mental or physical. One of the challenges is the assessment of someone who has a fluctuating mental health condition, which might require a special form of assessment.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point about fluctuating conditions in the context of assessments. One change in the work capability assessment has been a recognition that fluctuating conditions, including in the mental health space, must be taken into account. Claimants should be asked questions not just about their experience on that day, but about what a typical day looks like and the extent to which their condition fluctuates.
A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam who opened the debate, referred to how my Department and the Department of Health are working together on improving people’s employment and health prospects. He referred to the pilots that we are undertaking. There are four broad pilots, one looking at the individual placement and support model, one looking at whether peer-led group work employment intervention can improve outcomes, another investigating whether a telephone support model is effective, and an online service pilot, which was one of the recommendations from the RAND study that he mentioned. Those pilots, as he knows, have started and are moving into the next phase, which involves a larger set of pilots.
One thing that we are keen to do, which is frustrating because it means that pilots take longer, is to get robust evidence bases for those pilots. As the shadow Minister said, if one wants to roll them out on a significant scale, with my Department and the Department of Health working together, and a substantial amount of money is to be invested, a good evidence base is needed to be clear about what the outcomes will be. It is important that there are sufficient numbers of individuals going through those pilots for a robust evidence base to be developed, rather than lots of qualitative data and anecdotal evidence suggesting that they were successful.
Paul Burstow
I agree that we need a robust evidence base on which the roll-out takes place, but individual placement and support has already been the subject of randomised controlled trials. There is a very good evidence base that should be used to roll it out.
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman is right about that. That is why the access to psychological therapies work is already under way and, as I said, is being rolled out further. One of the issues is how well the pilots can be scaled, given that some pilots require skilled mental health professionals, of whom there are a limited number—by which I do not mean a small number, but finite capacity—looking at models which enable us to scale the pilots up more quickly. We want to make sure that we have a good evidence base for pilots that look promising.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to some very specific experiences in Northern Ireland. It is worth putting on the record—he knows this because we have had this conversation before—that quite a lot of welfare and health services are devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is right for him to raise his constituency experience here in the House, but the delivery of those services is not under my control or that of my colleagues in the Department of Health. Those services are under the control of the Northern Ireland Executive. I will be meeting the Minister in due course as we are keen for our experiences to inform how the Northern Ireland Executive rolls out those services, and vice versa. If we can learn from each other, we are happy to do so.
Jim Shannon
We understand that that is the situation. In my contribution I referred to the Prince’s Trust and some of its good work with vulnerable young people, which the shadow Minister also referred to. Is there any intention to roll out such work on the UK mainland to give vulnerable young people the help that they need at the coalface of their lives?
Mr Harper
I do not have a specific answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman immediately, but I will take that point away and look at it further. I listened carefully when he was setting it out for the House and there were some positive aspects to that approach.
About a third of NHS mental health trusts in England are using individual placement and support. The Department of Health is grant funding the Centre for Mental Health to extend IPS further, and my Department and the Department of Health are working with the Centre for Mental Health to try IPS with schizophrenia. From his expression, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam appears to be familiar with that programme. One of the aims is to encourage at a local level my Department and Jobcentre Plus to work closely with the health service, and there are examples of such close working.
The fit for work service was referred to by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who said that the longer people were out of work, the less chance there was of return. The fit for work service, to which the shadow Minister also referred, which is obviously at a relatively early stage, is about helping employers and employees manage the sickness absence programme.
I was tempted to advertise another service that we offer earlier, but I resisted. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam opened his speech with the story of Anne-Marie, I thought that it was a good example of where she and her employer would have benefited from the mental health support service, which is part of Access to Work, which is clearly not as well known as it ought to be. As he said, it has a job retention rate of around 92%. It assesses an individual’s need to identify strategies that they can use to cope with their mental health problem, looks at a personalised support plan, either for returning to or remaining in work, and gives employers advice. That is important, particularly for small employers that do not have the capacity to have occupational health support in place.
As it happens, tomorrow I will be speaking at a disability confident mental health focus event, which is being supported by Mind, Remploy and the Business Disability Forum, and hosted by Royal Mail, specifically to raise awareness about the mental health support service. A significant number of employers are coming, and I have named several employers, including Royal Mail, who are committed to this.
Leadership has been referred to, and I attended an event with a KPMG senior partner—I hope it is in order to mention the company given that I used to work for it, although it was a long time ago—who has been open about his own mental health problem. It was heartening that he referred to the fact that the senior management of that organisation had created an environment in the business where, as a senior member of the management team, he felt comfortable with being open about his mental health problem. I know from talking to other members of staff that the fact that he has been able to do that and has been well supported by that employer has had a powerful effect on encouraging others in that environment to be open about their mental health problems. So there are other employers who recognise that. The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) is not in his place, but he referred to a Disability Confident event that he has run. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam is also interested in this area, and I hosted a Disability Confident event in my own constituency a couple of weeks ago. I have written to all right hon. and hon. Members to encourage them to do the same in their constituencies, partly to engage with those small and medium-sized employers that might otherwise be unfamiliar with the campaign.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam wrote an article for PoliticsHome today entitled, “I don’t like Mondays—how work can affect mental health”. My only criticism of the piece is that he urged UK plc to take action. I know what he meant, but it is worth remembering that we are also talking about UK Ltd, because half the work force is employed by small and medium-sized enterprises, and they do not always have the human resources support or access to services that larger businesses have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne referred to BT. The head of occupational health and well-being there, Dr Paul Litchfield, has produced two independent reports for the Government. I waited until he had concluded that work, and therefore had only one hat on, before visiting BT, where I had a very positive experience. The hon. Member for North Durham spoke very positively about its programme. He is right that BT puts a lot of effort into supporting employees with mental health problems, and not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is absolutely in its business interest. It has a very high staff retention rate. It keeps almost everybody who develops a mental health problem at work, and the vast majority in their existing roles, although sometimes they have to change role. I heard four individuals give powerful testimonials about the support they had received from the company. I thought that it was incredibly positive that they felt so open in discussing some quite difficult issues they had had in front of their management chain. They clearly work in a very positive environment.
I will mention universal credit before drawing my remarks to a conclusion, because the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston would think it remiss of me not to do so. I do not pretend that universal credit solves every problem on the planet, but I think that there are two areas where it is very positive for mental health. The first is the way that it has been set up, because it is about getting work coaches to engage with people earlier, looking at what support they need. If someone falls out of work and approaches the jobcentre—I think this is the thrust of the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham—we want the support to be delivered earlier in the process, rather than later. Universal credit has been set up in such a way that it is about having that conversation, looking at what someone can do and delivering support earlier, which I think will help. It is not the only solution, but I think that it will make things better.
Mr Kevan Jones
I agree with the Minister, but will he also address the point I made about companies being paid by the Government to support individuals into work, even though that work is actually being done by the voluntary and community sector? If those companies are claiming to have helped those people and are getting paid for it, even though the work was actually done by the voluntary and community sector, that is a very serious issue.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman anticipates my remarks, because I had not yet got to that point. There are two points that arise from what he said, and he was supported in that by the shadow Minister. The first relates to the ability of smaller private sector companies and the voluntary sector to be subcontractors to prime providers, and we will consider how to make that easier as we look to develop what follows the Work programme. The second point—the central one—is about ensuring that Work programme providers are paid only when they have done the work. He raised a specific concern about a third sector organisation in his constituency. If he can give me a little more detail, I will look into it. If a Work programme provider has done nothing at all, it should not pretend that it has done so in order to claim a payment. Either it should not be paid, or it should effectively be subcontracting with the smaller provider. If the smaller provider is very successful, clearly we would want it in the programme, working with the prime provider. If he gives me some more details, I will absolutely task officials with looking into it. It is not very sensible for the taxpayer to be paying someone for work they have not done. Moreover, we should be making sure that the money goes to support those who are successful at getting people back into work so that they can improve their organisations and become more successful and sustainable.
Kate Green
Will the Minister also comment on, or ask his officials to look into, the report I received from the individual placements and support service in south Manchester that Work programme providers were being rewarded for work that was being carried out and funded by the NHS? It sounded as though the public purse was paying twice and the Work programme provider was getting a reward for very little, if any, activity.
Mr Harper
Yes. I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said, and I will look into that specific example as well.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the Work programme. It is true that in its earlier phase the success rates for those on ESA as opposed to JSA were not very impressive—one in 24, I think. However, more recent cohorts have been more successful, and about one in 10 people have been getting into sustainable work. Obviously we want that performance to continue.
It is very apposite, Mr Speaker, that you are in the Chair as I draw my remarks to a close, because I know—I do not think it is a secret—that you take a close personal interest in this area. I remember when you allowed a discussion on mental health to run for a fairly reasonable length of time in the last session of DWP questions. You feel that it is a very important area. You referred to the changes we had made in law to reduce the stigma for the many Members of Parliament who might have a mental health problem. Earlier I referred to the hon. Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who spoke very openly in the House about their experiences.
The Government take this issue very seriously. There is a lot of working across Departments, not just with my Department and the Department of Health, but with the Home Office, where, as Members will be aware, the Home Secretary has been pressing a great deal to make sure that police cells are not seen as places of safety for those who develop a critical mental health problem. Work is being done by other Ministers across Government. We are moving in the right direction, but we are not complacent. Although some progress is being seen in the unemployment figures, there is still a considerable gap, and there is more work to do. I think there is a shared sense of purpose across the House about the direction of travel, and I want us to continue to move in that direction through to the general election and beyond.
Paul Burstow
I thank the Minister for his very full response to the speeches by the hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones), for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), and to those who intervened in this wide-ranging debate. I also thank the shadow Minister for her response.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne talked about work being fun and purposeful. That is an important message to get across. We need to make it clear that most people with a mental health problem do want to work, and that message has come across very clearly in the debate. That means that our benefits and back-to-work systems need to work for people with mental health problems. Some of those issues and challenges have been well described and debated. The approaches have to be tailored and personalised, and grounded in very clear evidence. I welcome what the Minister said about the promising news from the pilots so far.
I accept the Minister’s gentle chiding about my use of the phrase, “UK plc”. He is absolutely right that we need to focus on all types of business entity, from sole traders all the way up to major corporations. However, there are still far too few businesses taking a lead in this area. We have heard about BT, Royal Mail and others. Perhaps the whole of the FTSE 100 should step up and give a lead, and those companies should do what they need to be doing to give good mental health to their employees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor talked about happiness and said that we should measure it. The Government are measuring well-being as part of the work of the Office for National Statistics. In the CentreForum work I have been doing, we struggled about what we would call the report, as often happens. We called it, “The pursuit of happiness”, because the focus on well-being is absolutely key, and we made a recommendation about the importance of the kitemark to those who are striving to be mental health-friendly employers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne talked about how critical the first 1,001 days are to shaping a person’s life, making them more resilient and capable of dealing with adversity, and making it less likely that their mental health will be at risk. That life-course approach is absolutely key to this Government’s strategy and I think it will endure whoever is in government after the general election.
Not only has this House debated mental health probably more often in this Parliament than during any previous Parliament; it has done so in a positive and constructive way. It has not treated it as something to fear and dread; it has cast a much more positive perspective on it, and that is due to those hon. Members who have talked about their own lived experience and those of us who have a policy interest in it and are determined to see change. I hope that the next Parliament will not just continue talking about the issue—which it really must—but go on to make sure that we step up the pace of change, because there is so much we can do for those who suffer from mental health problems. It will be good for the country if we do that, and it will be good for them, too.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered mental health and unemployment.
Business without Debate
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 10 and 11 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Companies
That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 18) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.
That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 17) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Senior Courts of England and Wales
That the draft Civil Proceedings and Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Environmental Protection
That the draft Anti-social Behaviour (Authorised Persons) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
Question agreed to.
Exploration and Appraisal Drilling
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I am really pleased that the Minister who will respond to this evening’s debate is my former colleague on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). I hope it will be a good debate.
This debate could not be more timely, as only today Oil & Gas UK published its 2015 activity survey, which has, quite rightly, attracted much news coverage throughout the day, not only because of the ongoing crisis with the price of oil, but because, as the chief executive of Oil & Gas UK, Malcolm Webb, has said:
“This offshore oil and gas industry is a major national asset.”
Although the report contains some bad news about the fortunes of the oil and gas industry, it also identifies the potential of the UK continental shelf, which, according to the recent Wood report, has produced 41 billion barrels of oil equivalent, and it is estimated that a further 12 billion to 24 billion could be produced.
The report highlights a number of important statistics, notably that 1.42 million barrels of oil equivalent per day were produced in 2014, which represents the best year-on-year performance in 15 years. However, production revenues fell to just over £24 billion for the year—the lowest since 1998—and there was a negative cash flow of £5.3 billion, which was the worst position since the 1970s.
It is expected that production could be about 1.43 million barrels of oil equivalent per day this year, and up to 15 new fields could come into production. By 2019, more than half of the UK continental shelf production is likely to come from fields that have started production since 2012.
The survey states that the long-term outlook for the UKCS is bleak, with drilling activity collapsing and prospects for significant new developments fading. Exploration activity was significantly worse than expected in 2014, with only 14 of the expected 25 wells drilled, which reflects the downward trend since 2009. An inability to access capital was cited as the main reason for low exploration activity, leading to the discovery of just 50 million barrels of oil equivalent with the potential to be commercially developed.
As few as between eight and 13 exploration wells are forecast to be drilled in 2015, as the lower oil price adds to existing barriers. Eighteen appraisal wells were drilled, which is more than were forecast, but that is a significant fall from the 29 wells drilled in 2013. No more than five appraisal wells are forecast for this year, a fall driven by poor exploration results over the past four years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is outlining the case for help for the industry. We all know that the good news this year has been the lower price at the pumps, meaning that we all—my constituents—benefit, including from the fact that that has driven down the price of oil for home heating. There have been real benefits from the reduction in the oil price. I know the hon. Lady accepts and acknowledges that prices have come down, and therefore that inflation has fallen and people have more money in their pockets. Is she suggesting to the Government that we are looking for tax incentives for the oil companies so that they can proceed?
Mrs Glindon
That is exactly what I hope for from the Government, and I will come on to that.
Six more development wells were drilled than in the previous year. In relation to reserves, the survey states that there are potentially 10 billion barrels of oil equivalent, with 6.3 billion in sanctioned projects or under development and 3.7 billion yet to get boardroom go-ahead. However, companies say that fewer than 2 billion barrels of oil equivalent are likely to be developed, and that figure could fall further because of current global capital rationing. Under the right conditions, the industry would need to invest £94 billion to recover those reserves.
The fact is that our reserves and untapped resources could provide a successful industry for years to come, but the industry faces exceptional challenges and an uncertain future. There must be a concerted effort on tax, regulation and cost to make the basin more attractive to investors and to ensure that significant sums of much needed capital come to the UK.
The best year-on-year performance was largely due to new investment in new start-ups enabled by tax allowances. Tax concessions are generally the most effective and meaningful incentives. There needs to be a permanent reduction in the headline rate of tax for the industry, a simplification of the tax allowance structure and stimulus for exploration.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Chancellor, in his forthcoming Budget, will significantly reduce the headline rate of tax for the industry, which is currently between 60% and 80%. The Oil and Gas Authority must be rapidly resourced with the right capability and capacity to implement swiftly the recommendations of the Wood report. Enhanced capability and the authority of a better resourced regulator would greatly improve the stewardship of our oil and gas resources on the UK continental shelf, and cut through many of the existing blockages to maximising its economic recovery.
The Treasury is going through a public consultation regarding a proposed investment allowance for North sea gas and oil developments. The allowance should be modified to include provisions to support exploration and appraisal drilling along similar lines to the Norwegian approach. A decade ago Norway was faced with a slowdown in exploration and investment, but it has solved the problem by giving a massive rebate to those exploring in Norwegian waters. It is only through exploration that we find new discoveries.
It would be helpful if receipt of the investment allowance was subject to an undertaking by operating oil companies that full and fair opportunity on a level playing field will be given to the UK supply chain to tender for related contracts. The North sea can indirectly be a significant stimulant to jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector and deprived areas of the UK such as the north-east. Over the past five years the majority of North sea fabrication contracts have been placed overseas. The Government can do a lot more to support the British fabrication industry without breaching EU or World Trade Organisation regulations. Our domestic fabrication industry has the skills, expertise and track record to fulfil most of the contracts that have, sadly, been placed elsewhere.
Oil and Gas UK has recently highlighted that development costs for new offshore facilities over the past four years have risen to unsustainable levels. Budgets have been exceeded and projects have suffered major delays. In most cases the projects under review were constructed outside the UK. Recent contracts awarded by Maersk to overseas fabricators for the forthcoming development of the Culzean field—I apologise for my pronunciation—have been widely reported. However, very few UK jobs will be created by the development of this field, even though Maersk will benefit from significant UK tax concessions. At best, UK fabricators will be second-tier contractors. UK fabricators, including OGN in my constituency, are facing a bleak future, along with the rest of the industry, with a limited number of contracts on the horizon. Unless those fabricators win a reasonable proportion of the projects, there will be significant job losses, likely yard closures, and the extinction of domestic manufacturing skills that will never be restored.
It is vital that we maintain pressure on oil companies to place work in the UK. That pressure can be maintained by ensuring that the work of the Department of Energy and Climate Change industry development team is fully transferred and incorporated in the Oil and Gas Authority. For my part, I will press to have the work of the cross-party industry promotion group carried forward into the next Government. That group, of which I am a member, has proved to be very successful. It will be meeting three major operators this week to discuss their projects and what opportunities those will bring to the UK supply chain. I look forward to reassurance from the Minister that she is listening to the oil and gas industry, and that action taken by the Government will mean that jobs are protected and our major national asset is there for many years to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) on securing this debate. We know each other from our shared time on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I was particularly grateful when she came to Hastings with a group of us and sampled some of the fantastic fish in my constituency. I am now aware of her long-standing commitment to the oil and gas sector, and I am delighted to discuss that with her today.
There is no doubt that oil and gas will remain central to the UK’s energy mix as we make the transition to a lower-carbon economy. Investing in domestic oil and gas production is essential. It helps to reduce our reliance on energy imports and provides a significant input to our economy. The Government’s policies therefore aim to maximise the economic recovery of our resources.
This debate is timely given the current challenges that lower oil prices bring to those companies operating in the North sea, and all those who work in the sector. The UK industry is widely acknowledged for overcoming some of the toughest operating conditions anywhere in the world, and renowned for spearheading revolutionary technological solutions in offshore exploration and production. It is due to this determination and creativity that we have seen about 42 billion barrels of oil and gas produced so far, and there could be up to 20 billion barrels still to be produced. Getting at these, however, has its challenges.
We have a mature province. Therefore, most of the hydrocarbons that are easier to get at have already been exploited. We have ageing infrastructure, most of which is in place much longer than was originally envisaged. It requires careful stewardship and the necessary maintenance and investment to keep it functioning effectively. We have different types of technological challenges, including deepwater fields, high-pressure high-temperature fields and existing brownfields, whose full potential we need to realise. We also need to ensure that, when fields do come to the end of their economic life, they can be decommissioned economically and with minimum impact to the environment. Of course, there is the challenge of maintaining the competitiveness of the UK continental shelf and the UK industry, including the supply chain.
The Government are absolutely committed to the long-term future of the sector, which supports 375,000 jobs across the UK, contributes £3 billion a year to Government revenue and still supplies half the oil and gas we consume. We recognise that the sustained fall in oil price presents real challenges for the sector. Operators are having to implement substantial savings to maintain financial viability. Of course, job losses like those we have heard about in the past few weeks are a real concern and will have an impact across the UK.
The north-east of England, where the hon. Lady’s constituency is located, has significant expertise across the spectrum of offshore engineering and manufacturing. It supports many thousands of quality jobs, providing families with a good standard of living and contributing to the local economy. I would particularly cite the offshore fabrication capability, which has been rebuilt in the region after a decade of decline. This capability once more supports 2,000 jobs on the Tyne. Continued investments and new projects are therefore vital. Any further cutbacks on exploration, which is the lifeblood of the basin’s future prosperity, are a real concern. We are therefore committed to working in partnership with industry, the work force and other stakeholders to provide all the support we can. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Business and Enterprise recently engaged with key players in Aberdeen, and plans to visit other key oil and gas hubs, including the north-east of England, very soon.
Industry must address rising operating costs and reverse recent declines in operating efficiency. The work force, whose dedication to working in the North sea’s challenging environment I much admire, must work with industry to avoid any industrial action, the timing of which could compromise the future success of North sea operations. For their part, the Government must continue to pursue their efforts in finding solutions that preserve jobs and maximise economic recovery. We have already taken action.
In 2013, we commissioned Sir Ian Wood, a leading oil industry expert, to examine how we could maximise the North sea’s full potential. In his response, published a year ago, Sir Ian recommended a need for a tripartite partnership between the Treasury, industry and a new purpose-built regulator. The Government have moved fast to implement this. We are setting up the regulator in the form of the Oil and Gas Authority under the expert stewardship of Andy Samuel. He is working to ensure that it will be up and running come April. Dr Samuel has been asked to accelerate work with the industry to identify the key risks to UK oil and gas production and to establish what further measures might be taken to mitigate them. He will be sharing his conclusions with us at the end of this month.
At last month’s meeting with industry in London, the Government heard industry’s concerns about falling oil prices. Since then, senior officials have participated at both the Aberdeen oil and gas emergency summit and the oil and gas jobs taskforce to ensure that we fully understand the breadth of issues. Furthermore, we continue to ensure that we have a tax regime that encourages investment while providing a fair return to the taxpayer. A number of positive initiatives, such as brownfield allowances and new field allowances, have been introduced, and, most recently, from the start of this year, the Chancellor reduced the rate of the supplementary charge on oil and gas production profits by 2%. With the Budget approaching, he has also signalled that the Treasury is looking at what more can be done to support investment in the North sea, and the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will have to wait for the details from him.
The hon. Lady referred to the results published today on reduced activity. As she rightly said, it was stated that the inability to access capital was one of the leading factors. This reinforces our commitment to supporting the industry, which is undoubtedly facing particularly testing times not just in the UK but globally. I can assure hon. Members that the Government will continue to work closely with the industry to ensure that it can ride out these choppy waters and emerge stronger on the other side. We will continue to support new exploration and investment, encouraging a collaborative approach to protect jobs and to realise the full potential of the UK’s oil and gas resources.
Question put and agreed to.
OBSERVATIONS
Lack of appropriate parking around Shree Sanatan Mandir
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
backbench business
(9 years, 9 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
Yemen
(9 years, 9 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
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Mr Caton. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and pleased to see so many right hon. and hon. Members present. The Minister has of course frequently discussed issues concerning Yemen with me on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) visited Yemen as International Development Minister in the previous Government, and the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) is the Prime Minister’s special envoy to Yemen. I am pleased to see the hon. Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), and my sister, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz).
The need for the debate is greater now than when I first proposed it to the Backbench Business Committee. As we speak, Yemen is at crisis point. At no time in the past several decades have I feared for its future as I do today. In the past few weeks, President Hadi has escaped from house arrest and fled to his stronghold in Aden. The Houthi rebels are yo-yoing between forming their own Government and stuttered negotiations. The embassies of the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Italy, Germany, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have all been closed and evacuated. Supporters of various parties and tribal groups are protesting and clashing in the streets, and some are being kidnapped and killed in the clashes. Terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are grabbing power amid the chaos.
Many Members present today share my concern about that beautiful country; but the crisis is now much wider. Those who are concerned for security and stability in the middle east should play close attention to the situation in Yemen. I believe that there is consensus in the House that more needs to be done and that the British Government need to do much more. I am proud to say that today’s is the first debate of any substance on Yemen in the Commons, and it is therefore an important one.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, and I am enjoying the family outing that is this trip down Yemen lane. My serious point is that he is right to ask the British Government to do more, but does he agree that it is also incumbent on the Arab world, and particularly the wealthy and responsible Arab countries that are in control of their land, to do more to regulate and keep the peace in Yemen?
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, I regard him as part of my wider family, because he is my next-door neighbour in Norman Shaw North, so I am cautious about raising my voice too much there, in case he hears me. In my speech I want to develop the argument that although Britain, being well respected, has an important part to play, it is not just up to us. It is important that we get the support of countries around Yemen—especially Saudi Arabia—if we are to make progress.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is a passionate friend of Yemen, and I think he has always considered me as family down in the south as well. On international assistance, does he agree about the need to consider who is backing the Houthi rebels? Iran is a key backer, and nuclear discussions with Iran should be linked to its giving up the sponsoring and harbouring of terrorism in the middle east. Otherwise we might get a short-term fix but a long-term problem for the world.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is right—and, yes, I do regard him as part of the even wider south Asian family that I come from. We must consider who is backing the rebels and what their cause is, and deal with that.
Nobody doubts the Government’s commitment to providing support for Yemen. The special envoy, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West can proudly say that because of their tenure in office, the lives of many Yemenis were saved. Few of us in politics can say that. They were able to deliver on a promise. The Leader of the House had a critical role at the time of the Arab spring when he was Foreign Secretary. We know that the British Government did a great deal in the past. That is why we look to the Minister; I hope that the Government will be able to do more, given the history of this matter.
As the House knows, I have a strong personal interest in the long-term future of Yemen. I and my two sisters—one of whom is present—were born in Yemen, and my mother, sisters and I left in 1965, when the situation was getting extremely hostile. I remember bombs exploding as we made our way to the airport. That was a time of crisis and civil war. Yemen is a country that it is easy to fall in love with. People were extremely kind to us. We were a Catholic family from India—from Goa—who had come to live in Yemen, but were treated so well, as were all the migrant communities who came to live in what was then South Yemen in Aden. That is why I feel strongly that we need to do more.
The UK-born hostage Luke Somers, who was tragically killed by al-Qaeda while serving as an aid worker, was described by his family as loving the people and culture of Yemen. I have returned repeatedly to the country as the chair of the all-party group. When I was last in Yemen, the situation was extremely dangerous—so dangerous, in fact, that we were advised not to stay in a hotel. We were required to stay in a fortified pod; indeed, I stayed in the bed of the British ambassador—he was not there at the time. I was locked in that pod because there was a fear that we would come to danger, and I would think that the present situation is much worse.
I went on a visit as part of an all-party group delegation with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). He is a great photographer and he went into the old city of Sana’a, which is a world heritage site. We were worried and thought he had been kidnapped, but he had gone to the market to take photographs, because he felt so safe. I am afraid he would not be able to do that today, with the current crisis.
Yemen is a strategically vital country that faces three linked threats: political instability, a security vacuum and a growing humanitarian catastrophe. The political situation is on a knife edge. For every positive news report, there is continued violence, and there are obstacles to continued negotiations. There is no doubt that decisions made by the Houthi rebel group in the next few weeks will determine Yemen’s future. Their coup, which began the crisis, has probably gone further than they initially intended. After dissolving Parliament and declaring their intention to form a Government, the Houthis very nearly triggered a civil war. Internal pressure from political parties and tribal groups, and external pressure through the United Nations Security Council’s condemnation, with the strong stance taken by regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, have brought the Houthis back to the negotiating table. With that window of opportunity, I hope the UK and the Minister, in particular, will play a role in mediation.
Rehman Chishti
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify, as an expert on this area, as on many others, who he thinks backs the Houthi rebels, and how we can get them to stop backing this evil organisation?
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to look at who is supporting them—he has said Iran—and find out what pressure we can put on them. Our ability to influence Iran is pretty limited. However, that is an important factor. As we know, middle east politics—he is also greatly interested in this area—is not necessarily about just the people at the front, so he is right that we should look at intentions.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have met President Hadi since or before he became President, but he has now fled the capital. In my view—I hope that the Government agree—he is the only individual who maintains democratic legitimacy in Yemen’s current political system, if indeed we can call it a system. We need him to support any proposals, as he maintains a strong following in the country. Last week, the governors of the provinces of Aden, Lahij and Mahrah demanded the reinstatement of Mr Hadi and reaffirmed their support for Yemen becoming a federation of six regions. It is vital that pro-Houthi and pro-Hadi groups do not create the spark for an escalation of violence.
Last Friday’s preliminary agreement by the rival parties to form a people’s transitional council is a solution that the United Kingdom and the international community should rally behind. Jamal Benomar, the United Nations mediator, has described the agreement as
“an important breakthrough that paves the way towards a comprehensive agreement”.
Under that agreement, Yemen’s House of Representatives will stay in place, which will appease the former ruling party, which holds a clear majority in it. However, instead of the traditional Upper House, there will be a new transitional council that will consist of people from traditionally unrepresented sectors in Yemen’s formerly independent south—women and young people. That is positive, but the agreement is fragile: as we have seen before, if one party withdraws support, the entire deal may collapse. The United Kingdom and the international community need to keep the agreement on track. Otherwise, despite all the work we did in 2011 and all our progress since, we will be back to square one. We should not allow political progress to reverse any further.
One of my requests to the Minister is that we take the lead in maintaining the negotiations. Can we please speak to the United States and European and regional allies in particular, as the hon. Member for Hexham said, to pull the international community behind the transitional council, and offer our officials to assist the United Nations in its mediation?
The fragile political situation is strongly affected by the violence that has erupted across the country. Rival groups, both those that oppose and those that support the Houthi rebels, are clashing in the streets. I have been informed by various charities operating in the region, including Islamic aid organisations and United Nations organs, that such clashes are escalating and protestors have been kidnapped, injured or killed. Indeed, the majority of journalists have fled the country, as the risk of kidnap or injury is so high. That in part explains the appalling absence of media coverage of the country’s downward spiral.
By all indicators, levels of violence are dramatically increasing. UNICEF has informed me of a 40% increase in children being killed or maimed, a 47% increase in the use of child soldiers and repeated cases of children killed around their schools. In one example, in December 2014, 15 young children travelling to school were killed by bomb attacks. Schools are being used for military purposes as barracks, bases and firing positions.
One huge problem is the number of firearms available. There are between 8 million and 11.5 million guns in civilian hands. Yemen is second in the world for gun ownership, with 54.8 guns per 100 people. Civilians going about their lives are now regularly stopped by groups of armed men at hastily established checkpoints, as loosely affiliated tribal and armed groups fill the security vacuum. Meanwhile, tribal groups in the south have repeatedly fought with Houthi troops. It is vital that the violence does not escalate further. Groups loyal to President Hadi seized Government buildings in Yemen last week and clashed with pro-Houthi security forces, which led to a number of fatalities. That is a real flashpoint.
We in the west may not recognise the seriousness of the developments, but regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are incredibly concerned. If we are to be only a peripheral player, our ability to influence the actions of the regional powers that are pushing for a military solution will be extremely limited.
Those clashes need to end immediately, before the various factions lose faith in a non-military solution. Can we please provide more support to those forces still loyal to the Government? While an intervention involving the United Kingdom is not a likely prospect, what support or incentives can we provide to deter further violence? Can we and the international community apply carrots and sticks in any ongoing negotiations? That is needed if we are to make any more progress.
From a western perspective, one of the most worrying developments is the expanding power of extremist Islamic organisations linked to terrorist activity. One such group is al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, described by the CIA as one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world. That group trained Said Kouachi, one of the Charlie Hedbo killers: he received military training in Yemen in 2011.
Parts of Yemen already serve as a safe haven for the group, from which it directs operations and releases propaganda through the internet. That is a huge problem. Last year, 3,200 UK passport holders travelled to Yemen, and the group is known to train potential terrorists who want to use their new-found skills, such as bomb making, on the streets of London. By all accounts, they are benefiting from the current power vacuum.
On 12 February, an al-Qaeda-linked group, Ansar al-Sharia, successfully stormed a military base in Beihan, capturing between 1,000 and 2,000 soldiers and military equipment. The town fell after several hours of fighting. The US has had a long and positive relationship with security forces in Yemen in targeting terrorist organisations. After strikes were initially put on hold and then restarted, the long-term future of that relationship is sadly unclear.
We cannot lose such a strong ally in the fight against terrorism. One of our priorities must be to maintain that relationship, whichever group comes out on top in the political situation. We cannot allow al-Qaeda to gain any more territory or influence. The long-term answer to al-Qaeda is a strong Yemeni Government, with whom we should have a close, ongoing relationship. However, we need to be better at monitoring individuals travelling to the country, and must work with the authorities there to do so. We also need to recall that Turkey is the gateway to the middle east for individuals trying to join groups such as ISIL and al-Qaeda. We need better exit checks and co-operation.
All those factors risk an unimaginable humanitarian crisis across Yemen. It is already the most impoverished country in the region, and it has one of the worst records for malnutrition in the world. UNICEF has provided me with the latest humanitarian figures, which are dreadful: 8.4 million people lack access to basic health care services; 850,000 children under five are suffering from acute malnutrition, 160,000 of whom are at severe, fatal risk; and young girls are particularly vulnerable to abuse and female genital mutilation, with a staggering 83% of girls aged 10 to 14 experiencing some form of physical abuse. Overall, 15 million people need humanitarian assistance.
The United Kingdom has a good record in providing assistance to Yemen. I have paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West for all the work they did as International Development Ministers. However, the situation has got much worse, even since the Prime Minister’s envoy has been in office, although the Government have been very helpful. The current Minister of State for International Development has informed me that £9.5 million will be added to our existing £35 million nutrition programme. I also understand that we have fulfilled our commitments as co-chairs of the Friends of Yemen group, and that our development programmes are making a real difference, but we cannot do it alone. What of the other friends of Yemen who promised billions to the country, but, I am afraid, have delivered very little? What support is being provided by other EU countries? Could we please hold an emergency meeting of the Friends of Yemen, so that we can get an aid package together? If we do not, there will be bitter consequences for the country if it descends into civil war and for the people of not just Yemen, but the region.
When Yemen faced such a crisis in 2011, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), then the Foreign Secretary, and the Prime Minister stepped in and made a decisive difference. I remember speaking to the Prime Minister about this, and I know that he feels strongly that the British Government’s action was important. Yemen was pulled back from the brink on that occasion and put back on the path to democracy. I feel that the United Kingdom is in a unique position to effect positive change in Yemen. Now is the time for us to step up and take that urgent action.
The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, recently said:
“Yemen is collapsing before our eyes. We cannot stand by and watch”.
If civil war breaks out, it will be as complicated and intractable a conflict as it is possible to see anywhere in the world, including in Syria, and I do not believe that we will be able to stand by and do no more. We need to be prepared to work with the international community to stop this crisis developing any further. If Yemen falls, the front line of this conflict will be the streets of London, Birmingham and Leicester. We are bound by our historical ties with this country to do more. We cannot allow this beautiful country to become a haven for terrorism and violence; I urge the Minister to act decisively and to act now.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Thank you for chairing the debate this morning, Mr Caton. I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) both for securing the debate and for every single word that he said. I agree with all of it. That illustrates that this is very much a cross-party issue, and by joining together across this House to focus on Yemen, we are doing the world a very important service. As he rightly says, it cannot be parked into a corner and isolated as a poor part of the Arabian peninsula that does not matter and has no effect on everything else, because it most certainly does. Perhaps the most important sentence of his comments this morning was that, if it goes wrong, a lot else goes wrong with it. That is what needs to govern our thinking and shape our conclusions.
The right hon. Gentleman can claim 50 years of experience in Yemen. I can claim only 30, after initially going as an oil trader but then taking a political and ministerial interest in the country. When I first went, as when he was there, one could travel in Sana’a and from Sana’a to Aden. At the moment, no such journey is possible in safety, and that illustrates the country’s deterioration, on which we now need to focus.
While I was a Department for International Development Minister, I tried to raise the profile of Yemen in government for the very reasons that the right hon. Gentleman articulated: it is more dangerous and more significant than people think, and has also had a long-term humanitarian need, where many children—a high percentage under the age of five—were stunted, and where a large percentage did not know where their next meal was coming from. That was before the deterioration over the past few months. The United Kingdom has been committing a direct budget of about £70 million a year to Yemen’s needs. When we apportion what we give to the United Nations and multilateral organisations, the figure is perhaps, in effect, double that, so we are giving Yemen well over £100 million. In my view, that is necessary money. It is being well spent, or has been so far. Perhaps the money I am most proud of is the £1 million that I committed as a Minister to launch Jamal Benomar as the United Nations special representative. Over the last few years, he has been crucial to the negotiations that have held the country together until today.
To understand the country, we need to step back, perhaps a few centuries, but at the very least a few years and look at what has happened in what we call the Arab spring, because it was not the same in Yemen as it was in Libya, Tunisia or even Egypt. Across Arabia, or Arab-speaking countries, some have changed regime by violent conflict. Others within the Gulf Co-operation Council have sustained current regimes, because they have greater resources with which to reach an accommodation with their own people. However, Yemen was very much unique, in that through the GCC initiative, it was able to effect, with a minimum of conflict, a presidential transition and move from one president to another without the violence we saw elsewhere. That transition got Yemen off to a very good start in the context of the disruption that we saw elsewhere in Arabia. The GCC initiative, supported by Jamal Benomar, and by the UK and the US, has allowed Yemen—let us put it honestly—to muddle along for the last three or so years without collapsing into a complete mess. In that sense, Yemen has not been like any other country.
It started unlike any other country, because it has a weak Government at the centre and very powerful satellite interests commanded by what one might loosely call warlords within the country. That has always created a very difficult problem of balancing power and influence and of attracting enough power into the centre to give it an effective and purposeful Government who can be said to be legitimate and doing what is necessary for the people.
Rehman Chishti
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s expertise in the area and his work. He is talking about the different factions in Yemen. Looking at the national dialogue—where it has been and where we are now—how do we ensure that everyone who has a stake in Yemen comes round the table and effectively moves the country forward?
Sir Alan Duncan
That is exactly the right question, because what emerged from the GCC initiative was a plan for exactly that kind of unifying national dialogue within the country. It was a plan to bring together all parts, all sections and all interests in the country to agree a path towards a constitutional settlement that could lead to proper, legitimate and respected elections. That remains the objective of what we need to see yet return from the difficulties that the country faces. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that strand of discussion and unifying constitutional debate in the country is the glue—they are components that stand to bring the country together.
With the GCC initiative came donor pledges— $6 billion or $7 billion dollars at a pledging conference arranged by the Friends of Yemen, co-chaired by the UK and the Saudis—and an International Monetary Fund package that was on the brink of being implemented before things deteriorated. The dialogue that my hon. Friend mentioned did come to a conclusion, but it has not yet been fully implemented with the subsequent actions that are necessary to make it effect the planned changes.
The tragedy is that the GCC initiative and the stability that we hoped for in the country have disintegrated over the last six months. The Houthis— or soft Shi’a Zaydis—focused mostly in the north, who comprise a maximum of perhaps 30% of the country, have taken arms and advanced on the capital city. Yemen is not a habitual sectarian country. It is far more tribal than it is sectarian, but that does begin to introduce a possible and dangerous sectarian element in the complex power play in Yemen itself. My hon. Friend’s reference to Iran has validity, although I do not think that the absolutist terms in which he describes it reflect what is actually happening in the country. It could be said that Iran backs rather than directs the Houthis, but what matters is what is happening inside Yemen.
Rehman Chishti
My right hon. Friend says that Iran backs rather than directs, but even if that is the case, it has leverage over the Houthis by backing them, and it should use that leverage if it wants to be part of the international community, in relation to the nuclear deal that is coming up.
Sir Alan Duncan
I refer to what I said a moment ago. No life is quite so simple as that, but I understand my hon. Friend’s view.
Let us just look at what has happened. The Houthis, perhaps against people’s expectations and largely because they had overtaken a battalion in Amran and taken its heavy weapons, were able to advance on Sana’a and pretty well march into the capital city uncontested, but what they were supposed to have done, just before they did that, was to have adhered to a firm agreement that was reached on 21 September last year—the peace and national partnership agreement—which should have said, “You’ve gone this far. Now hold it, muck in and work with everyone else to find a solution.” They have not adhered to the terms of the PNPA. By advancing into Sana’a, the Houthis have displaced the Government, but they have not replaced them with any form of government that can be called such, so in effect we have a vacuum.
An element that is utterly unacceptable is the placing of legitimate, continuing Ministers under house arrest. Fortunately, President Hadi escaped at the weekend, but Khaled Bahah, the Prime Minister of Yemen, remains under house arrest. He and others who have been put under house arrest must be released by the Houthis and allowed to go free. I have spoken to Khaled Bahah regularly. It is not right that he is detained under house arrest in the way he is.
We have seen a very strong United Nations Security Council statement. That is an essential part of the pressure that needs to be applied in relation to what is happening in Yemen at the moment. The next few weeks are crucial. Yemen is more on the brink today than people have said it has been for many years. Jamal Benomar is doing his best and deserves our full support. He is slaving away in Sana’a, trying to hold the country together and reach some kind of accommodation between all the competing parties, and he deserves our full support, as do all the efforts in the UN to apply pressure in relation to what is happening in the country.
This is an essential point. My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt say more on all this, but I would like to echo what the right hon. Member for Leicester East said about the danger we are looking at. The list, when it all comes together, if it all goes wrong together, is potentially cataclysmic. We are looking at a country in the southern Arabian peninsula, close to Somalia, where there is people trafficking and things like that, where guns can run through the country and all kinds of risk can be nurtured, and at a country that might have no Government and hence be an ungoverned, anarchic space. We are looking at a country that could collapse into tribal anarchy and the absence of any kind of order and government whatever.
We are looking at the risk of tribal conflict. This country is more tribal than sectarian. That tribal conflict could become very vicious. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there are more weapons than people, and when they start firing at one another, there is no end to what could go wrong. The tribal conflict could collapse into civil war. There have been civil wars in Yemen before. The latest was in 1994. That could easily happen, even within the next few weeks, if things go terribly wrong.
We could again see, as part of the civil war, the division of the country between north and south. There are fewer people and more resources in the south and many more people and fewer resources in the north, so even if one liked the idea of a nicely contained southern Yemen, it is inconceivable that the north would accept that as an option when it would feel deprived and starved of resources.
We are looking at the danger of al-Qaeda being free to train and run riot, perhaps not just in southern Yemen but more widely across the country. We are perhaps looking at a proxy cold war, which could become a hot one, between the Iranians and the Saudi Arabians, fought out in Yemen because of their competing interests. Amid all those ingredients, we are looking at the awful danger of economic collapse and deep humanitarian disaster—not just lack of food, but disease, people trafficking and everything else that goes with it.
As I am sure the Minister will say, it is important to work with the whole of the GCC, but especially Saudi Arabia and Oman, which are the immediate neighbours, and with the United States and, lest anyone belittle it, the United Nations, which has proved so crucial both in the political negotiations and in the meeting of health and other needs in the country.
President Hadi remains the legitimate Head of State, but he has become separated from the functions of an effective Government. Somehow, legitimacy and effectiveness need to be remarried in a settlement that puts Yemen back on the path to some kind of stable government that people accept, and that can avoid the conflict and disaster that at the moment are looming if there is no such quick and effective solution.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I want to say a few words in support of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who has brought a hugely neglected subject to the attention of the House. This is a neglected part of the middle east, yet, as he mentioned, it is crucial to the security of the region and, indeed, the wider world. It also has a strategic trade position. Some 5% of the world’s oil trade goes through the Bab al-Mandab strait. That is obviously an important trade route. Of course, the situation has greatly worsened in recent weeks, and there was the news just last week that the United Kingdom, the United States and France have closed their embassies in the country, so the ambassador would no longer be able to offer his bed to the right hon. Gentleman if the opportunity afforded itself again in the future.
I well remember the trip with the right hon. Gentleman some years ago. It was a fascinating journey. Yemen is probably the most extraordinary country that I have ever visited. The trip involved something of a pilgrimage to pay homage to the birthplace of the right hon. Gentleman at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Aden, where we were able, with the aid of several television cameras, to dig out his birth records. That was after an overland trip from Sana’a to Aden, which the right hon. Gentleman promised would take only three or four hours. We started off at 9 am and arrived at 11.30 at night. The noble Lord Kilclooney, who was among our number, was convinced that we had been kidnapped by a tribe at one stage of our journey. In fact, such was the security situation that the ambassador was allowed to travel only by air and not by land, but we, being mere dispensable MPs, were able to travel by land.
What we saw on the trip, apart from an extraordinary country apparently still deeply entrenched in the middle ages in many respects, was one that was deeply stricken with poverty. One could see the potential for the encroachment of extremism into some deeply impoverished communities who had little else to survive for and were easily tempted by extremist voices that offered, on the face of it, some form of hope out of their despair. It is that form of poverty that gives rise to extremism and everything that goes with it. That is why our international aid effort in the wider world but particularly in Yemen is so necessary. I think that we can take particular pride in the resources that we have put into alleviating poverty, malnutrition and the severe problems the right hon. Gentleman enumerated.
We also visited the port of Aden. It was one of the great ports of colonial times—it was the fuelling station for the British fleet travelling to India—and yet it is now in decay, with very little activity going on. It is a vast deep-water port that still has the potential to be a major economic player as a staging post in the middle east, so it was disappointing that the Dubai ports company DP World attempted to invest in the port in 2008 and obtained the concession, only for that concession to be relinquished in 2012 because it was said that Dubai was not investing in the port but seeking to mothball it because of the effect that it might have on Dubai’s own interests. I believe that the port offers major potential for regenerating economic growth in the country, which would have huge implications if we got it right.
When we visited Yemen some seven or eight years ago, large parts of the country were effectively no-go areas, and we were unfortunately unable to visit much outside Sana’a and Aden. Yemen is the poorest country in the Arabian peninsula, but it is the second most populous. In addition to all its current problems, its environmental problems can only get worse. It is a water-poor country and will run out of water resources in the next 15 to 20 years unless some serious investment is made in water management, including desalination plants. Unlike its wealthy neighbours, it has virtually no oil.
I was struck on our visit by the great links between our country and Yemen. The colonial links with Aden go back a long way. Veterans in my constituency remember being in the Army when it was withdrawn abruptly from Aden by the Wilson Government back in 1967, when things kicked off. There ensued some 25 years of chaos in the country, with various civil wars and the dismemberment of the north and the south before Yemen was eventually put back together in the 1990s. On our visit, we met many Cabinet Ministers who were highly Anglophile and highly articulate. Many had children who were at universities in the United Kingdom, if they had not done likewise themselves. They had interests in the United Kingdom and spoke fondly of it. It struck me as extraordinary that we did not have a closer relationship. Indeed, I wondered why Yemen was not part of the Commonwealth, given some of the culture and background that our countries share. There are, and there certainly were, people in positions of responsibility in Yemen who are an obvious channel for dialogue, discussion and potential co-operation with western nations and particularly with the United Kingdom. We have an open door for the British Government to continue to play a significant role in the future of that troubled part of the Arabian peninsula.
As the right hon. Member for Leicester East rightly said in his opening remarks, the future of, and the solutions to, Yemen are largely reliant on its partner states in the Arabian peninsula and the wider middle east. Yemen will require financial backing. We have heard about the abortive attempts to raise donor backing in the Friends of Yemen conference some years ago, in which we played such a strategic role.
Saudi Arabia has, from time to time, injected large quantities of money into Yemen to prevent economic collapse but also, of course, because many economic migrants from Yemen have come into Saudi Arabia. In the 1990s, at the time of the first Gulf war, the President of Yemen backed Saddam Hussein for extraordinary reasons and thereby managed to alienate himself from all the allied forces, Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries. Some 1 million Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia and had to return to Yemen. That caused huge economic hardship. There was a further crackdown on illegal labourers in Saudi Arabia in April 2013, and hundreds of thousands of Yemeni workers were expelled back into Yemen, which has had huge economic implications.
The co-operation of Saudi Arabia is absolutely key to getting some form of economic stability in Yemen. At a time when the country is in the hands of militant Shi’a groups of one description or another, the Saudis are understandably loth to underwrite further loans to Yemen, because they do not know what its future will be. I gather that there are moves afoot to erect a 1,500 km fence across the whole Saudi-Yemeni border. That is a porous and fluid border, across which many al-Qaeda terrorists and others have moved from north to south and vice versa over many years. We also have to consider the role of Qatar, which invested a not insubstantial sum of money some years ago in real estate in Sana’a. One dreads to think what state that investment is in at the moment. The point is that the co-operation of those neighbouring Gulf countries, and their working in partnership, is absolutely key.
A point that hon. Members have only touched on is the strategic aspect—what might be termed the “great game” that Saudi Arabia and Iran are playing out for influence in Yemen, whether by backing a particular Government or providing other support. Yemen is in the middle of what has been called a Saudi-Iranian cold war, and the co-operation of both those countries is needed to find a solution in Yemen. It is not in the interests of Saudi Arabia or Iran for Yemen to become a training ground for terrorists who will wreak havoc in other countries—Arab and non-Arab—in the middle east and the wider western world. Yemen harbours terrorists, despite the intention of the previous democratic Government to try to clamp down on them. As the right hon. Member for Leicester East has said, the huge quantity of arms in Yemen gives rise to serious concerns. If we cannot contain and regularise the situation and bring back stability in Yemen, there will be a domino effect as terrorists trained on the streets of Sana’a—or, more likely, in desert training camps—try to do harm and wreak mayhem in the capital cities of Europe.
Yemen is a neglected and little-understood country in a location that is strategically and geographically important. As a matter of security, it plays a very significant role that we ignore at our peril. I applaud the efforts made over many years by the British Government, from whichever side of the House they have been drawn—this is not a partisan matter. It has been absolutely essential to be at the table and to try to broker partnerships to bring economic stability and security to Yemen. Hand in hand with that, the direct aid that we have given has played an essential part in trying to rescue some of the poorest people in the world, who are vulnerable to falling into the hands of terrorists.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. We are talking about a difficult and frustrating situation, in which we have seen many false dawns. It is essential that we continue to take a strong interest and a strong lead in Yemen. If we can bring about a solution, it will be a great tribute to the Government’s efforts. That can be done only in partnership with all the other nations in the region, and Britain is probably better placed than any other western power to bring it about.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on securing this debate at such a critical time for Yemen’s future. As he rightly said, Yemen matters, and not only in terms of counter-terrorist actions against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the importance of which was underlined by recent events in Paris. Crucially, Yemen matters because of its strategic importance to the region, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) rightly dwelled upon. Yemen also matters because of our close ties with the people of Yemen, which stretch back through our imperial past, and the urgent need to offer economic and social hope to the citizens of Yemen at this particularly difficult point. This debate is very timely.
It is important to consider the context experienced by the people of Yemen. Yemen remains one of the poorest countries in the region and worldwide. According to the Department for International Development, poverty and inequality have increased over the past 15 years, with the result that at least 10% of Yemen’s population live on less than $1.25 a day and more than a third live on less than $2 a day according to the most recent World Bank figures. It is worth stressing that those figures are from some time ago, and the current conflict will have served only to increase the scale of poverty and deprivation in Yemen. Girls and women suffer particularly severe discrimination, including high rates of early marriage and genital mutilation. According to the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, some 15 million Yemenis, more than half of the population, require humanitarian assistance, and half of all children under five years old are chronically malnourished.
The economic situation, if gloomy now, does not look much more optimistic for the medium or longer term. Most central Government revenue comes from oil production, which is set to decline sharply in the coming years. Yemen faces major problems from declining water resources and rapid population growth. Limited competition, considerable corruption and, above all, insecurity all mean that the private sector remains marginal. Civil society, too, is far from strong in Yemen. The grim social and economic outlook for Yemenis is, as other hon. Members have already pointed out in considerable detail, exacerbated by the huge political and security uncertainty facing Yemen. The rise of Houthi rebels, the presence of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the manoeuvrings of different tribal groups have all contributed to the sense of uncertainty and insecurity in Yemen. The close interest of Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen adds a further level of potential complication.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East alluded to my work in a previous role, when I had responsibility for our aid programme in Yemen. Among other things, I remember chairing what appeared to be a successful aid conference at Lancaster house almost 10 years ago. I visited Yemen to see our aid programme on the ground, and met the then President, Mr Saleh. I remember that visit well, not least because of the gold-plated AK47 on the wall next to the President’s office—it was apparently a gift from Saddam Hussein to the one leader who had recognised his brief conquest of Kuwait— but I remember my time in Yemen best for a wider visit to Sana’a old town. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said, Sana’a is a remarkable city. Even during that visit, the better part of 10 years ago, the insecurity was tangible.
In the past four years, insecurity has markedly increased. Following uprisings in the wake of the wider Arab spring in 2011 and the series of deadly clashes between protesters and Government security forces, President Saleh signed a transition agreement brokered by the Gulf Co-operation Council, which was led by Saudi Arabia and included the transfer of power to his deputy, Mr Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. In March 2013, as the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton rightly said, a national dialogue conference convened with the aim of drafting a new constitution. The conference concluded in January 2014 and agreed a document on which the new constitution would be based.
Following the unrest of 2011, President Hadi was able to establish some stability, although the complex alliances and groupings in Yemen meant that the security forces remained very divided, and even then the Government struggled to cope with the challenges posed by the Houthi rebels and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Even that fragile arrangement collapsed in September 2014, when armed Houthi rebels seized control of large swaths of the capital, Sana’a. The Yemeni Government signed a peace and national partnership agreement, which involved the formation of a new Government and required Mr Hadi, acting as caretaker President, to appoint a new Prime Minister. The agreement also led to the appointment of political advisers from the Houthi and southern movements. The agreement was welcomed by the UN, and the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, urged all parties to implement the agreement without delay.
The situation has worsened dramatically since the turn of this year. In January, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said, Houthi rebels rejected a draft constitution proposed by the Yemeni Government and seized control of state TV. President Hadi and his Government resigned. The President’s residence was attacked and he was placed under house arrest, as were the Prime Minister and many Cabinet Ministers. Earlier this month, the Houthi rebels dissolved Parliament and announced that a five-member presidential council would replace the President.
Jamal Benomar, the UN envoy to Yemen, rightly said on 11 February:
“We believe the situation is very dangerous. Yemen is on the brink of civil war”.
I therefore welcome reports that a UN-brokered deal was struck on Friday to agree on a compromise legislative council, although I understand that that falls short of a full new Government with clear leadership. I am told that Mr Benomar believes the agreement may pave the way for a comprehensive political agreement. I understand that the agreement keeps the existing Parliament in place but adds a people’s transitional council as a sort of second legislative chamber, drawing in members from the Houthi movement and other under-represented groups such as young people, women and those from southern Yemen. What apparently has not been decided is how a new President or Cabinet will be chosen. Mr Hadi was under house arrest until very recently and, like others in this Chamber, I welcome the fact that he has managed to escape. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that Mr Hadi’s colleagues, including the Prime Minister, need to be released immediately by the Houthi rebels. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on the prospects for the deal. What steps is the UK taking to encourage discussions between the various groups to try to build consensus for further agreement?
Jane Marriott, until very recently the UK’s ambassador to Yemen, recently stated:
“The GCC Initiative provided the mechanisms for an inclusive political dialogue involving those groups who hadn’t signed it, including the Houthis and Herak. The UK was in regular contact with all groups, including the Houthis, during the National Dialogue. They, like all groups, had legitimate grievances that were not being addressed quickly enough.”
I recognise that, with the closure of our embassy, maintaining contact with the different players in Yemen has been difficult, but it would be useful to hear what contact has been maintained. Further, what discussions have the UK Government had with the Saudi Arabian Government, in their role as co-chairs of the Friends of Yemen, on the support they are able to provide to encourage further political progress? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East rightly asked, will the Friends of Yemen meet again before the Dissolution of Parliament next month? What discussions have the Minister or his colleagues had with our EU colleagues, who will also play a critical role in providing further humanitarian aid and encouraging a collective way forward?
As the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said, Iran has been accused of supporting the Houthi movement. There are clearly links, but it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s assessment of the allegations about Iran’s role in Yemen’s recent history. What discussions has he or ministerial colleagues had with Tehran—perhaps in the margins of discussions about the nuclear deal—about progress in Yemen?
Lastly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East raised concerns about the continuing presence and strength of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. There is concern that the progress made by the Houthis has helped AQAP strengthen its position. If accurate, that is particularly troubling. My right hon. Friend also rightly discussed the need for better oversight of individuals travelling to Yemen. It would be good to hear the Minister’s reflections on that point. My right hon. Friend and others who have spoken today have done the House a service in raising the situation in Yemen. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. It is also a pleasure to respond to this informative and interesting debate, which shows this House at its best. The amount of knowledge presented by the various contributors shows that it is an important issue and that Britain has a role to play. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for pursuing the issue not just today but on numerous occasions when he has brought it to the Floor of the House. I hope that he continues to do so.
It is right that this House is debating developments in a country that is a key partner for delivery on counter-terrorism objectives. I will, if I may, place the country in historical and geographical context. As I am sure hon. Members know, Yemen lies at the southern end of the Arab peninsula, bordering Saudi Arabia to the north and Oman to the east. In biblical times, Yemen was known by Noah as the land of milk and honey. The three wise men are said to have presented baby Jesus with myrrh and frankincense from the mountains in Yemen. Others claim that it is the home of the queen of Sheba.
In modern times, Britain has had strong historic links with Yemen. Aden was colonised during the 19th century and developed into an important staging post on the sea route to India, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned, but Britain was later forced to leave Aden following local insurgency in 1967. More recently, times have been less pleasant. After an eight-year civil war between the Saudi-backed royalists and Egyptian-backed republicans, the republics of North and South Yemen were established in 1970. In 1990, the Marxist South Yemen merged with the northern republic. Four years later, unhappy with northern oppression, the south fought and lost a brief war of secession.
Yemen was struck by further political upheaval in 2011, when thousands took to the streets to force out the then President Saleh after three decades in power. Saleh resigned at the end of 2011 as part of the Gulf Co-operation Council initiative deal, which signalled the start of Yemen’s political transition. Since then, that political transition has been making steady progress. The national dialogue conference, which several hon. Members have mentioned, agreed a vision for Yemen that went on to form the basis of the new constitution, a first draft of which we saw in January this year, as the Opposition spokesman mentioned.
Regrettably, since last September the Houthis, a political and cultural Shi’a Zaydi religious movement from the north of Yemen who make up one third of the population and who ruled the north until 1962, have staged a takeover of the legitimate Government of President Hadi and key state institutions, putting the transition process in jeopardy. We cannot accept the Houthi use of military means to achieve political aims. It is a clear violation of the 1994 Yemeni constitution and the principles of the GCC initiative.
Descent into further conflict is now a strong possibility, and the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula to the Yemeni state, as well as to our own national security, remains real. Recent events in Yemen threaten our ability to deliver our core objectives in Yemen: to disrupt al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula and its ability to launch aviation-based attacks against the UK and partners, to address the urgent humanitarian situation facing the poorest people in that country, and to bring about greater stability through a more inclusive political system that respects the rule of law.
We still want a stable, democratic and prosperous Yemen. Yemen is a key partner in the UK’s national counter-terrorism objectives against al-Qaeda, and we contribute large amounts of development aid, including more than $300 million over the past three years to help 16 million Yemenis who do not have access to basic food or services. Humanitarian developments as well as stable politics are fundamental to securing a stable and peaceful future.
The dust has not yet settled from the Houthi takeover; events continue to evolve. The worst-case outcome is that the Houthis may unilaterally come to dominate the Executive and continue their expansion into the largely Sunni governorates of the south. That could lead to a bloody civil war and greater instability.
Rehman Chishti
On finding a peaceful long-term solution in Yemen, does the Minister know whether the Houthis are prepared to accept UN resolution 2201, which would ensure that all parties must come together and that the Houthis must withdraw from all Government institutions immediately?
Mr Ellwood
I am developing my argument, and I will certainly come to that, but yes, the core of what we are doing is working with the UN special envoy. Indeed, we were integral to the drafting of that resolution. That is exactly where we want all parties to arrive, but particularly the Houthis.
In recent months, there has been an increase in al-Qaeda attacks, mainly targeting the Houthis and giving a more sectarian tone to what is essentially a struggle for power and territory rather than an ideological battle. Instability in Yemen increases the risk of opportunist al-Qaeda attacks and allows al-Qaeda to exploit the power vacuum and project violence beyond Yemen’s borders. A better outcome for Yemen would be a more representative Executive that returns to the political road map in line with the GCC initiative. To achieve that, all parties should re-commit to the principles of the GCC initiative, the NDC recommendations and the peace and national partnership agreement, which the Houthis signed before they moved into the capital. They should also agree to UN Security Council resolution 2201.
Although the Houthis have engaged in the political process, for instance by taking part in the NDC talks on the new constitution, they have repeatedly failed to implement the measures to which they have agreed. Their actions to date have spoken far more loudly than their words. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), I commend the efforts of our former ambassador, Jane Marriott, and her staff to deliver our core counter-terrorism, stability and humanitarian objectives in such a difficult operating environment.
Recent events in Yemen will hinder our ability to deliver our objectives there, and it is with regret that we have had to suspend embassy operations temporarily and withdraw diplomatic staff from Sana’a. We will continue to work remotely in support of Yemen’s transition under the leadership of our new ambassador, Edmund Fitton-Brown. We hope to return to Yemen as soon as the security conditions improve, and will make an announcement in due course.
Mr Ellwood
We will make an announcement shortly on where the new embassy will be located; once that happens, the normal processes will then apply. However, the right hon. Gentleman makes an important point and, if I can, I will write to him with more details.
The Friends of Yemen brings together many countries around the region, and Britain is proud to co-chair that organisation. It met at the UN General Assembly in September last year, and all the countries involved were committed to encouraging the Houthis to enter into dialogue with the other stakeholders. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about the slow pace at which funds are being released, such that they are not coming through, even though I understand they had been pledged in 2012 at a previous UN General Assembly. Money is available but it needs to be unlocked, and the institutions need to be in place in the capital of Yemen, so the money can be transported and spent in a transparent and appropriate way. Those aspects of the process have broken down, but we should not forget that those pledges, which amount to about $10 billion, were made in 2012. I understand that less than $5 billion was actually committed, as such, so there are international funds available, but they will only be used once the political situation in Yemen has indeed improved.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I apologise for missing the earlier part of the debate. While my hon. Friend the Minister is addressing this issue, may I ask him a question? The placing of funds from the Friends of Yemen into Yemen crucially depends on the commitment of Yemenis themselves to having the means to deliver money to the poorest people, to ensure that jobs exist. In the past, too many states have put money into Yemen and found that it was not being used effectively, because of problems within government. Is the Minister more assured now that that point is really understood, so that this money can be unlocked? Not only political will but economic competence in delivery is necessary and key to ensuring that that money is used effectively.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I pay tribute to the work he did in the region as a Minister in the Foreign Office. He makes a powerful point. The unique position Britain finds itself in, compared with other countries, and the leading role it should play has already been mentioned. Part of that role has been to communicate with the Houthis and, indeed, with the other stakeholders to make them all aware not only of the wider consequences of civil war but of the positives. Once the structures are in place and there is stability, then we can unlock these funds.
However, an indication of the instability in Yemen is that Britain had to evacuate its embassy, along with the Americans and indeed others; the EU has evacuated its base as well. Until those embassy officials are able to return to Yemen, I am afraid the process of releasing and appropriately spending these funds, which are much-needed to help those caught up in the war, will be much slower.
The regional implications of instability in Yemen are serious, as hon. Members have mentioned. The increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict between the Shi’a Houthis and the Sunni tribes in the south will play into the hands of Al-Qaeda. We must work closely with allies such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to ensure that there is a co-ordinated and multinational response to the situation in Yemen.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the important role Iran can play in the situation we face. We are in dialogue with Iran and we need to ensure that it understands that it has a constructive role to play, to make sure that we do not see a further degrading of the situation in Yemen into civil war.
We also continue to work through our embassy staff, the UN special envoy—Jamal Benomar, who has been mentioned—and key allies to encourage all factions to work together to agree a political solution within the framework of the Gulf Co-operation Council initiative, including a clear timetable for constitutional reform and indeed elections. We remain concerned by the continued house arrest of Prime Minister Bahah and other members of the Cabinet, and we are actively calling for their immediate release.
No country can tackle terrorism alone, and Yemen is no exception. The scale of the challenge is huge and in the longer term continued instability in Yemen may mean an increased risk of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula launching external attacks, including here in the UK. AQAP remains a major part of the global, multimillion-pound kidnapping trade, which directly targets the UK, the EU, the US and nationals of other western countries. Through its extremist propaganda, AQAP also seeks to radicalise Muslims around the world and incite extremist violence. That was illustrated, as hon. Members have mentioned, in the horrific attack in Paris on 7 January.
Addressing the underlying instability in Yemen and the country’s political and economic problems is essential to countering the AQAP threat effectively. We have temporarily suspended counter-terrorism capacity-building activity with the Yemeni security forces, but we are exploring ways to re-engage with them in such activity, in a human rights-compliant manner. Members will appreciate that, for operational reasons, I cannot comment in detail on this activity.
We know that the majority of Yemenis want the same things people elsewhere around the world want: a say in how their country is run; an education for themselves and their children; the chance to have a good job; and the chance to live in a peaceful and prosperous state. Therefore, economic stability is as critical as political stability. Sadly, however, the economic situation in Yemen is deteriorating fast, with almost zero growth, debt at 50% of GDP, rapidly declining foreign reserves and growing fuel shortages.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
First, I apologise for not being here earlier. This is a subject dear to my heart, as my dear friends, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), know. I am not sure I can spell it correctly, but all three of us remember Bikerji Cowji—the toy shop we all went to as children.
I know my hon. Friend the Minister cannot say why our counter-terrorism training has been suspended, but it is crucial that we get involved to help the Government in Yemen get a grip of counter-terrorism. It is so important, so we should go back there as fast as we can.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is very experienced in these matters, and he makes an important and powerful point. Yemen has been an enormous incubator of terrorist groups; sadly, the potential for civil war in the country is also enormous. Working with our allies to ensure that we can return and work with the Yemenis themselves is therefore a priority. However, we must remember that we need a Government in Yemen to work with, and at the moment there is not one. There is a President, as such, and the President himself continues in that office. Nevertheless, there is confusion as to the direction we are going in, which is why we are calling upon the Houthis and others to recognise the UN resolution we are working towards implementing and to come back to the table, to provide the political basis from which peaceful dialogue can take place.
Without key reforms, the future Government of Yemen will struggle to manage not only terrorism but the country’s finances in the face of low oil prices and a burgeoning salary bill—issues we discussed earlier. International support remains crucial if Yemen is to avoid economic disaster. As has been reiterated across Westminster Hall today, we must remain engaged in what is going on in Yemen.
It is also important that Yemen avoid humanitarian disaster. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), the Opposition spokesman, while he was at the Department for International Development; he brings a lot of expertise to this debate. With some 16 million Yemenis in need of humanitarian aid, Yemen’s humanitarian crisis is second in scale only to Syria’s. However, there is a real risk that humanitarian needs will increase in the coming weeks and months if the economy deteriorates or the conflict intensifies. The UN appeal is only 60% funded, and it is crucial that the international community maintain or even increase its support to Yemen at this time.
My hon. Friends know that we have provided £185 million in aid to Yemen during the past three years through DFID programmes. We are currently able to continue to deliver the vast majority of those programmes, particularly our humanitarian and nutrition programmes, although we are keeping in close touch with our partners as events develop.
The international response to recent events has been strong and united. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2201, which was led by the UK and Jordan. It deplored the unilateral actions taken by the Houthis and urged them to engage in good faith in the UN-brokered political negotiations, to withdraw their forces from Government institutions and to release safely those who remain under house arrest. Regrettably, the EU, GCC and US missions have also had to suspend their operations due to the deteriorating security situation.
The future of the Yemen state is more uncertain than ever. The current political crisis has re-energised those groups in the south who long to return to the days of an independent South Yemen. The UK and the UNSC remain in support of the unity, sovereignty and independence of Yemen. There are secessionist sentiments in parts of the south, and we support calls for a new state structure that would give greater autonomy to the south of Yemen, as agreed in the National Dialogue Conference. However, the future structure of the state is ultimately a question for the Yemeni people.
Despite the huge challenges Yemen is facing today, I think there is a solution to get Yemen back on the right path. This includes, first, the immediate end to violence and intimidation, particularly in the oil-rich province of Marib, and the release of the remaining Cabinet members under house arrest. I am pleased that President Hadi is now safe and well and free from house arrest.
Secondly, there should be a swift, peaceful political transition. We urge all parties, particularly the Houthis, to implement the GCCI, the NDC outcomes and the peace and national partnership agreement that they signed originally in 2014. All parties should engage in good faith in the UN-brokered negotiations.
Thirdly and finally, there should be a new Executive to take urgent steps to improve the economic and humanitarian situation. The political road map must now become a reality. I assure hon. Members that despite the temporary suspension of our embassy operations in the capital, Britain will continue do what it can to help Yemen achieve a better future for all.
Police Numbers (Wales)
(9 years, 9 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
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Caton, thank you for allowing me to speak so early. I am glad I arrived early, because otherwise I could not have done so.
I called for this debate because everybody cares about police numbers. Everybody wants to feel safe in their homes and safe on the streets, and everybody wants to walk the byways free of antisocial and other nuisance behaviour. I am concerned that, as a result of decisions taken by this Government, Wales in particular has lost 500 officers from its service: North Wales police has lost 92 officers; South Wales police, 154; and my force in Gwent has lost 226 officers. The reductions in police numbers across Wales is the equivalent of Gwent police losing a full third of its officers. The fall in numbers is having a dramatic effect not just on our police, but on our constituents and businesses. In fact, police officers have said unequivocally, “Public safety is at risk.”
Last Wednesday, public safety was in the minds of people in Newbridge, when I attended a public meeting there. We talked about problems relating to antisocial behaviour in particular. I felt sorry for a police officer who told me that, unfortunately, due to cuts he could not bring in the CCTV they wanted and could not cut down on the antisocial behaviour, and that there was a real problem that impacted on public safety throughout Newbridge.
Research by the Police Federation has found that crime is not falling. Instead, it is not being reported or is being recorded incorrectly. In Wales, overall, crime has risen by 3%. Violent crime is up a fifth, with 38,000 violent attacks and 14 murders. Sexual offences are up by a shocking 30%. It is not as though Ministers can claim they did not know this would happen. Back in 2011, the Welsh Assembly launched an inquiry into the impact of policing cuts. The evidence taken during the inquiry came from a wide range of civil society. The advice was compelling and the outcome clear. The cross-party committee in charge of the investigation stated in its report that cuts to police numbers would be damaging, would impact on communities and would reverse progress made in the past decade. Equally, the Welsh Local Government Association said that reductions in police numbers would present a
“huge challenge for community safety and in continuing to tackle and reduce crime and disorder.”
It is clear that the loss of police officers has had a dramatic effect on the safety of our communities. The Government have claimed that officers have been lost only in respect of back-office functions. Although this may be so, it is shocking that Ministers do not recognise how important so-called back-office functions are to combating crime. Back office is more than just admin and human resources: it is, among other things, anti-terrorism intelligence, child protection, domestic violence units, family liaison, witness services and, crucially, 999 call handlers. Can the Minister honestly say that these functions are not vital to tackling crime?
The reduction in police numbers is not just making our communities more unsafe; it is harming their prosperity. It is making it more difficult for businesses to succeed. This is especially true in retail. I know so many shop owners in Islwyn who tell me of youngsters outside their shops who cause nuisance, and whose antisocial behaviour makes people fearful of going into the shops to make purchases. When they send those youngsters away, they usually get a mouthful of abuse.
Equally, large supermarkets, including Tesco and Asda, tell me that there is an increase in the number of shoplifters. In fact, shoplifting cost retailers more than £600 million last year, with an average incident costing companies £241. Now who is anti-business? That sum is a 36% increase on previous years. This is happening against the backdrop of police in Wales being forced to prioritise some crimes over others.
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has recognised that police forces with reduced numbers of officers are having to make very difficult decisions. As a result, businesses are suffering, including from the unchecked increase in online and credit card fraud. I raised this matter with the Prime Minister. We are talking about gangs putting together nuisance mail, tricking older and elderly people into giving up their life savings through letters coming in the post. What is happening about that crime? People are suffering from that as well.
This damage to public safety and the impact on businesses will only get worse if these plans continue. In my own area, as I said, Gwent police has already lost 226 officers and 175 civilian staff. With £22 million more to be cut by the force, a further 200 officers could lose their jobs. That would take the force—policing one of the most deprived areas in Europe, covering a geographical area of over 1,500 km, with a population of 556,600—to just over 1,000 officers. I give the Minister the opportunity to guarantee here and now that this further reduction will not harm public safety.
I fear that the increases in crime we have seen in Wales, and particularly in my local area, are just the beginning. To put it bluntly, the police in Wales, including in Islwyn, Gwent, and all over the country, are being stretched to breaking point. Many forces are now at critical mass level, meaning that police numbers going any lower would put the public in serious danger. This Government’s approach to policing has been described by the Police Federation as chaotic and foolish.
Such aggressive reduction of police budgets is putting the public at serious risk of crime. Ministers should take the advice given to them by HMIC. Worst of all, these cuts to budgets and police numbers have been done without any consultation. For a Government who talk about localism, that is absolutely amazing. The Welsh Government were not asked for their view on what policing should look like. The people of Wales were not asked what they would like from their police service. It is a disgrace that wide-ranging funding changes, impacting our communities, were made without consulting either the people of Wales or their representatives.
The scale and pace of police cuts in Wales is greater than that of any other public sector cuts in Wales or England. Ministers are right that in these times, we face difficult situations and have to make hard choices. However, I believe that government has only one duty, and that is to ensure people’s safety. The truth is that by choosing to reduce the numbers in our police services, the Government have failed.
In 2010, the Home Secretary was publicly warned that a reduction in police numbers would damage public safety. Sadly, this warning was proven correct. For more than four years, our communities have been becoming less safe. In the dying days of this Parliament, will the Minister, who is a Liberal Democrat, admit that the Government simply got it wrong? Will she apologise to the victims who might never have experienced crime if there were more police? Will she commit the Government to changing course? I look forward to her responses. Our dedicated police officers deserve that change of course, as do the people of Wales.
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this debate. I recognise that issues connected with the strength and capability of policing in our communities rightly continue to be of interest to all Members. I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, who was unable to attend today because of prior diary commitments.
I will respond to the points made by the hon. Gentleman in a few moments, but before I do, I will reflect on some significant achievements by police forces in Wales. First, it is worth highlighting the contribution of Welsh police forces to the overall reduction in crime that we have seen since the coalition Government took office. As we have said a number of times, crime as measured by the independent crime survey for England and Wales is down by more than a fifth since 2010, and now stands at its lowest level since the survey began in 1981. Chief constables and police and crime commissioners have demonstrated that it is possible to deliver more for less and to prioritise resources at the front line. Communities in Wales are safer than they have been for decades.
Like forces elsewhere, Welsh forces are collaborating with one another and with other public services to transform the policing landscape. That is helping not only to achieve necessary savings, but to deliver better outcomes for the public. For example, North Wales police and Cheshire constabulary have recently merged their armed policing units to improve response times and cut costs. Dyfed-Powys, Gwent and South Wales police forces collaborate across a number of areas, including firearms, crime recording, mobile data, forensics and procurement.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I apologise for not realising that the debate started early. I am very concerned and would like the Minister’s opinion on the fact that the police and crime commissioner for Dyfed-Powys has withdrawn his funding for the monitoring of CCTV cameras. That was a partnership with the county council, which clearly cannot make up the shortfall. Does she agree that that decision is short-sighted? We have low crime figures now, but that could start the reversal of the trend.
Lynne Featherstone
As the hon. Lady knows, it is a matter for decision locally by the PCC. That is the whole point. The PCC has to judge the correct way to proceed on the spot. I am sure that she is more than capable of taking the matter up with the PCC directly.
The police and crime commissioner for Gwent, Ian Johnston, has announced plans for a new victims’ hub, which will bring together a range of agencies and organisations to enable the force to work more effectively and efficiently with victims of crime. Through the police innovation fund, we have provided funding that will further enhance collaboration, as well as improve digital working and introduce new means by which the public can make contact with their forces. In 2014-15, Gwent and South Wales police forces received £837,000 from the innovation fund to develop an app that will allow officers to record and upload statements from a crime scene to a shared system. That will free officers from having to return to base, allowing them to spend more time on patrol.
A collaborative bid from all four Welsh forces to create a pan-Wales women’s triage scheme received £235,000 from the innovation fund. That scheme will help to rehabilitate female offenders and divert them from a life of crime. Dyfed-Powys was awarded £95,000 from the innovation fund to introduce a new computer system that will allow the force to share information securely with the ambulance and fire services during emergency incidents, helping to improve response times. Those pioneering projects are exactly the types of schemes we want to see forces doing. They show that innovation and collaboration make the police even better at doing their job and solving crime.
I pay tribute to Gwent police for their successful policing of last September’s NATO summit, supported by mutual aid officers from across the country. Let us not forget that it was a significant international event, which saw one of the largest gatherings of world leaders ever seen in the UK. The hard work and dedication of all the officers involved in that substantial operation ensured the safety and security of local residents and delegates.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way, especially since the earlier start to the debate caught me somewhat unawares. I agree wholeheartedly with her comments on Gwent police and the policing of the NATO summit. It was an excellent example of community policing in action. I know that all the communities I represent greatly appreciated it, so I thank her for making that point.
Lynne Featherstone
The hon. Lady speaks very well for her community.
Officer numbers are a key issue. I understand that there are concerns about reductions in police numbers in Wales, as elsewhere, and that is reflected by the level of the debate we have had today. We recognise the enormous impact that seeing officers on the street has in reassuring the public and deterring crime. While we remain absolutely committed to the principles of visible community policing, we have had to be realistic about the tight financial constraints within which we have to operate public services. The Government inherited the largest peacetime deficit in the country’s history, and we have had no alternative but to address that. I am sure that would have been true whoever had come into government. We were spending £14 billion on the service at the start of the current spending review period, so it was inevitable that we had to look to the police to deliver their share of the savings needed, and they have done so. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s recent “State of Policing” report reinforced that, over the spending review period, forces have been successfully balancing their books while protecting front-line services and delivering reductions in crime.
We have always been honest about the fact that, with 80% of police spending being on the work force, reduced budgets will inevitably have an impact on the numbers of officers and staff that forces can employ. The key has been to maximise the savings that can be delivered from the remaining 20%, in such areas as procurement and IT, and to prioritise available resources where the public expects to see them: at the front line. We know that that is happening in Wales, and I have already mentioned some of the examples of collaboration between Welsh forces that are helping to drive greater efficiency. I am pleased to note not only that a greater proportion of police officers in Wales are in front-line roles than in 2010, but that the measures have enabled Welsh forces to reinvest savings in increasing their officer numbers over the past 12 months.
I recognise that that picture is not wholly reflected in Gwent, which is the local force of the hon. Member for Islwyn. The published statistics show that it lost 73 officers in the year to September 2014. The inspectorate has expressed concerns on the extent to which the force’s change plans are focused on work force reduction, without a full understanding of local service demands and the impact such reductions will have on the skills and rank mix. It is clear, however, that Gwent has resolved to address that and build a sustainable position for the future, based on the sorts of activities that other forces are successfully implementing.
In addition to the promising collaborative work with other Welsh forces and local services that I have already mentioned, the PCC has announced the decision to reopen or extend the opening hours of nine police stations throughout Gwent that had previously been closed to the public or had limited opening hours. The force is also developing a new operating model that aims to protect and improve front-line policing by allowing greater flexibility in how it deploys the available resources. From April, teams of officers will be based in local police stations, rather than operating from response hubs. Each station will be managed locally by a neighbourhood inspector, who will have their own team that they can deploy to tackle issues. Such local ownership will enhance the service that the force provides to communities by increasing police visibility, local knowledge and problem solving in those neighbourhoods. Front-line policing will further be bolstered in numbers by devolving operational support officers to front-line duties.
Ultimately, decisions on the size and composition of a police force’s work force are for individual chief officers and police and crime commissioners to make. They will take account of the needs and views of their local communities. Full-time officers are only part of the story. Police staff and police community support officers are an integral part of the policing family, as are special constables and other volunteers. For example, North Wales police, which already has more than 120 special constables, is running a recruitment drive to expand that number, particularly in rural areas and among Welsh-speaking communities.
A vital part of how policing is delivered today is the technology that officers have at their disposal. Technology has the power to transform and maximise the impact and effectiveness of the resources that forces have at their disposal. Supported in part by the police innovation fund, which I mentioned earlier, forces are investing in mobile technology to give officers instant, on-the-street access to the systems that they need, thereby reducing the need for officers to spend time in the station. For example, the police and crime commissioner in Dyfed-Powys has stated that officers will spend an additional 100,000 hours—a huge amount—on the beat this year, owing to IT improvements implemented by the force.
Turning to some of the points that were raised, fraud has tended to be under-reported. We have worked to increase reporting through Action Fraud, a specialist reporting and advice service for fraud victims. The rise in police-recorded fraud is likely to reflect the improved reporting that has been introduced to the system over time. The crime survey data on plastic card fraud suggest a small rise in the year to September 2014, but the proportion of card users who suffered fraud was 20% lower than in 2009-10.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned recorded crime in Wales being up 3%. The Office for National Statistics analysis suggests that increases in recorded crime have been driven by improvements in crime recording, particularly of violence. He also mentioned the fact that incidents of violence against women have risen by 30%; we at the Home Office welcome their being recorded. The Home Secretary commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to review crime recording in all 43 forces, and that has clearly had a salutary effect because crime recording is improving, as it had to.
We recognise the importance of vital back-office support functions. HMIC has found that forces are prioritising available resources in not only visible policing functions but key non-visible front-line roles, such as intelligence and the safeguarding of vulnerable people.
I thank hon. Members for participating in an informed and well-reasoned debate. It is clear that the police reforms delivered under this Government are working. The take-home statistic is that, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales, crime has fallen by more than 20% and we are all safer than we have been for decades, including in Wales. The Government recognise that the funding settlement is challenging for police and crime commissioners and forces, but it also brings opportunities, particularly for those prepared to innovate, collaborate and transform to drive efficiencies, and to deliver even better policing across Wales.
Infrastructure (South-West)
(9 years, 9 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 Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I recognise that he has not been carrying out his duties for very long. I also know that the issues I am about to raise are possibly cross-cutting, and therefore do not expect him to be an expert on them. There may be some issues on which he will want to come back to me after the event.
I want to raise a specific example of how public procurement of infrastructure in the south-west could, in my opinion, be greatly improved. However, before I get on to that issue, I should say how much I welcome the extra investment the Government are making in our nation’s infrastructure. I often think that Governments do far too much, but one thing the Government can do really well—perhaps only they can do it—is ensure that the country’s infrastructure, whether it be for transport, education, communications or whatever, is in the first-class condition we would expect in a first-class country. I am glad that our disciplined adherence to our long-term economic plan has released the resources to invest in our country in that way.
I should clarify that, for the purposes of the example I am giving, the south-west is the seven counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Bristol, a vast region that stretches from the Isles of Scilly and Land’s End in the south to the Forest of Dean in the north and Stonehenge in the east. It does not quite take in Northern Ireland, Dr McCrea, but it comes quite close.
I welcome the two recent announcements of major infrastructure spending and improvements in our part of the world. The first is the dualling of the A303 all the way from the M3 to the M5, with a tunnel under Stonehenge, which when complete will give the far south-west a second major arterial road to underpin our growing economy. I am also exceedingly grateful to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport for the commitment given to working with the Peninsula Rail Task Force to work up its three-point plan into a deliverable proposal with timings and costings that will give the far south-west a rail service fit for the 21st century, including journey times of two and a quarter hours from Plymouth to Paddington. That is all very welcome.
My specific concern, and the reason for calling the debate today, is the way in which the coalition Government have recently chosen to procure the building of new schools and the refurbishment of existing schools throughout our region. Of course, some think that what school buildings and classrooms are like does not matter for education, as long as the teachers are good, but I do not agree. Modern, well-designed buildings can lift the spirit and help a child to attain his or her potential. The gradual replacement of ancient school buildings, of which we have many in the south-west, is extremely important to the academic prospects of the next generation.
The Education Funding Agency regional framework is a four-year arrangement through which the EFA, academies, local authorities and other educational establishments can arrange contracts for individual school projects, both new build and refurbishment. In July 2014, the Education Funding Agency regional framework appointed seven contractors for lot 4, which is its rather unromantic bureaucratic description of the south-west. Thereby hangs the first problem I wish to raise with the Minister. Not one of the construction companies on our regional framework is local to the south-west—not one. There are some outstanding construction companies in our region, many with an excellent track record on public sector projects, yet not one made it on to the list. I will go further than that and say that some of the companies that are on the list do not have a proven track record in our region at all.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman may, in a way, have answered my question, but will he elaborate for me the process of procurement? In Northern Ireland, we have procurement clusters for councils that are close together and so do a lot of procurement together. Does the procurement system operate in the same way in his region?
Mr Streeter
That is a helpful and interesting question. I will describe the procurement process in a moment. The hon. Gentleman may be able to understand it more clearly than I do. I find it extremely complex. That is one of the things that has gone wrong. The system itself is complex and—dare I say it?—over—bureaucratic.
Not one regional company has made it on to the framework list. I believe—this is the thrust of what I am raising with the Minister today—that essential changes are needed to the framework system so that local businesses have a fair chance of winning prize public procurement contracts and projects. It sounds like the situation in Northern Ireland is similar, and I do not suppose for a moment that the south-west is unique. This is an issue to which civil servants and Ministers need to give a little more thought.
I understand the benefits of multi-user framework agreements for procurement. They give a pre-competed route to market, procuring a vehicle to centralise procurement spend. They also share procurement expertise and resources, and risk and contract management. They reduce the administrative burdens of the time and cost of running a full procurement procedure each time. Infrastructure work is also very attractive to suppliers in such large volumes, but—I use my words carefully—it is an insult to our region to exclude all our companies. It may also be counter-productive, as I hope to explain.
First, how did this come about? I will try to explain the process as I understand it. Prior to issuing the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union in 2013, the EFA was looking to engage with the market to invite ideas as to how best to encourage the markets at a local level to participate in tendering for the framework on offer in a way that would deliver the most economically advantageous commercial agreement for all parties. Although local companies, including many with a tremendous track record of delivering schools over many years, applied in the south-west, that clearly had no effect on the outcome. Of the seven construction companies chosen, not one is local.
The final seven are as follows. The first is a French company called Bouygues, which has its headquarters in Paris, France. The second is BAM, which has its headquarters in Bunnik, in the Netherlands. The third, Skanska, is perhaps better known—its headquarters are in Stockholm, Sweden. The others are UK companies: Interserve, a well-known company, ISG plc, Galliford Try and Kier Group, which, again, is well known. They are all based in the south-east.
I accept that the first three international companies have small UK offices, but they are essentially overseas companies. They have no relationship whatever with the west country and any profits made are unlikely to be spent in the UK. I recognise the nature of the world in which we live—multinational corporations get contracts in every country and work in and contribute to our country—but I firmly believe that regionally based companies are able to deliver schools successfully in a cost-effective manner, and so should not have been excluded from the EFA framework. Local companies are much more likely to understand and wish to contribute to the community in which they are working.
It is also the case that international companies tend to bring with them their own supply chain and specialist sub contractors. The Minister may be thinking of saying in his response—it may already be written in front of him—that, if a contract is won by a major national or international company, that company will sub contract parts of the work to local companies, but I urge him not to say that, because the evidence on the ground is that, more often than not, it simply does not happen, and those companies bring their own supply chains with them.
It might help the House to hear that there were plenty of alternatives to the way in which the Government chose to proceed. For example, Midas Construction, one of the outstanding and successful construction companies in our region, has developed something it calls the Midas model school solution. That concept, which is now in its fifth year, has delivered 13 cost-effective schools.
It began with the requirement to deliver a primary school pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A housing development contractor thought that it could deliver a school directly in a more cost-effective manner and use surplus moneys to fund IT equipment. The school was designed on the standard template, using a framed solution with traditional construction. The concept allowed for future expansion from a one-form to a two-form school as the housing development progressed. The school was delivered successfully and benchmarked about 20% lower than the Department for Education allowance. The project was successful and, consequently, it was rolled out to a number of the contractor’s other sites and local authorities.
The evidence is that the model school is between 15% and 20% cheaper on average than the traditional public procurement route. The model has proved to be adaptable over time, but the most powerful testament is that every head teacher has been happy to accept the learning environment as fit for their school and, after years of use, they remain delighted with the product.
That model and others like it are now excluded from the south-west because of how the new framework agreement has been put together. Some excellent regional firms have also been excluded. I mentioned Exeter-based Midas Construction, but what about Henry Pollard and Sons from Bridgwater in Somerset, Ryearch Ltd, based in my constituency, Rydon Ltd in Bristol, or Devon Contractors, another Exeter-based concern? They are all capable of building and refurbishing local schools, but they are all excluded because of a needlessly bureaucratic approach to procurement.
David Simpson
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that that flies in the face of Government policy to try to rejuvenate local economies. Certainly, in my part of the United Kingdom, many companies have fallen foul of EU legislation under which, if contracts are above a certain price, they have to go out for tender, as he has explained. However, if we get indigenous businesses operating again, surely that will benefit local economies and jobs.
Mr Streeter
I absolutely agree. It does fly in the face of Government policy, but I do not think Ministers are necessarily aware—I would not necessarily expect them to be—of the detail of the very technical framework agreements being put in place. I understand that clever people have brought them about for all the right reasons and with good intentions, but the upshot is that we have a product that local people are not happy with. That is why I am asking the Minister about this. I am optimistic that in a moment he will say that he will revamp the entire process—that would be good.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a strategy for buying locally, so why cannot the Department for Education do the same for its contractors? All public bodies must become far better at doing local procurement. Our south-west economy and regions like it would be transformed if Departments, Government agencies, local authorities, the health service, emergency services and so on all procured locally whenever possible, especially for major projects.
The Minister may be tempted to say in his reply that it is possible for a local authority or academy to contract to build a school with a construction company that is not on the framework agreement, but I urge him not to hide behind that thought, because that will almost certainly never happen. Why would anyone or any committee wishing to build a new school voluntarily take on board that additional risk? Most decision makers when grappling with that will feel the need to play it safe and—this is the tragedy—stick with what will be perceived to be the seven Government-approved contractors. That puts everyone else on a second-class footing, which is simply not right or fair.
My less wordy second point is that the framework agreement actually increases the cost for the taxpayer. This is how I understand it to work. The contractors in the framework appear to have been selected via a contract notice published on Tenders Electronic Daily, the online version of the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, dedicated to European public procurement. The notice asked potential suppliers to bid to be part of the framework—so far, so good. Bidders had to have a minimum financial turnover threshold of £25 million for the region and they are supposed to be evaluated on the basis of essential and specific criteria that together offer the most economically advantageous tender.
However, the bidding system for being part of the framework is based not on which contractor can do the job at the lowest price with the highest quality, but on which seven construction companies are closest to the mean average of the bids offered. The system penalises competitive pricing and rewards higher bids. The winners are those that, by chance, bid closest to the mean of all bids. The pricing criterion contributes to 70% of the overall score, which cannot result in the most economically advantageous tenders. For example, one local construction company outscored four of the seven chosen construction companies in quality, so those four were not the most capable of delivering the product.
The successful framework bidders following selection need to participate in a subsequent, local competition process for each project. At that point, the competition process is scored 70% on quality and 30% on price. At least four of the seven construction companies chosen have little or no experience or track record in the region, so it is highly unlikely that, in the context of the local market, a competitive price will be procured. Unlike some of the excluded local construction companies that I mentioned, those other companies certainly do not have a track record for delivering £3 million to £7 million education projects in these areas, which are typically the projects for which they will be competing.
With such limited competition and only 30% of the award criteria on price, it is close to inevitable that any public sector bodies using the framework will pay non-competitive prices. What kind of mind came up with selection criteria that did not judge on quality and price, but focused on selecting those bids that were closest to the average, rather than the cheapest? Surely if the quality threshold is crossed, the taxpayer should expect to pay the cheapest price, not the price closest to the average. If I have misunderstood the process, I am sure the Minister will correct me when he responds.
I suspect that the selection criteria were put together by intelligent, well intentioned officials in the DFE and Cabinet Office. We are so well served by our civil service in this country and I am in no way criticising them, but I suspect that there was next to zero input from Ministers on such technical decision making. I was a Minister 1,000 years ago when someone called Sir John Major was the Prime Minister. In those days, we were talking about procuring new magistrates courts using something that was quite new in those days: private finance initiative contracts. I therefore know that such technical issues are largely taken forward by civil servants. Perhaps that is right, but there needs to be political, regional input, with an understanding of how people in the region might respond to the end product. We have ended up with a process that excludes local firms and does not choose the cheapest price. That is not a good day’s work.
Finally, on the involvement of foreign contractors, the necessity of the current framework comes from Europe. However, despite of the Europe-wide requirement to treat companies equally regardless of origin, which I support, it is increasingly hard, according to several construction companies I have spoken to, for British companies to work in other European countries. One director told me he was laughed at even for suggesting that a British company might win a contract in France. Can the Minister name any major construction projects undertaken directly by British companies in France for which the French Government are paying? We have an equivalent project on our framework agreement for the west country. The four freedoms guaranteed for the internal market of the European Union are not enforced or strictly kept to in other countries, which creates an unfair system in which British businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises are limited in where they can work, so why do we bend over backwards in this country to gold plate and comply with every jot and tittle of the rules, when our European competitors do not?
I am afraid that I would have to describe the new way of procuring schools in the south-west as a lose-lose situation. It favours multinational and centralised national firms that have no vested interest in the area at the expense of regional firms. It is likely to reduce the opportunities for local contractors rather than increase them, and it has been put together in a way that does not guarantee the selection of the lowest price for the taxpayer. I urge the Minister to look into the matter very carefully, and if possible, to adapt or terminate the current framework agreement, which has another three years-plus to run. If not, the Government can expect the feelings of deep dissatisfaction and deep resentment in the south-west to continue to rumble on.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I am grateful to you for chairing this debate, Dr McCrea, and I particularly want to put on record my gratitude to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) for securing the debate. Although in recent weeks we have debated in this place and the other place the contracting out of services, he has put firmly on the agenda the contracting out of infrastructure, which is becoming much more important. That is especially true at the moment, because as he rightly says, new funding is being brought forward to replace the funding that was lost under Building Schools for the Future, in the education area in particular.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I could feel his frustration at the way the outcome of this process has shut out some of the outstanding construction companies in his region. I think that that frustration is shared in many other parts of the country, particularly by companies that have a strong track record of providing goods, services and contracts in the public sphere and which feel, understandably, that this sends a very strong message to them that their work has not been valued. Although I would not suggest for a moment that the Government have intended to produce that outcome, he is right to put this very firmly not just on the Minister’s agenda, but on my agenda, as the spokesperson for the Opposition.
That frustration is particularly felt in areas of the country where local authorities have pushed ahead with a local procurement agenda that has sought to build on local and regional expertise to ensure that the benefits of those contracts are felt fully in the areas in which they are granted. However, when they look to national Government to do the same, they find that many of those contracts have been awarded to overseas companies, or companies out of the area.
David Simpson
The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made the point that the idea of someone from the United Kingdom getting a contract in France was laughable. That is one of the major problems; other countries practise protectionism. We are not very good at that, and I do not think we should do it, but other countries in the European Union certainly do, and that has a detrimental, knock-on effect on the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lisa Nandy
Yes, and in a moment, I will come on to things that the Government might consider doing to strike the balance better in this country, to ensure that we do not shut out some of our best companies with a really strong track record of delivery.
First, I say to the Minister that when commissioning goods, services and big capital projects of the sort that the hon. Member for South West Devon described, we accept that there is a balance to be struck between trying to guarantee value for money and trying to ensure the maximum social and local good. As the hon. Gentleman illustrated well during his speech, those things are often complementary and are not in contrast to one another. That is particularly the case when we look at what has happened to the economy, and particularly regional and local economies, over recent years. It makes a significant difference when services are procured locally and regionally, because that money remains in the region, as he said. Jobs are created and salaries are boosted. Every pound that goes into the pockets of working people in regions such as the north-west or south-west, where he is based, is then spent again in local shops and local businesses, and that cycle of growth continues.
However, in recent years we have seen the opposite. Although I accept that this Government have no huge plans to invest in our regions in the next few years, they have significant spending power; £187 billion was spent by national Government on public procurement in 2012, and I think there may be some more recent figures. That can have a significant impact if it is spent in local areas.
As the hon. Gentleman said, big national contracts are not always value for money. He made the point that many of the construction companies he was talking about have proven track records in his region. We have seen what happens when big national contracts are handed out without a real understanding of local areas. The Work programme was probably the most stark example, but that applies to infrastructure as well. As he said, one of the critical things that the Government could do is think about the impact that procuring services from outside the region has on supply chains, because often companies that come in from outside local areas bring their own supply chains with them.
The Government also need to recognise strongly that at the moment, in the way in which we contract and procure services and goods, there is a power imbalance between the prime contractor and any subcontractors or those providing services as well. A recent example of that was Capita and the civil service training scheme, which the Minister will be well aware of. That £250 million contract was supposed to be about opening up the best deal to the taxpayer, but subcontractors suffered a great deal because of the way in which the terms of that contract were drawn. Even where we decide that we will award contracts to big multinational firms, often based and operating overseas, we need to think much more clearly about how we balance that power relationship and ensure that those further down the supply chain are protected. One way in which we ought to do that is by getting a grip on how payment is made to providers. Quite often, in the procurement that we carry out, that is simply not thought about at the very beginning.
Another way in which the Government could help to move the agenda forward is by concentrating strongly on the expertise within the Government—of which there is a great deal, but it is patchy across different Departments—and on the staffing levels needed. An example of that was the west coast main line franchise, which was a £50 billion contract that was managed in the original instance by just three civil servants.
We think that the Government could do more to think about the wider impact of commissioning and procurement on the public. One way in which they could do that—we would strongly encourage them to do this—is by introducing a public interest test when they are going through the procurement process. We have committed to ring-fencing some contracts for companies in pursuit of a public service mission—that recently became one of the tools in the Government’s armoury. I would be interested to know whether this Government have thought about doing the same.
We are also committed to a community right to challenge where major projects have been announced that do not seem to be of enormous benefit to local areas or regions. It would be interesting to apply that community right to challenge in this case, because I suspect that the hon. Member for South West Devon speaks for many people in his constituency and across south-west England when he expresses anger about the fact that many organisations or firms that could have delivered the projects have not made it on to the list.
One way in which local providers can be of particular help is through their understanding of the local work force. That is one reason why we have given the committed that any national contract or major infrastructure project that is worth more than £1 million will specify that apprenticeships have to be provided as part of the deal. There is a particular benefit from procuring services locally and regionally, because quite often those firms—the sorts of firms that the hon. Gentleman talked about in his speech—will have knowledge of the local work force. They will already be working with education providers and other local businesses to help to provide opportunities for young people. The Minister recently visited the Youth Zone in Wigan, in my constituency, which has a very good record of working with local employers and local education providers to ensure that those links are made. In the case of High Speed 2, that policy would provide 33,000 apprenticeships. We think that the Government could commit to doing that.
It is also important, when commissioning projects and services, to think about the impact on the staff. In recent years, we have seen appalling examples of companies that have been commissioned from outside a local area to provide services. There was an example during the Olympics of a company in the Wigan borough that was commissioned to steward parts of the Olympics. The treatment of the staff in that company was found, when it was investigated, to be absolutely appalling. It was undercutting the minimum wage. There was no regard whatever for people’s terms and conditions, to the extent that staff were made to sleep under a bridge overnight in order to carry out their duties. That case hit the headlines nationally.
There is a particular impact from taking into account the strong and existing ties that local firms have to their own work force. I am thinking of the need to preserve their integrity and reputation. The hon. Gentleman talked about that. When we think about spending very large sums of public money, we should think about the impact on the people who end up delivering the services.
One of the very welcome things that the Government have done is introduce the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, of which the Minister’s predecessor but one, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), was a very strong supporter. Recently, the Government published the review of the social value Act to see what impact it has had. The review, by Lord Young of Graffham, unfortunately concluded that it has had a fairly limited impact, but ruled out extending the Act to goods and services, which could have made a huge difference to the sort of commissioning approach that we have heard about today. Surely the ethos of the Act should go beyond the limited scope that it has at present.
I would be interested to know what the Minister plans to do to try to extend the spirit of the social value Act to the sorts of projects that the hon. Member for South West Devon talked about. One point that Lord Young made in the review was that very few public sector commissioners know about the Act, so I hope that the Government will tell us today that they will take up his invitation to promote the Act much more heavily and the principles that lie behind it, because although at present it does not apply directly to school infrastructure projects, the spirit and ethos of the Act would have been extremely helpful in this case.
There is an agenda coming, I think, to most regions, regardless of who is in government after the general election. All three major political parties are committed to a greater devolution agenda. We need to think that through and get it right in advance of power being devolved to city and county regions and locally, because as more and more of these spending decisions are taken at local and regional level, getting it right will become very important indeed. It would make nonsense of the devolution agenda if the responsibility for major projects lay with a national Government who did not take account of the strengths and talents in regions such as the south-west, so I would be interested to hear what the Government have planned, as part of the devolution agenda, to ensure that we draw on those skills and help to boost growth and productivity in every region of the UK, not just a small section of it.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) for initiating the debate. He is a great champion of his constituents and of Devon, but also of the wider south-west region. This debate is evidence of that fact. I will start with general comments and then move on to the specific issues that he raised.
Changing and improving the way in which the public sector spends money on goods and services has been a Government priority since 2010. We have brought about unprecedented and comprehensive reform across all areas of procurement and will continue to do so, making Whitehall leaner and more efficient, so that Britain can compete in a global sense. Through our rigorous commercial reform programme, stripping out waste and buying more goods and services centrally, we have made the way in which we do business in central Government quicker, more competitive, more transparent, better value and far simpler than ever before. Those commercial reforms, combined with a baseline of spend in 2009-10, have created savings of £2.9 billion in 2010-11, £3 billion in 2011-12, £3.8 billion in 2012-13, and £5.4 billion in 2013-14.
To be regarded as a global competitor, Britain must ensure that the right investment is made in national infrastructure, with a focused investment in skills, technology and efficiency initiatives that help businesses to operate and expand in a global economy. The construction industry underpins the growth of this sector and facilitates future prosperity. We are reforming public construction enterprises to make them more efficient, collaborative, innovative and competitive, both at home and abroad, ensuring that the money that we spend boosts Britain’s competitiveness and delivers greater social mobility.
We are rebalancing the economy to achieve strong, lasting growth and widely shared prosperity. The Government construction strategy is about cutting waste and reforming our procurement processes, and reinvesting the savings that we make in more progressive ventures that stimulate the economy, ensuring liquidity of all businesses, big and small. It gives us a competitive advantage, underpins economic growth and generates higher-quality jobs.
We are backing the industries of the future and making Britain a great place to do business. The construction pipeline will provide more than £127 billion of strategic investment opportunities for businesses from this year onwards—a significant boost to economic growth in the sector. Government and industry are working together to create strong communities and to support local and national economies, investing in world-class, functional public buildings and spaces and inspiring businesses to grow.
Let me turn to the south-west. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully committed to a flourishing and prosperous south-west. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the Government’s long-term economic plan for the region. In delivering it, we will increase regional productivity, create more jobs and improve road, rail and digital communications infrastructure. My hon. Friend gave a couple of examples of where we are doing that, including the tunnel under Stonehenge and some of the rail improvements that will ensure a better rail service to the south-west in due course. The Government are therefore actively reforming procurement, encouraging construction and promoting regional growth, all of which is good news for companies in the south-west. Nevertheless, we recognise there is still a lot more we can do.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his three comments about the procurement activity undertaken by the EFA as part of its regional framework in the south-west, and I would like to deal briefly with each in turn. The first was about tenderers being selected on the basis of not the cheapest tender, but being closest to the average of the tenders. I understand from EFA officials that tenderers were selected on more complex price grounds than those mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I would be happy to share with him separately details of the methodologies used. I can assure him, however, that the approach adopted was meant to ensure a level playing field for suppliers by preventing larger companies from artificially deflating prices in their initial bid and then squeezing subcontractors in the supply chain. Contracts awarded under the framework follow a mini-competition to ensure that best value for money is achieved.
My hon. Friend asked about the procurement process, so let me briefly outline it for him. Public procurement rules apply to public purchases above defined thresholds and require those purchase opportunities to be advertised across Europe. In October 2013, the EFA advertised a prior information notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. Bidder days were then held to explain the tendering process to interested applicants. Interested firms were required to provide submissions by completing a pre-qualification questionnaire consistent with the Government’s publicly available specification 91 format. Following their submission, the PQQs were evaluated according to the published selection criteria. Shortlisted bidders were then invited to tender. I hope that gives my hon. Friend confidence that the proper process was followed in this case.
David Simpson
The Minister’s last comments were about as clear as mud, but I understand that that is what was on the paper he was given. I do not doubt for one minute the Government’s sincere objectives in this procurement process, but what is happening on the ground is totally different from what he has just said about procedures preventing subcontractors from being squeezed. Subcontractors are being squeezed, and that is why we need to look at what is happening down at the coal face.
Mr Wilson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. If what he says is the case, we will certainly look at it. The second point my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon raised was that there are no local companies in the framework, despite there being substantial companies in the south-west.
Mr Streeter
Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he deal with the issue of tenders being judged on whether they are closest to the average price, rather than the lowest price, once they have got over the quality threshold? He said that I may have misunderstood the methodology, which is very complex, and that he is prepared to share it with me. However, for the purposes of the debate, will he tell me whether I am wrong about how the tenders are judged, or whether that is part of the process?
Mr Wilson
If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will come to that. To return to the previous intervention, however, where there is poor practice in the system and companies are being squeezed, we have a mystery shopper system, which will investigate cases thoroughly. [Interruption.] It is indeed called a mystery shopper system, which is probably mystifying everybody. By and large, it has yielded significant results for those who have made complaints.
As a contracting authority for the purposes of the applicable legislation—the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, which were introduced by the previous Labour Government—the EFA is bound by requirements of objectivity and non-discrimination. Those extend to a duty not to extend preferential treatment purely on the grounds of a bidder’s geographic location at the time of submitting a tender. EFA officials have assured me that robust and effective selection criteria were applied in the exercise we are discussing. They have also assured me that, in line with legal requirements, the evaluation criteria to be applied were shared openly with all the bidders.
It is important to remember that the largest part of procurement spend in the construction industry is with subcontractors, the majority of whom will be local suppliers. My hon. Friend tried to block that avenue off for me, but the evidence is that subcontractors are local in most cases. If he is telling me that local subcontractors are not being used in the south-west, I will ask my officials to look at what is happening there, but this does not seem to be the case in other areas. The French company that is one of the seven companies on the EFA’s list bought out Leadbitter, a UK company active in the south-west, although I am not sure of the full details of the purchase.
Lisa Nandy
If the Minister has any figures about subcontractors, it would be helpful to all of us to see them—perhaps at a later date, if he does not have them to hand. However, I would be grateful if he addressed my point about the power imbalance between subcontractors and contractors. Does the Cabinet Office have plans to make sure that, even where local or regional companies are not granted the primary contract, local subcontractors can still take part in the process without detriment?
Mr Wilson
As I said, where there is an imbalance, and subcontractors providing a service to the main contractor are being, for want of a better word, abused, we have the mystery shopper system, which will thoroughly investigate any abuses. Where it has investigated complaints on behalf of individual organisations and it has found problems, it has taken actions that those organisations have found very useful. Most of these concerns can, therefore, be sorted out on the ground while contracts are being supplied.
The third point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon was that the seven firms include three foreign firms, including the French one I have just mentioned. Public sector procurers are required to seek value for money through fair and open competition. Through our membership of the European Union, and because we are a signatory to international agreements, our contracting authorities are required to place suppliers from Europe and various other countries on an equal footing with UK suppliers. That is a two-way street, as it gives our suppliers access to public procurement markets overseas, maximising value for money for the UK taxpayer, while ensuring that UK companies are able to compete abroad.
The Government want UK companies to be successful in public procurement. The best way to bring that about is for those companies to offer the goods and services we need at quality levels and for whole-life costs representing value for money. To that end, the Government are seeking to ensure that their large-scale purchasing power supports the task of boosting growth and enables us actively to shape the UK market for the long term. To place a value on a bid based on the geographical origin of the bidder would be contrary to the single market.
All the same, the Government understand the importance of a long-term approach to supporting UK business and aligning activity to deliver that. As part of the work, several areas where Government action can have an early impact have been identified. They are sectors, technologies, access to finance, skills and procurement. Strategies for 11 key sectors, including construction, are being developed in partnership with business. I should also point out that use of the Education Funding Agency regional framework is not mandatory. I am aware of two other construction frameworks for the south-west. Construction Framework South West, managed by Devon county council, has 11 suppliers, nine of which are British, including Midas. South West Consultancy Framework, managed by Torbay council, has seven suppliers, of which six are British.
The Government are committed to increasing opportunities for suppliers of all sizes to bid for work successfully through the procurement reforms, which also secure value for money for the British taxpayer.
Mr Streeter
Have the Minister’s officials been able to provide him with a list of British companies that have won contracts in France when the funding has come from the French Government?
Mr Wilson
Before the debate, I had not been given any such list, but during it I have been given some information; I think it has been provided from memory, and we should do some research and send that to my hon. Friend. I understand that a company based in west Cumbria just won a £1 million contract in France. We are not quite clear about whether that was Government-funded. I think the best thing would be for me to write to my hon. Friend.
Human Rights (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
(9 years, 9 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
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I am very pleased to have secured this debate on the activities of the London-listed oil company, SOCO International plc, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Virunga national park. “Virunga”, a documentary that covers many of the matters I will highlight today, was shortlisted for an Oscar this past weekend. In the limited time I have today, I hope to draw attention to the allegations of corruption and human rights abuses that have arisen following the arrival in 2007 of SOCO International in Virunga, which is a UNESCO world heritage site.
It should be noted that SOCO International has been offered the chance to respond to the allegations that will be laid out this afternoon. It has strenuously denied making illicit payments or intimidating civil society opponents in Virunga. However, the company has so far failed to provide a convincing response to the specific evidence of wrongdoing that will be described this afternoon. The “Virunga” documentary and Global Witness’s report, Drillers in the Mist, contain further detailed evidence of improper behaviour.
SOCO International is one of the UK’s 200 biggest companies listed on the FTSE 250, with oil and gas operations in Asia and Africa. It turned its attention to Virunga after the DRC Government declared that 85% of the park would be divided up into oil blocks. There was an outcry at that decision, because Virunga is Africa’s oldest and most bio-diverse national park; it is home to some 220 endangered mountain gorillas. UNESCO says that oil exploration and drilling are completely incompatible with world heritage site status.
The “Virunga” documentary and research by Global Witness, the anti-corruption campaigners, have revealed that in addition to threatening the world heritage status of the park, SOCO International and its contractors have made illicit payments, appear to have paid off armed rebels and benefited from fear and violence in the Virunga area of the DRC.
As I have already said, SOCO International has denied these allegations. However, the evidence is compelling. In the documentary, SOCO International’s military liaison officer, Major Feruzi, is caught on a hidden camera offering a $3,000 bribe to a park ranger. Feruzi wanted the ranger to spy on Virunga’s chief warden, Emmanuel de Merode, who has been singled out by SOCO International representatives as a key opponent of the company’s ambitions in the park. The army officer refers to a SOCO International contractor as his “boss”. Under the UK Bribery Act 2010, it is a crime for a UK company to fail to prevent an act of bribery carried out on its behalf.
The film also presents evidence of payments to a Congolese MP for the area covering Virunga who, at the time, was also a Government Minister. He campaigned vociferously on SOCO International’s behalf and helped to organise payments to local organisations to hold a pro-oil demonstration in the park. Also, he was covertly filmed saying that SOCO International officials told him that signing a contract with him was likely to be illegal under British law, as he was a public official. SOCO International’s official “focal point” in the park authority is also on film, telling rangers that those who work with SOCO will get “money, money, money” and those who oppose the company will be fired.
From this material, it seems that there is a clear case for UK enforcement agencies to investigate SOCO International under the Bribery Act 2010. This information and film footage has been in the public domain for months. What assurances can the Government give that these allegations will be considered by the relevant enforcement agencies?
While SOCO International is listed in London, investigations by Global Witness note that the company also has links to the US. Its executive directors, Ed Story and Roger Cagle, are American citizens and are employed through a wholly owned subsidiary company registered in Delaware. These individuals therefore fall within the jurisdiction of the United States, and there seems to be a case to be made that SOCO International, under their stewardship, has breached the terms of America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Bearing that in mind, can the Minister say whether the relevant British authorities will contact their American counterparts about an investigation into SOCO International plc’s activities in Virunga, and ensure that they are made aware of any evidence showing that SOCO International has committed any offence under that Act?
It is also worth noting that SOCO International is, in a sense, an ambassador for British trade and industry. In eastern DRC, “SOCO” is synonymous with “Britain”. Inevitably, UK companies investing in the developing world will often operate in environments with high bribery risks and in jurisdictions that may lack the infrastructure necessary for the proper oversight of corporate behaviour. For that reason alone, SOCO International should be obliged to hold its staff and representatives to the strictest and highest standards of business responsibility.
If a company’s code of ethics is failing and, as seems to be the case with SOCO, there is little willingness on its part to investigate its actions or omissions, can the Minister say what sanctions we might expect the British Government to apply to companies that break the law and damage the reputation of UK plc? Given that private UK investment in developing economies is supported as a policy of this Government, it is surely incumbent on the UK Government and their agencies to ensure that any credible evidence of corruption or other criminal behaviour by a UK company, as we have in this case, is fully investigated by the relevant authorities. Failure to do so risks sending a message that British companies will not be held accountable for their actions or omissions overseas. If the UK hopes to be taken seriously when we speak about responsible business practice internationally and the capacity for investment to grow economies and reduce poverty, it must be incumbent on this Government to act without delay and to investigate fully whether SOCO International has been paying bribes or corrupting officials in the DRC.
To date, the UK has secured only one corporate conviction of foreign bribery. I suspect that cases such as this, which involves SOCO International and which only came to light following an independent investigation by a film company, may represent the tip of the iceberg of corporate misdemeanours in high-risk environments. The Serious Fraud Office has suffered budget cuts and institutional uncertainty, which must lead to doubts as to whether the ambitions expressed in the Bribery Act will ever be met with the resources and political will they deserve. What assurances can the Government give that foreign bribery cases will be resourced adequately now and in the future?
Beyond the allegations of bribery, SOCO International’s actions in Virunga threaten the integrity of the park’s UNESCO world heritage status. Virunga was already on the list of UNESCO’s world heritage sites considered to be in danger before SOCO International arrived. That status should protect the park from being intentionally despoiled.
The Minister may be aware that last year, SOCO International backed down from working in Virunga following pressure from the World Wide Fund for Nature, the environmental campaigners. Indeed, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), my fellow vice-chair of the all-party group on anti-corruption, on 17 December 2014, the Secretary of State for International Development stated:
“I expect SOCO, as a British-listed company, to adhere to the highest standards. In June this year, SOCO and the WWF announced that it would complete their existing programme of work at Virunga and then not undertake or commission exploratory or other drilling within the national park unless UNESCO and the Government of the DRC agreed to it.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1393.]
In reality, SOCO International committed not to work in the park unless the Congolese Government and UNESCO eventually
“agree that such activities are not incompatible with its World Heritage status.”
Therefore, the door is open for SOCO International to continue to explore and drill for oil inside Virunga national park if the boundaries of the park are redrawn, an option that the Congolese Government are understood to be considering.
The director of the Oscar-nominated documentary “Virunga”, Orlando von Einsiedel, recently described SOCO International’s statement as “purely a PR exercise.” The Church of England, which owns £3 million-worth of shares in the company, has recently demanded that SOCO International amend its statement to
“remove any room for doubt about their intentions within existing or future boundaries of a World Heritage Site”.
Given the evidence that has already been outlined, do the Government continue to accept the statement made by SOCO International, as the Secretary of State for International Development did—a position that has now been shown to be perhaps misplaced? Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stand by its 2012 statement, in which it opposed all oil exploration inside Virunga? Will the Minister hold SOCO International to those standards, and how will he do so? Moreover, what can and will the UK do to defend the integrity of UNESCO world heritage status in this case and in principle? Belgium, Germany and the EU Parliament have all passed resolutions critical of oil exploration in Virunga. Will the Minister follow suit?
Some of the most serious questions that SOCO International has to answer relate to allegations that its representatives and allies used threats and physical violence against opponents of the company’s operations in Virunga. There have been worrying reports from credible and respected local organisations since at least 2012 of SOCO International allies orchestrating a campaign of intimidation against local anti-oil activists. SOCO International’s army liaison, Major Feruzi, has been identified as the driver behind much of this terror, which includes arrests and violent intimidation, but other local allies are also implicated. Local non-governmental organisations said that Feruzi’s
“military status has been utilized to silence anyone who has questions about the true impact of the oil project.”
On 15 April last year, the park’s chief warden and SOCO International opponent, Emmanuel de Merode, was driving back to his Virunga HQ after depositing a dossier on SOCO International’s activities with the public prosecutor in the provincial capital. His car was sprayed with bullets by unknown gunmen. Emmanuel de Merode was hit twice, but miraculously survived. SOCO International felt moved to issue a public statement denying involvement in the shooting.
An article in The Daily Telegraph published in September said that, in April last year, two fishermen were killed by soldiers protecting SOCO International’s compound, just hours after arguing against SOCO International’s presence in their community. The deaths were verified by Human Rights Watch, according to the article.
In December, the all-party group on anti-corruption heard from members of civil society in the park, and their stories of intimidation were deeply concerning. One activist, Alphonse Muhindo Valivambe, told the group that he and his colleagues “faced death every day” in their campaign against oil activities in Virunga. Indeed, Mr Valivambe was forced to flee to London for three months in 2012, so concerned was he for his personal safety.
As per the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, I ask the Minister whether and in what capacity the UK’s diplomatic missions in the region will support the human rights and civil society activists who are trying to defend the park’s protected status. What have the field offices done thus far to support civil society activists, and does the FCO feel it has done enough? Those guidelines say that states must take responsibility for the actions of companies domiciled within their jurisdictions. What can the UK Government do to ensure that SOCO International is conforming to these guiding principles, and what sanctions can they impose if they find that SOCO International, its representatives or allies have committed human rights abuses?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on securing the debate. She has brought to the House a case study in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that has attracted widespread attention not only in the United Kingdom, but globally, and that brings together two related but distinct issues: the protection of the unique environment of the Virunga national park; and the specific, serious allegations that have been made about the conduct of one company, to which my hon. Friend related. I want to try to address both those questions.
All hon. Members know that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is one of the most beautiful places on earth, but, particularly in the eastern region, it has been beset by conflict and grave human rights abuses, and there remain endemic, appalling levels of poverty. The coalition Government are committed to supporting the DRC in developing and growing. Our assistance to the country is lifting people out of poverty, helping to improve security and human rights, and supporting an improved business climate. There is a long way to go—I am the first to agree—but the Government, through our international development programme, are investing in reforms to increase access to finance, in job creation and the promotion of opportunities for entrepreneurs, especially women and young people, and in essential infrastructure to increase access to markets.
Our objective is to make the DRC extractive sector more transparent and accountable, given its potential to be an engine for growth and public revenue generation, but for that to happen, any development of extractive industries in the DRC needs to be done in a way that both meets its domestic legal requirements and conforms to international norms, laws and codes on the extractive industries. We certainly expect any UK company to set an example in that respect and not to try to subvert those standards.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here from the start of the debate, Dr McCrea. I am sure my all-party parliamentary group colleague, the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), made her case robustly.
The Minister mentioned the role of UK companies. Obviously, some that represent our overseas territories and Crown dependencies had some role in the Virunga situation. What action can we take against those jurisdictions for which we have some responsibility?
Mr Lidington
I may come to that later.
My hon. Friend asked about our political engagement with the DRC Government. We are committed to working with the DRC Government to try to spread the values of the rule of law, transparency and good governance, which we believe are right in principle. Their implementation would help the DRC to bring about improvement in the material standard of living and a better quality of life overall for its people.
We are committed to supporting UK companies in the DRC. Foreign investment in sectors such as hydro- carbons and the extractive industries can play an important role in boosting the development of countries such as the DRC and lifting people out of poverty. However, the Government’s long-standing position has been, and remains, to oppose all oil exploration in the Virunga national park, a world heritage site listed by UNESCO as being “in danger”. Our position has not changed. Any investment in that world heritage site needs to be done responsibly and sustainably, in compliance with local law and conforming to international standards.
The UK Government welcomed the announcement that SOCO plc made on 11 June 2014, in conjunction with World Wide Fund for Nature. SOCO pledged that it would complete its existing programme of work in Virunga and committed not to undertake or commission exploratory or other drilling within Virunga national park unless UNESCO and the DRC Government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its world heritage status. We also welcome SOCO’s commitment not to conduct any operations in other world heritage sites. I emphasise that we expect SOCO to honour those commitments. If we had evidence that SOCO was breaking those commitments that it entered into publicly, we would not hesitate to press the Government of the DRC or, in another jurisdiction, the Government of that country, to take the appropriate action.
Tessa Munt
My right hon. Friend the Minister will understand my confusion. He just confirmed that the 2012 statement, which opposed all oil exploration inside the Virunga national park, is current, but there is potentially pressure from the company on members of the DRC Government or UNESCO—it is more likely to be members of the DRC Government—to redraw the boundary lines of the Virunga national park. Therefore, I should like him to confirm that the existing boundaries are those we recognise, and that that is final.
Mr Lidington
When I refer to potential breaches of the commitments into which SOCO entered, I include within that any attempt by SOCO to redraw the boundaries of the Virunga national park to suit those commercial interests. In the June 2014 statement, we welcomed the fact that any agreement on development would need the consent not only of the DRC Government, for the reasons my hon. Friend intimated in her speech, but of UNESCO. That was important and created a double lock on any such assessment.
There should be no attempts to delist Virunga as a world heritage site or a national park, nor should any further company be awarded exploration rights in Virunga. We continue to urge the DRC Government to respect the international conventions to which it is a signatory. We are aware of the allegations, which my hon. Friend has repeated today, of wrongdoing against SOCO corporately, its employees and the agents connected to its activities in Virunga. Some of those allegations were listed in the documentary film “Virunga”.
The Serious Fraud Office is aware of the allegations. I am sure the House will understand that it is important that the decision on whether to prosecute in any case is made by the prosecutorial authorities and not by politicians. We expect all companies either operating or registered in the United Kingdom to act appropriately and in compliance with the law. We encourage anyone with evidence of serious fraud, bribery or corruption to contact the SFO. The Government have explained to some of the Virunga campaign groups how exactly they should go about supplying securely any evidence they have to the SFO for it to investigate.
My hon. Friend asked about the UK’s broader approach to combating corruption and the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010. The Government published the United Kingdom’s anti-corruption plan in December last year. It sets out how the Government are doing more across Whitehall’s areas of responsibility to increase transparency, tackle money laundering and ensure that the UK is at the forefront of efforts to raise international standards. The plan sets out a range of measures that we are taking to tackle corruption around the world. Priorities include identifying illicit financial flows; the return of stolen assets; efforts to raise global standards for all, including our international development programmes; and the promotion of sustainable growth, which includes work to stop bribery.
We are committed to going further by leading the way on the international stage, as was done at the 2013 Enniskillen G8 summit, and by impressing on the international community the benefits of measures, such as publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership, in the fight against illicit financial flows. The purpose of embodying that in an anti-corruption plan is precisely to enable more effective and more transparent collaboration across Government to try to break out of a silo mentality, to ensure that the efforts of all Departments and agencies are directed effectively to securing our objectives.
Mr Lidington
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way once to him already and I want to reply to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells made.
Our embassies, high commissions and consulates are active in supporting the effective implementation of the Bribery Act 2010, which has been recognised as a world-leading piece of legislation. Our posts overseas are always keen to ensure that British companies are fully aware of their obligations under the 2010 Act when they seek to invest or trade in any of those foreign jurisdictions. We are also working to improve standards of anti-corruption legislation and enforcement among our trading partners internationally through the OECD, the United Nations and the Council of Europe conventions against corruption.
Within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a new central anti-corruption and transparency team was established in August 2013. Its remit includes improving the support and guidance provided to officials overseas and exchanging best practice. We have supported the DRC Government in particular to improve their business environment. In 2012, we supported the launch of the business code of conduct, an initiative of the DRC private sector anti-corruption initiative. Already around 20 companies adhere to that private sector code of conduct.
On international anti-corruption day, which was 9 December 2013, we supported the signing of the DRC’s national anti-corruption pact between the public sector, the private sector and civil society. Prime Minister Matata attended the event. The best way forward is to persist with those efforts and to work to improve economic growth and the human rights situation in the DRC. I will not stand here and pretend that the DRC will be brought to prosperity, political stability and high standards of anti-corruption overnight. A long task still lies ahead of us and our international partners, but the course that we have established is starting to deliver some results.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister greatly for letting me intervene again. Will he address the fact that American citizens are involved in the company? The masking of company identity and the individuals involved in companies registered in Delaware is a perpetual problem. Can something be done with our American counterparts on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?
Mr Lidington
I will write to my hon. Friend in more detail on that point. I want to check whether, in the case of the American prosecutorial and judicial authorities, any evidence or information that might lead to a prosecution has to be transmitted through international legal channels, rather than just being transmitted through diplomatic or political channels. If there is a legal channel that enables evidence to be sent to the American authorities, I will alert her to that.
To respond to the points that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) made, the Prime Minister has made clear to the overseas territories that he wants them to follow the United Kingdom’s lead and mandate publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership. The overseas territories are not fully independent, but they each have their own legislatures and their own democratic and constitutional arrangements. Most of the overseas territories decided to consult on the question of publicly accessible registers. The majority of those consultations have taken place and most overseas territory Governments are still analysing the results. We are keeping them informed of how our register will work in practice, so that they can take that into account when considering what works best for them. The UK Government have made it clear that we expect the British overseas territories to apply the highest international standards when it comes to such things as registers of beneficial ownership. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he intends to pursue that.
I highlight the UK’s commitment to the region and to eastern DRC in particular. Our development assistance and political engagement are targeted on what is important: bringing people out of poverty; promoting the rule of law, transparency and good governance; supporting civil society; and encouraging economic growth. In pursuing those objectives, we will always ensure that while we support responsible investment in the DRC by UK companies, we expect high standards and we expect those companies to follow legal obligations. We will continue to make businesses aware of their obligations under the Bribery Act 2010.
Virunga is a jewel in the centre of Africa. The people who live there must be protected, and its rich biodiversity must be protected for future generations. We support the alternative vision for Virunga, which emphasises such enterprises as sustainable fisheries, eco-tourism and small-scale hydropower. I finish by applauding the tenacity and bravery of the director of the Virunga national park, Emmanuel de Merode, and his rangers. Their work has had a real impact in bringing this issue to the attention of the world and in ensuring that the importance of Virunga and the need to protect it are not forgotten.
Mining in Goa (UK-listed Companies)
(9 years, 9 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
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
This debate is about the effects in Goa of mining by UK-listed companies, and I called for it because I have a sizeable number of constituents of Goan origin, one of them being my wife. Goans take an absolute pride in the beauty of their state in India, from its architecture—buildings, homes, towns, churches and temples—to the long, unspoilt beaches along its coast and the breathtaking splendour of the mountains of the Western Ghats. That deep feeling for the environmental beauty of their home state has mobilised Goans both at home and abroad to expose and tackle head-on the devastating threat from mining that over recent decades has disfigured its hills, polluted its rivers, undermined its agriculture and put at risk its tourist trade.
I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of the House because a London-listed mining company, Vedanta, and its subsidiary, Sesa Goa, have been at the forefront of the mining practices that have caused such environmental, social and economic devastation. I also wanted to raise the issue because the next few months are a critical time for determining the future of the mining industry in Goa: will we see a return to rapacious profiteering and the exploitation of the Goan environment, or will Goa strike out on a new path, with not only a respect for the environment but the establishment of institutional arrangements that ensure that the past and future earnings from mining are invested in the interests of the Goan people? By offering both moral and practical support, the UK could assist the Goan campaigners who are working so hard and courageously to ensure a sustainable future for Goa’s economy and environment. We can learn much from their recent campaigning to protect their environment.
Goa combines a richness in mineral resources with a rich and diverse environment. The Goa Foundation was established by members of the Goan community in 1986 to protect and promote a sustainable environment for the state. Since the early 1990s, the foundation has worked to achieve a balance between mining and the protection of the environment. In a recent report, the foundation described how in the decades prior to 2012 the environment of Goa became the victim of
“unbridled mining by greedy mining companies and an administration that steadfastly looked the other way.”
The report goes on to explain what happened in the decade up to 2012:
“As prices skyrocketed due to robust demand from China, miners flouted rules to extract as much iron ore as possible while government officials looked on and even joined in the plunder…As a result of reckless mining, our natural environment suffered irreparable damage due to the mining operations, adversely affecting the surrounding ecology and assaulting public health…Since most mining leases are located in forest areas, we lost many hectares of prime forest which can never be replaced…Our streams dried up and our rivers ran red with the mud from the mining dumps…We denuded entire hills and replaced these with new mountains made up of nothing but mining wastes.”
Campaigners also published a short report in July 2011 about what happened at the village of Mulgao that year as a result of unrestrained mining operations at one of the largest mining sites. Visible as one flies into Goa, it is an open-cast iron ore operation that is 14 km in length and carves through tropical forest, cutting across fertile farmland and polluting vital water sources. In July 2011, a large section of the mine’s outer wall collapsed during heavy rain. Thousands of tonnes of silt and mud cascaded into adjacent settlements, swamping paddy fields, polluting lakes, destroying trees and risking lives. The company whose woeful negligence led to the disaster is Sesa Goa, which is owned and managed by the London-registered Vedanta. It was not the first time that the company was held responsible for such a calamity: a similar collapse occurred in June 2009 at two other Vedanta pits in the same area. Vedanta was ordered to close them down but neglected to do so: for two years running, it flagrantly ignored Goa’s air and water pollution regulations.
Thanks to determined and courageous campaigning by the Goa Foundation, in 2012 the Indian Government established under Justice Shah a commission to investigate the mining industry in Goa. The Shah commission exposed systematic illegality, with mining taking place without the necessary licences and outside the leased areas. The commission said:
“The regulatory mechanism has been totally collapsed and irregularities due to maladministration have risen to its peak. In the process, the sole loser is environment, eco-system of the Western Ghats, general public and treasury of Goa State.”
The Indian Public Accounts Committee reported:
“There is a complete breakdown of all machineries provided by the Statute which are required to ensure that mining is undertaken and carried out in a legally permissible manner. The term ‘irregular mining’ is nothing but illegal mining.”
The three reports of the Shah commission and the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee exposed the illegal and corrupt practices of the mining companies and their political allies, including the use of force and forgeries. I visited one of the lawyers representing local village communities in their attempts to protect the local environment and their farms from the mining industry. He explained the standard practices of intimidation that the mine owners use against anyone who stood up to them. First, they try to bribe people to stay quiet. If that fails, they send in the goondas—thugs—to threaten people. When that fails, they lodge spurious claims against people with the local police, including, in the case of the lawyer I spoke to, a claim of attempted murder. I pay tribute to the courage and determination of the lawyers, campaigners and honest politicians who have stood up to such intimidation.
The Shah commission estimated that the continuation of mining on such a scale in Goa would ensure the
“complete removal of all mineral wealth in nine years”.
After the commission’s report, mining operations in Goa were suspended in 2012, and the Supreme Court ordered a ban on mining operations in the state in October 2012. Subsequently, in a case brought by the Goa Foundation, the Supreme Court ruled that the mining operations—including the extraction, sale and export of ore from all Goa mining leases—was illegal from November 2007, when the leases came to an end and were not renewed. It held that all mining dumps and dumping outside mines was illegal and that the operation of leases by persons and companies that were not the leaseholders was also illegal. It asked an expert committee to return with a cap on ore production within 12 months, with an interim cap set at 20 million tonnes a year, and gave the environmental Ministry six months to issue a formal notification declaring a buffer zone of 1 km around various sanctuaries and protected areas in Goa.
In the light of the judgment, the Goa Foundation, working with the Natural Resource Governance Institute in Oxford and the Cambridge Judge business school’s Centre for Endowment Asset Management, has explored in expert detail how Goans can halt the loss to the Goan community of the massive wealth that has been generated by mining. The foundation proposed that from now on, funds raised from mining, including the mining of the dumps, should be placed in a permanent fund to be managed and invested independently of the Government. The income from the fund would be used for the welfare of Goa’s citizens, with clearly defined entitlements relating to educational opportunities, health facilities, housing and the rehabilitation of the environment damaged by the mining operations. As a model for the permanent fund, the foundation looked to the Norwegian pension fund, which was created from the sale of oil resources and has amassed $870 billion for a population of 5 million. I commend the Goa Foundation for its creativity and foresight, and I hope that our Government look at some of the developments in the shale gas industry in the same way.
The Supreme Court decided that a Goan iron ore permanent fund should be established, with 10% of the proceeds of all mineral ore sales to be allocated to it. The Goan state government has notified a permanent fund scheme, but the scheme notified is impermanent, which will almost certainly be open to challenge by the Goa Foundation. In addition, the capture rate—the intrinsic value of the mining assets allocated to the fund —was set at 10%, which is viewed by many as unrealistically low. Indeed, under India’s Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957, the Goan government has a duty to recover all revenues and profits from mining operations conducted without a valid lease.
The Goa Foundation has assessed a minimum amount recoverable from the illegal iron ore mining between November 2007 and September 2012. It looked in particular at the exports of Vedanta’s subsidiary Sesa Sterlite, or Sesa Goa, during that period. Sesa Goa was by far the largest producer and exporter of iron ore in Goa, controlling about 30% of the volume. When the foundation looked at those four years and estimated a price of $60 per tonne, it put the amount payable to the people of Goa for the illegal export of ore by the company at $3.687 billion. Another estimate put the figure even higher. A contribution to a permanent fund of that magnitude would finance significant social investment in the health, education, employment and quality of life of all Goans for the long-term future.
Under pressure from the mining companies, however, the Goan government has decided to renew almost all the mining leases, instead of recovering the significant amounts owed to the Goan community or even auctioning off the leases. Other states, including neighbouring Karnataka, have proposed the auction of the mine leases on a revenue-share basis, with a minimum bid of 35%. That is considerably higher than the 10% contribution to the permanent fund proposed for Goa.
I attended Vedanta’s most recent annual general meeting. I expected to see an impairment written into its accounts to provide for its liability to pay back the $3.687 billion that it had earned from illegal exploitation of the iron ore deposits between 2007 and 2012. Such a figure had not been set aside in the accounts. The annual report made no reference to the illegal mining that the Supreme Court had found the company to be carrying out from 2007. At the time of the publication of the Vedanta annual report, the High Court had not determined the renewal of the leases, nor had the Goan state government. I am suspicious of Vedanta’s confidence that it could exercise sufficient influence over the Government to avoid paying for its illegal mining activities and that it would soon be up and running again in its mines.
I hope that the determined and courageous campaigning by the Goa Foundation will win out, and that the permanent fund will be established with sufficient income from the past illegally mined assets of the Goan people and from future, environmentally sustainable operations. I am confident that the heroes and heroines of the foundation will be successful. Their determination is to be admired. I pay tribute to a number of them: the foundation’s director, Dr Claude Alvares; Rahul Basu; Dean D’Cruz; Carmen Miranda; and Samarendra Das. They all, at some risk to themselves, have stood up to be counted on behalf of the Goan people.
I fear for the future, however, while rogue companies such as Vedanta are allowed to destroy environments, undermine communities and abuse human rights with virtual impunity. Vedanta is a UK-listed company that enjoys the prestige and financial benefits of being listed in London. The UK therefore has a responsibility to monitor and police the company’s operation, in particular its adherence to international conventions and treaties on civil liberties and environmental impacts.
The company has gained a reputation for abuse of human rights, tax avoidance and environmental degradation in its operations in Zambia and India. In 2007, Norway’s Council on Ethics concluded:
“Continuing to invest in…Vedanta would present an unacceptable risk of contributing to grossly unethical activities.”
In response, the Norwegian sovereign pension fund sold all its Vedanta shares. Only last week, Vedanta was involved in yet another scandal when civil servants were arrested for leaking mining industry information to the company. In 2010, the Church of England divested itself of its shares in Vedanta, because
“after six months of engagement, we are not satisfied that Vedanta has shown, or is likely in future to show, the level of respect for human rights and local communities that we expect of companies in whom the Church investing bodies hold shares.”
In the debate on the legislation to erect the new architecture for the supervision of our banking and financial system, I tabled various amendments intended to award the new Financial Conduct Authority powers to supervise the adherence of London-listed companies to international treaties and conventions on human rights, labour law and environmental sustainability. More recently, the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, in its report on the extractive industries, warned of the negative impacts on local and indigenous communities of the mining industry. The Committee welcomed the Government’s work to increase openness and transparency and the signing up to European Union directives. The report went on to support my view:
“We believe that the Government should consider expanding the FCA’s remit to include not only oversight of financial transparency, but also the social, environmental and corporate governance reporting for companies applying to list on the London Stock Exchange. If it is not felt appropriate for the FCA, the Government should determine which body should have the remit to do so.”
Successive Governments have watched the excesses of the deregulated finance sector and the banks and have done nothing. As a result, we have endured an economic crisis that has produced immense hardship here and across the globe. If we sit back again and do nothing to control and curtail the damaging, divisive and destructive activities of rogue companies such as Vedanta, a UK-listed company, the long-term consequences for our country, its reputation and its standing in the world, and for our environment, could be equally devastating. I urge action on the Government, not only to support the Goan community, of course, but—as importantly—to control the excesses of the likes of Vedanta as they seek to trample over the lives of people and communities throughout the world.
Already there are concerns about the environmental impact if the mines start to operate again in an uncontrolled fashion that will undermine the Goan environment and economy, and the quality of life of the Goan community. I urge the Government to do everything possible to support those who have bravely campaigned to protect the environment of Goa and to secure the rewards of the mineral resources of Goa for the people of Goa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing the debate and on taking us through a fascinating, if deeply worrying history of mining in Goa. He clearly has great constituency interest in the matter, as well as a personal one. He outlined details of the damage that can be caused to the natural environment in terms of deforestation, pollution and public health. The impact of corruption on the population is significant and, sadly, not unique to Goa.
Natural resources can be of huge benefit to countries and can be used to improve and develop the economies of those countries blessed with them, if managed well. They can transform poor countries. For example, in 2012, Nigerian oil exports were worth almost $100 billion, which is equivalent to more than the total net aid to the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. In 2007, Botswana became an upper middle-income country, although upon independence back in 1966 it was one of the world’s poorest countries. That success is largely due to well-managed mining revenues from diamonds.
Mining developments internationally therefore have the potential to boost economic growth dramatically and to provide a route out of poverty for resource-rich countries. However, there are also many examples of the temptation of such money leading to corruption and the kind of problems the hon. Gentleman outlined; natural resources can be more of a curse than a blessing for particular countries.
Extractives companies, whether listed or unlisted, are important partners for the Government. We want to make sure that developing countries can make the most of their natural resources to tackle poverty. We are committed to increasing transparency in the sector, encouraging strong, transparent and accountable institutions to regulate extractives properly and promote open markets and societies. We therefore need to facilitate an environment in which resource-rich developing countries and regions can attract responsible investment to help them transform the vast potential that natural resources offer into growth, jobs and development.
During the UK presidency of the G8 in 2013, we secured a commitment to working towards common global standards of extractives transparency. We want to level the playing field for business internationally and provide information for more citizens around the world, so that they can hold their Governments to account for how such resources are used. The G8 also launched eight partnerships, working with companies, Governments and civil society in resource-rich countries to improve transparency and build accountability and capacity to manage resources better. Our work through Department for International Development country offices is helping resource-rich developing countries to derive the maximum benefits from oil, gas and mining projects.
The problems the hon. Gentleman described impact significantly on the human rights of the population of Goa—on their rights to health, clean water and due legal process. As he will be aware, UK-listed companies are already required to report on the human rights implications of their operations. Those reports will be further strengthened under the recently agreed directive on non-financial reporting, which will be in place by 2017 and requires listed companies to include information on human rights in their strategic reports.
High standards of reporting on human rights issues are an inherent part of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which were adopted in 2011. In 2013, the UK was the first country to publish an action plan on business and human rights, which sets out the Government’s expectations of business to respect human rights at all times. In December, I was delighted to attend the third UN forum on business and human rights in Geneva, which had a constructive atmosphere with an increased business presence; civil society was very engaged in making the forum a success. UN action on this agenda is now in place and an increasing number of countries—although not yet enough—are producing action plans. We want to encourage work and progress on this agenda in countries around the world.
The UK is showing leadership on the issue; indeed, this evening, I will be launching the UN guiding principles reporting framework, which provides, for the first time, a comprehensive standard for reporting so that companies can be held to account by shareholders and customers. The reporting framework applies to all sectors, including extractives. Newmont Mining is one of five companies that have committed to applying the framework straight away.
The combination of enhanced disclosure in the strategic report and the UN guiding principles reporting framework, which sets the standard for that disclosure, will mean that from 2017 listed companies will be more effectively held to account for the human rights impacts of their operations. For that reason, I am proud of the work this Government have done on human rights.
We are also leading the way on extractives transparency. Back in May 2013, we made a commitment that the UK would sign up to the extractives industry transparency initiative, or EITI. In October, after a lot of work by a multi-stakeholder group, we formally gained candidacy status and will now proceed to produce the first reports. UK corporations have engaged constructively with civil society and Government, and their approach is a real example of how progress can be made. The whole process of EITI is designed to build trust and dialogue, and to put information into the public domain, which then prompts public debate. That can be a useful tool for holding companies to account. To give an example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is not necessarily renowned for its good governance, the EITI process was the first time different stakeholders sat down around the same table to discuss mining sector management. That kind of dialogue and co-operation can also help to prevent conflict.
Many extractive companies listed or headquartered in the UK are active in supporting EITI; for example Rio Tinto and Shell are part of the multi-stakeholder board I have mentioned. The UK’s intention in signing up to EITI is to show that it is not just for developing countries. We want to show that it is not a case of the UK simply telling other countries what they need to do; we recognise that we need to lead the way. That gives us a much stronger argument in our international discussions on the issue.
In addition to EITI, there is also chapter 10 of the accounting directive, which requires listed and large extractives companies to report the payments they make to all Governments. The Government committed to early implementation of those provisions, and our regulations came into force in December 2014. The Financial Conduct Authority, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has also changed its rules to require listed companies that are not registered here in the UK to report, implementing the requirements of the transparency directive. Companies will be required to report their payments to Governments from 1 January this year, six months ahead of the EU’s transposition deadline. We will start to see reports being published during 2016.
Bribery and corruption are barriers to trade and growth. The UK is a signatory to the UN convention against corruption and the OECD bribery convention. The Government published the first UK anti-corruption plan on 18 December last year, bringing together all the UK’s anti-corruption efforts under one cross-departmental plan. The Bribery Act 2010 came into force in July 2011, so a company that carries on business in the United Kingdom can be prosecuted for bribery anywhere in the world. On the other hand, other companies can trade on the honesty and integrity that the Bribery Act implies, bringing a benefit for business.
I am aware of the issues the hon. Gentleman raised about Vedanta in particular. It is important that companies listed in the key financial centre of London, which are therefore UK companies, are held to high standards. Quoted companies have to include information about environmental risk in strategic reports. Of course, some corporate governance failures will not necessarily be addressed purely through shareholders holding companies to account; that is one important route of accountability, but some failures may be so serious that the company and directors are exposed to criminal liability. For example, if a commercial organisation fails to put in place adequate procedures to prevent bribery, it could be criminally liable under the Bribery Act.
It is important to be clear: we expect all UK businesses to comply with all applicable laws and to respect internationally recognised human rights wherever they operate. It is no excuse if an offence is committed in another jurisdiction—a company should not feel that it can get away with behaviour and practices in a distant part of the world that it would not even attempt to get away with here.
Trust and transparency are incredibly important, which is why we have prioritised them as part of our corporate governance framework. Wide-ranging reforms in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill will enhance corporate transparency and increase trust in UK business. Central to that is implementing a publicly accessible central register of information on the people who ultimately own and control companies—the persons of significant control. We are proud to be leading globally in this space, and are encouraged by the growing international momentum on these issues. For example, the soon to be adopted fourth money laundering directive will require all EU member states to hold company beneficial ownership information in a central register.
It is absolutely right that the hon. Gentleman has raised these serious issues. It is a positive thing that a particular problem in a particular area of the world, or with a particular company and its practices, can be highlighted in this place and a spotlight shone on such activities. He has done that today through this debate on mining in Goa. I hope I have set out that the Government take these issues incredibly seriously and are aiming to be a world leader in transparency and accountability—in extractive mining companies and much more widely—as well as in encouraging businesses to take their human rights responsibilities seriously.
There is no room for complacency. We must continue to promote these issues. There will always be money to be made somewhere in the world by exploiting human rights, but that is unacceptable and we in the UK should have no truck with it whatsoever. That is why it is so important to empower citizens in Goa and elsewhere to encourage the development of strong corporate governance, and to make sure that UK-listed mining companies are able to lead the way on these matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Triennal Review of the Civil Service Commission
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire announced on 29 July 2014 that the Government had asked Sir Gerry Grimstone to lead a triennial review of the Civil Service Commission. I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The commission plays an important role providing assurance that selection to appointments in the civil service is on merit and hearing and determining appeals made under the civil service code.
The review concludes that the functions performed by the commission are still required and that it should be retained as an Executive non-departmental public body. The review also looked at whether its remit should be extended or amended to support the civil service in facing its future challenges. The report makes 31 recommendations. The Government welcome the review and thank Sir Gerry for his work. The Government will consider its recommendations carefully.
In the course of his review, Sir Gerry consulted with a wide range of stakeholders and ensured there was independent challenge. I would like to thank all contributors and Sir Gerry for his work on this review, and his useful report.
The full report of the triennial review of the Civil Service Commission — “A Better Civil Service”— can be found on gov.uk and copies have been placed in the Library of both Houses.
It can also available online at: http://www.parliament. uk/writtenstatements
[HCWS296]
Equitable Life Payment Scheme
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
As of 31 January 2015, the scheme has now issued payments surpassing £1 billion to 896,367 policyholders.
The figures are broken down as follows:
412,445 payments to individual investors have been issued totalling £560.3 million. 37,764 with-profits annuitants (WPAs) or their estates have been issued payments by the scheme. These initial and subsequent payments total £271.4 million.
446,158 payments totalling £169.3 million have been issued to those who bought their policy through their company pension scheme.
There are now approximately 142,000 policyholders who are due a payment but where the scheme has not yet been able to trace or validate their address.
The scheme has gone to significant lengths to trace eligible policyholders. It remains committed to tracing and paying as many eligible policyholders as possible, and will continue to consider all proportionate actions it can take to do this, including working with the Department for Work and Pensions.
The scheme encourages any policyholders who believe themselves to be eligible to call the scheme on: 0300 0200 150. The scheme can verify the identity of most policyholders on the telephone, which means any payment due can usually be received within two weeks.
[HCWS298]
North Wales Prison
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
The construction of the new prison in north Wales is already under way as part of the prison new capacity and unit cost programmes. I can confirm that the new prison will be operated by Her Majesty’s Prison Service (HMPS) but with 34 % of service provision outsourced, including the running of the large industrial workshop complex. This new model will bring the public, voluntary and private sectors together, working to provide the best rehabilitative environment and to tackle reoffending rates.
The prison will provide 2,106 male category C places for offenders from north Wales and north-west England, and will have a small remand function serving the courts in north Wales. The first houseblock will start to take prisoners from early 2017. In addition to places for education and resettlement, there will be 12 large workshop spaces that can be used flexibly for a range of work and skills training activities and a recycling unit. This new prison will enable offenders to be held closer to home, allowing better support for their rehabilitation and reintegration into their communities on release.
The decision to allow HMPS to operate the prison reflects the success of the prison unit cost programme which will save £300 million per annum from prison budgets by 2015-16 and reduces unit costs by £2,200 per place. The innovative approach we are taking in north Wales provides value for the taxpayer, makes best use of the considerable public sector expertise in running safe and decent prisons and will draw on the core strengths of the public, private and voluntary sectors to achieve the best results. It will incorporate the learning and good practice from previous prison mobilisations to ensure that it operates efficiently while providing prisoners with a robust and effective regime to assist them to address their offending behaviour.
This £212 million investment in constructing the prison is a significant opportunity for north Wales, with the project set to boost the regional economy by around £23 million a year and create up to 1,000 jobs once operational. The Ministry of Justice has been working closely with Welsh devolved health and education services to develop suitable models for the prison and will continue to work with the Welsh Government and other partners to agree the necessary resourcing as delivery requirements are finalised.
Our estate strategy will achieve long-term cost reduction in the prison estate through the policy of “New for Old”—this means replacing uneconomic prison places with modern, fit for purpose accommodation at much lower cost. The National Audit Office has stated that:
“The strategy for the prison estate is the most coherent and comprehensive for many years, has quickly cut operating costs, and is a significant improvement in value for money on the approaches of the past.”
The north Wales prison will provide good quality prison accommodation that delivers value for the taxpayer as a result of the low cost per place. Creating a modern low-cost prison estate is essential to further reduce the overall cost of the prison system.
[HCWS297]
December 2014 Electoral Registers (England and Wales)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Gary Streeter
(Representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission): The Electoral Commission has today published a report on its analysis of the December 2014 electoral registers in England and Wales. This is part of the Commission’s programme of work monitoring the progress of the transition to individual electoral registration (IER). In April, it will publish equivalent data and analysis for Scotland, which began the transition to IER on 19 September after the referendum on independence.
The publication of the December registers is a key milestone in the transition to IER, but it is not the end of the process and work has been, and still is, continuing to ensure that as many people as possible are registered to vote at their correct address in advance of the May 2015 polls.
The Commission’s analysis of the December registers identified that the size of the December 2014 electorate in England and Wales was approximately 2% lower than it was following the final household canvass in February/March 2014. This means there were around 920,000 fewer entries on the registers in December 2014. This decline is likely attributable to the lack of comprehensive household canvass activity in 2014. The processes followed in 2014 were unique in this regard; canvass activity in 2015 and all subsequent years will involve sending forms to all properties to check who is resident at an address and to identify new electors who can subsequently be invited to register.
To address this, the Commission has strongly recommended that all electoral registration officers (EROs) carry out an audit of their registers by sending a letter to every property in their area showing who is registered to vote at that particular address and prompting anyone who is not yet registered to do so. All EROs in England and Wales have confirmed that they have or will be carrying out this activity or are considering other comprehensive activity which seeks to address the issues identified by our analysis of the 1 December registers data. Should any ERO decide not to undertake such activity, the Commission will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State to issue a direction to require them to do so. The Commission also welcomed the January 2015 announcement that £6.8 million would be made available to EROs to support activity to maximise registration, and many EROs have used their share of this to fund sending out these household notification letters.
There also appear to have been more specific challenges, including the registration of students at their term-time address; therefore some local authorities with large student and young mobile populations have seen larger than average falls in numbers of entries on the register. The Commission also reports that the number of registered attainer—16 and 17-year-olds—is significantly lower than in previous years.
While no one on the 1 December registers will be removed from the register before the May 2015 elections unless the ERO is no longer satisfied that they are entitled to remain registered at that address, more needs to be done to target those not yet included on the register at their current address.
EROs have comprehensive plans in place to get people registered and the Commission is running online and television advertising campaigns to encourage people to register. The results of this activity are already encouraging and we welcome the great work that has been done, and is still planned, by a huge number of organisations to get voters registered. It is positive that as of the publication date of the Commission’s analysis, around 2 million applications to register have already been made since 1 December—166,000 of which were on national voter registration day itself. We know that some of these will be duplicate entries and therefore not new additions to the register and that more work is clearly needed, however, the Commission is also confident that appropriate plans are in place to ensure voters know what they need to do to get registered.
The Commission is also working with partners including the National Union of Students, the Association of Colleges and Universities UK among other organisations to help get students and other young people registered and is planning further public awareness activity specifically targeted at these groups.
The Commission has encountered problems collecting reliable data from each ERO due to issues with the electoral management software (EMS) systems they use to manage the electoral register. The Cabinet Office contracted directly with suppliers to provide these systems and the Commission provided the Cabinet Office with a clear indication of the data that they and EROs would need to make a full assessment of progress. Despite this, not all local authorities have been able to provide the management information the Commission expected. The absence of some key data, and issues with the quality of other aspects of the data, has affected the analysis the Commission is able to do at this stage. In particular, the Commission could not obtain a full set of data of a sufficient quality to enable a detailed analysis of progress with the transition to IER in this report.
These issues with data have created a real risk that the Commission will not have sufficient information to be able to make a robust, evidence-based recommendation in June 2015 to inform the UK Government’s decision on whether to recommend to Parliament that the end of the transition should be brought forward. The Commission’s report sets out that, without urgent action by the Cabinet Office and software suppliers to ensure that the necessary data will be available to allow for a full and rigorous analysis of the state of the registers, it is highly unlikely that the Commission will be able to recommend that the end of the transition be brought forward to December 2015.
Copies of the Commission’s report have been placed in the Library and it is also available on the Commission’s website: www.electoralcommission.org.uk
[HCWS295]
Grand Committee
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn) (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that if there is a Division in the House we will adjourn for 10 minutes to vote.
Referral and Investigation of Proposed Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Referral and Investigation of Proposed Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the Referral and Investigation of Proposed Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Northern Ireland and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2015 and the Proposed Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Conduct of Investigations, etc.) Regulations 2015.
Part 4 of the Immigration Act 2014 constitutes the biggest reform of marriage preliminaries in a generation. It provides for a new referral and investigation scheme in England and Wales, aimed at tackling sham marriages and civil partnerships entered into for the purpose of circumventing the UK’s immigration controls. We are committed to dealing with those who seek to use marriage or civil partnership as a means of cheating their way into staying in the UK. The referral and investigation scheme will give us a much stronger platform for effective, systematic action to disrupt and deter sham marriages and civil partnerships, and prevent them gaining an immigration advantage.
The draft orders extend the referral and investigation scheme to proposed marriages and civil partnerships in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The operation of the scheme on a UK-wide basis will ensure that there is a robust response in place to the problem of sham marriage and avoids any risk of displacement of the problem from one part of the UK to another. We are grateful for the support of colleagues in the devolved Administrations for these measures.
The conduct of investigations regulations make provision for how we will conduct an investigation into whether a proposed marriage or civil partnership referred under the scheme is a sham. They set out the requirements with which the parties must comply as part of an investigation and the basis for the decision as to whether they have complied. If the parties do not comply with an investigation under the scheme, they will be unable to marry or enter into a civil partnership on the basis of that notice. The scheme will be implemented across the UK on 2 March. From this date, all marriages following civil preliminaries and civil partnerships in England and Wales will be subject to a minimum notice period of 28 days. This will also be the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland, under changes to devolved marriage and civil partnership laws.
Any couple including a non-EEA national wishing to marry in the Anglican Church in England and Wales will be required to complete civil preliminaries and give notice at a register office before their marriage. This will ensure that all couples within the scope of the scheme are correctly identified. Also from 2 March, registration officials will be required to refer to the Home Office all couples involving a non-EEA national who could gain an immigration advantage from the proposed marriage or civil partnership—for example, because they do not have evidence that they have settled status in the UK. Where a couple is referred to the Home Office under the scheme, we will be able to extend the notice period from 28 to 70 days where we suspect a sham and decide to investigate the genuine nature of the relationship.
By extending the notice period and channelling to us all proposed marriages and civil partnerships that could bring an immigration benefit, the new system will give us much more time and information to identify and act against shams before they happen. Where they go ahead, we will have the evidence that we need on file to be able to refuse any subsequent immigration application. The new scheme will provide the platform needed for us to tackle sham marriages and civil partnerships more effectively, and crack down on the abuse of our marriage and civil partnership laws, and of our immigration system. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation of and information about these orders, and I think she knows that they have our full support. We expressed that support during the passage of the Immigration Bill, which was a long Bill that produced considerable debate—but, interestingly, this part did not provoke particularly long debates. There was widespread support in your Lordships’ House for the view that something had to be done to tackle those who seek to gain an immigration status in the UK on the basis of a marriage ceremony that is not a genuine marriage. I appreciate that it is seriously difficult to investigate and understand how often this happens, and there is now a reliance on those who conduct marriages to seek further information and to make a judgment, based on that information, about whether the marriage is fraudulent for the purposes of immigration or is a genuine relationship. We supported the measures then and we support them now.
Not only are these sham ceremonies wrong in principle and unfair to British citizens, they are also unfair on those in mixed nationality relationships that are genuine and do lead to marriage. We can have confidence in those marriages if we deal with sham marriages that are not genuine. I have a few questions, some of which are simply to refresh my memory on a couple of things in the Immigration Bill that relate to this issue. Earlier I was thinking about whether it is a duty on those conducting a marriage ceremony to refer any marriage they suspect of being sham or is it something that they may do? I know that there is information that they have to check, but that can be provided fraudulently anyway, which indeed has been part of the problem. Is it an actual duty on those conducting the marriage?
One reason I ask this relates to the news at the moment about the three young London girls who flew to Turkey and are now feared to have gone to Syria. A problem there is that the Government have in some ways outsourced the checking procedures from those who would have been responsible, such as the then UK Border Agency. It is now the responsibility of the airline to check whether they are able to leave the country. Now we have a situation where we expect those who conduct marriage ceremonies to check whether a couple are genuine. I am curious as to whether it would be an offence if the person did not conduct adequate checks, and what training, support, advice and guidance is being given to those who conduct marriages to help them make the correct assessment? That is key to making sure that we get this right. It is all very well to pass a law saying that something should happen, but unless we know that it will happen appropriately, we should still have some concerns.
I have to say that I did not find the Explanatory Memorandum very helpful at all. It refers to consultations, but the only ones it mentions are those which were conducted on the measures that are in the Bill itself, not those set out in this secondary legislation. One thing that always concerns me about secondary legislation is that often it is about the implementation of policies that have already been agreed. For a policy to be effective, its implementation often matters more than what was decided as the policy. I would have liked to have seen some consultation; some soundings and advice taken from those who are going to be at the sharp end of implementing the legislation to see if they are content with the tools they have in place. I went back to the original consultation, but it did not help much in that regard. If the Minister could tell me what conversations and discussions have been held with those who will be responsible for implementing the legislation, it would be quite helpful.
At the time the legislation was being passed, it was estimated that there were something between 4,000 and 10,000 applications to remain in the UK being made each year by those who we believed were party to a sham marriage. That is a huge range, and we said at the time that there has to be more intelligence gathering and an intelligence-based approach to this problem. Has anything more been done on that since then? If this is to be a referral-only mechanism to investigate sham marriages, I am concerned that we may be missing some of the sham applications that will be made as a result unless the appropriate training and guidance is given to those who are to conduct such marriages.
These are not concerns about the policy or the principle, but about how the law is going to work in practice. Are the tools and the funding in place? Those are the issues. In principle, however, we support these orders, just as we supported the legislation. However, if the noble Baroness is able to say something about the points I have raised, I would be most grateful to her.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness, as always, for her constructive comments. She asked three main questions, the first of which was on a duty to report. There is an existing duty to report on registration officials who suspect that a sham marriage or civil partnership has taken place or is about to take place. They currently have a duty to report that to the Home Office, and there will now also be a duty to refer all couples who are in scope of the scheme for the Home Office to make a decision about whether to investigate or not. That is where the extended period to investigate comes in.
The noble Baroness also asked about guidance and training. Statutory guidance for Home Office staff on the operation of the new scheme is being developed, alongside the requisite operational procedures for dealing with proposed marriages and civil partnerships which have been referred to the Home Office under the scheme. The guidance is expected to cover decisions about whether to investigate whether a proposed marriage or civil partnership is a sham, how the investigation may be conducted and whether a couple have complied with an investigation. The parameters for the guidance are set out in secondary legislation before the Committee, in the draft conduct of investigations regulations, and in the explanatory paper on the new scheme that the Government published in November 2013 to support parliamentary consideration of the relevant provisions in the Immigration Bill.
The noble Baroness talked about training, and help and advice for registrars. I understand that significant training has been provided to local registration staff to help them identify forged documents. That is not a perfect solution but it is the best that we have at our disposal at this point in time. Intelligence has also been shared with registration staff so that they are aware of the profile of a likely sham and what sort of pointers would indicate one.
The noble Baroness talked about consultation. We have consulted publicly, and consulted the devolved Administrations and their registrars on the scheme.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful for that, which was helpful, although I was asking about consultation on these regulations, not on the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum says that,
“no public or other consultation was held … on the Regulations”.
Perhaps she is talking about the Bill, not the regulations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Perhaps I need to come back to the noble Baroness on that. I had it in my mind that there had been both a public consultation and extensive discussions with the devolved Administrations. Rather than give her duff information from the Dispatch Box, I will get back to her. We have also worked closely with the Anglican Church on the changes that might affect the church. I will write to the noble Baroness on the specific point, but unless she has any other questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Referral and Investigation of Proposed Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Northern Ireland and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That that Grand Committee do consider the Referral and Investigation of Proposed Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Northern Ireland and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Proposed Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Conduct of Investigations, etc.) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Proposed Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Conduct of Investigations, etc.) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Non-Domestic Rating (Shale Oil and Gas and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Shale Oil and Gas and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2015.
Relevant documents: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. These regulations make important amendments to the rates retention scheme, which since April 2013 has allowed local government to retain 50% of all business rates. This has given local communities a vital share in local growth and has rewarded those authorities that work with their local businesses to support and boost local economies.
I will first consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Shale Oil and Gas and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2015. Safe shale oil and gas, supported by a robust regulatory system, will help safeguard the national energy supply on which families and businesses throughout the country rely. It will also create local jobs, but while we believe that drilling for shale oil and gas is nationally important, we recognise that, locally, communities should also see the benefits of such developments. The draft regulations will therefore allow local authorities which host shale oil and gas sites to retain not 50% but 100% of the business rates they collect from those sites.
We undertook a technical consultation on these proposals last year and sought views on the regulations in draft. A summary of the responses to that consultation and the Government’s response were published on 23 January. A number of respondents were opposed to the principle that local authorities should receive 100% of the rates collected. The Government are not persuaded, for the reasons I have already touched on. We continue to believe that communities that host shale oil and gas sites should receive additional financial benefits.
The regulations will ensure that in areas where there is more than one tier of local government, the additional 50% being retained from shale oil and gas sites will go to the authority which is responsible for mineral planning decisions. In two-tier areas, this will be the county council and in London it will be the London boroughs. This is because these authorities have significant levers for promoting these developments. Nevertheless, other tiers of local government will continue to receive the same share of the business rates from shale oil and gas sites as they would have received under the existing 50% retention system. So, for example, district councils will still receive 40% of the business rates on shale oil and gas sites. This means that no local council will be worse off as a result of this measure.
These regulations also include some unrelated but important amendments to the operation of the rates retention scheme. The amendments are technical and have been developed and agreed with officers from local government in working groups set up for that purpose. They will ensure that the scheme operates as we intend.
Before explaining the changes made by Parts 5 and 6 of the regulations, I remind noble Lords that the scheme requires authorities to make an estimate of business rates income before the start of the year. The sums retained by individual authorities and paid to central government are calculated on the basis of that estimate.
Following the end of the financial year, authorities report their actual income. For the most part, any difference between the start of year estimate and the end of year actual income is rolled forward and paid in future years. However, for some aspects of the scheme, reconciliation payments are made once the actual income is known. These regulations amend the scheme to ensure that when the reconciliation payments are calculated, the amounts due to or from precepting authorities are correct.
Regulations 12(3) and 13 will also ensure that payments under the rates retention scheme made by local government during the year are made in 12 rather than 10 instalments, bringing those payments into line with when the rates income is received by local government.
Regulation 12(4) will update the cost factors which are used to calculate the local authority’s cost of collecting business rates. This determines how much money each billing authority receives to cover the cost of billing and collecting local business rates.
Finally, Regulation 12(5) makes the necessary amendments to ensure that when Derby City Council grants rate relief in the newly designated Derby Enterprise Zone, it is compensated for the cost of that relief.
I now turn to the levy and safety net regulations. These, too, make a series of technical amendments which, as with the previous regulations, have been agreed with local government officers on a working group set up to advise on the detailed implementation of the scheme, as well as with the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
I will start by reminding noble Lords that the rates retention scheme includes a safety net which provides support to those authorities which, in any year, see their rates income drop by more than 7.5% below their baseline funding level. This is funded by a levy on other authorities that saw business rates growth in that year.
Noble Lords will also recall that, in line with our proper accounting practice, authorities must now set money aside from the rates they collect in order to create a provision from which they can, in future, make refunds to ratepayers where a rating assessment is reduced on appeal. Last year, we provided that authorities could, if they chose, spread the initial costs of making that provision over five years, rather than having it hit their useable income in the first year.
These regulations ensure that where an authority has chosen to spread the cost of appeals, which in turn changes the income reported in those years, this adjustment is also reflected in the calculations of the levy and safety net. Without such changes, the calculation of levy and safety net payments due to authorities would be made as if their income in 2013-14 was lower than it actually is—and, crucially, that their income in each of the next four years was higher than it will be. The regulations, which are highly technical, ensure that the calculations of levy and safety net payments reflect the impact on each authority of a decision to spread the cost of the initial appeal provision.
These regulations will also ensure that payments arising from the levy and safety net are made in 12 rather than 10 monthly instalments. As with the previous regulations, this is to ensure that payments from local government to central government are aligned with payments from ratepayers to local government.
Finally, I draw to the attention of the Committee a couple of minor typographical errors in the levy and safety net regulations. In Regulation 2(1), the word “Rating” needs to be inserted after the words “Non-Domestic” in order to fully describe the 2013 regulations. In paragraphs 7(2) and 8(2) of the new Schedule 1A to the 2013 regulations, the reference to “paragraph 1 of Schedule 1” should in fact be to “paragraph 2 of Schedule 1”. I apologise for these minor errors of drafting: we intend to rectify them when the instrument is prepared for signature. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions in support of my noble friend. On the shale oil and gas regulations, I think the Minister said that 40% will still go to district councils. I presume that that is 80% of the existing 50% that councils will retain. If it is not, it would be helpful if he could expand on that. Perhaps he can also say a little more about the reasons for allocating the additional 50% of business rate relief, where there are two-tier authorities, to county councils rather than to district councils. Is it simply because the former is the minerals authority, bearing in mind that it is the district councils that will suffer quite a lot of the disruption that is inevitably entailed in some of these activities?
Can the Minister also say a little more about how the extent of a class A and class B hereditament is to be determined? What sort of factors will be taken into account, bearing in mind that a lot of what goes on in fracking happens many feet below the surface? How is that, as a practical matter, going to be dealt with? Finally, can the Minister help us a little on what the retention of the 50% actually means? If, for example, an authority might otherwise be in receipt of a safety net payment, would that additional 50% be ignored completely and would the safety net payment still be made? Similarly, does it have any effect on what would have been the levy payment in those circumstances?
As for the baseline funding levels being uprated by 2%, presumably the effect of that is to reduce what the safety net would otherwise have been. Can the Minister give us a few statistics on recent experience with safety nets? We have presumably had only one period for which they have been paid, because they are paid nine months after the end of the year—so I think that there can be only one series of payments. It would be helpful to know what they are. Could we also know about the extent to which payments on account of safety nets were made for the first year, which presumably will have been made for 2014-15?
Can the Minister say a little more, too, on the status of outstanding appeals for business rates, and how those appeals might be analysed between relevant revaluation periods?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I apologise, but because of the aerial noise from the helicopter overhead I missed last question—and, if I missed it, I think that the officials behind me may also have missed it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My final question was to do with the status of outstanding appeals, and whether we can have an analysis of those between the relevant revaluation years.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as an elected member of Lewisham Council. As the Minister outlined, we are debating two sets of regulations. The first set, as he said, forms part of a scheme for local retention of business rates; the purpose is to designate classes of property liable to business rates to which the business rates income is to be wholly retained by local authorities. The second set of regulations makes changes to the operation and calculation of levy and safety net payments under the scheme for local retention of non-domestic rates.
I have no issue with either of these regulations as they stand, and I can see the benefit of incentivising local economic growth. I agree with my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton on the points that he raised; I would be interested to hear the response from the Minister to those points. I see the point about incentivising fracking schemes locally.
I should say at this point that I am a supporter of the UK doing all that it can to maximise different energy sources as our use and demand for power increase, ensuring security of supply. We all accept that fracking is not without its critics, and in some places controversy as well. As this is a relatively new technology in the UK, proceeding with appropriate levels of caution, risk assessment, and safety and security is really important, as it is that things are handled well here. Anything that the noble Lord could say about that in respect of local government would be appreciated.
I noted the comments in the accompanying note that some of the respondents to the consultation were concerned that these proposals could adversely affect independent planning decisions, and it would be useful if the noble Lord could say something about that when he responds to this debate. It would also be useful if the noble Lord could comment on the suggestion from the energy sector that the scheme could be extended to other aspects of energy-source extraction. I am not at all convinced by that, but it would be helpful to hear the views on this of the noble Lord and those of his department.
The second set of regulations is a sensible measure that protects local authorities against the risk of volatility in local rates income and the risk to local services that that could bring about by providing a safety net. They obviously make some changes there. I am content with these regulations and look forward to the noble Lord’s response.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and I will certainly seek to answer the questions where I can. If there are certain questions that I am unable to answer, I shall write to noble Lords in this regard.
On some of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and first on the effect of the 50% disregard, it is disregarded for the purposes of the levy and safety net. The levy and safety net are not affected by the 50% disregard. The noble Lord also asked me to confirm the status with the issues around the 40% and the 80%. I am happy to confirm that the 40% to which I referred is indeed 80% of the 50% of the local share. I trust that that makes sense. If it does not, I am sure that the noble Lord will let me know, if not today, then later on.
He also asked about the extent of class A to class B and how that is determined in terms of factors. Local government will work with the Valuation Office Agency to identify classes A and B. Class A sites are the typical shale gas sites and class B covers combined new sites where shale gas is also present. I believe that he also asked a general question about the issue of appeals. As I am sure that the noble Lord recognises, there is a high number of business rate appeals, and they take too long to resolve. During the 2010 rating list there were 641,000 appeals that had been received, and as of September 2014 532,000 of these had been resolved. In the Autumn Statement 2013, the Government committed to resolve 95% of the 168,000 appeals outstanding as of 30 September 2013 by July 2015. As of September 2014 this figure had fallen to 52,000. While I welcome the broad support of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, he had a number of questions. I would like to pick up specifically on these matters and write to him.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Can the noble Lord just clarify one of the answers, in which I think that he said on the issue of the 100% retention that it does not affect the safety net. Is that right? So it is ignored for that purpose, and an authority that might have been in receipt of a safety net, receiving additional business rate retention because of these arrangements, will still get the same level of safety net as it would have done otherwise.
Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Local Government (Transparency) (Descriptions of Information) (England) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government (Transparency) (Descriptions of Information) (England) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 12 January 2015. It is about transparency and accountability in smaller authorities. I welcome noble Lords’ support for local authority transparency in previous debates. The order adds to the categories of information about which the Secretary of State may require authorities to publish information more frequently than annually.
On 17 December, under Section 2 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the Secretary of State issued a code of recommended practice on the publication of information by smaller authorities—the Transparency Code for Smaller Authorities. This applies to bodies including parish councils, internal drainage boards, charter trustees and port health authorities with an annual turnover not exceeding £25,000.
It is the Government’s intention to make it a legal requirement for smaller authorities to comply with the code. This will include a requirement to publish certain information relating to all formal meetings. However, the Secretary of State may require authorities to publish information more frequently than once a year only if it falls within a description of information to which Section 3(4) of the 1980 Act applies. In short, legislation needs to set out which categories of information the Secretary of State can require to be published more frequently than annually. This order adds to those descriptions of information, information relating to the meetings of a relevant authority, including the agendas, minutes and any other information concerning matters discussed at meetings. This will enable us to require the publication of meeting papers, agendas and minutes more frequently than annually.
The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 introduces a new local audit framework for public bodies, under which smaller authorities with an annual turnover not exceeding £25,000 will no longer be subject to routine external audit on an automatic annual basis, although they will still have an auditor nominated to field any complaints from local electors. This is a more proportionate approach to the country’s smallest public bodies and the amount of public money they handle. In place of an external audit, these authorities will be subject to the requirements set out in the Transparency Code for Smaller Authorities. Since the requirements of the code will represent a substitute for external audit under the new regime, the Government believe that requiring compliance through regulations is necessary. This will ensure that accountability is maintained and will increase the ability of local taxpayers to see how their hard-earned money is being spent and their services delivered.
Central to local people holding their local authority to account is having timely access to information about how the authority spends its money and the goods and services it buys and provides. It is clear that once-yearly publication of minutes and papers would limit proper local accountability. Local people would be made aware of decisions only long after they had been made and the opportunity to participate or influence the process had passed. The publication of meeting agendas and papers three days in advance of meetings and of meeting minutes no later than a month after the meeting will give the local electorate a clear picture of the activities of these bodies and enable local people to participate properly in the local democratic process. Alongside the other publication requirements in the code, this represents real accountability and transparency to the communities these bodies serve.
Local agencies and people want the publication of key financial and governance data to be mandatory, as was clear from the broad support shown in consultation responses for the Government’s intention to increase transparency. To questions about making the code mandatory, 76% and 88% of respondents explicitly supported our proposals. Nevertheless, we are keen to support these authorities to meet the code’s requirements. We intend to deliver a programme of funding through the sector to assist these bodies in getting online and publishing the relevant information. This is currently being developed with the sector.
To conclude, the code is crucial to ensure that accountability and transparency under the new audit regime is not just maintained but increased. Now that we have reduced the audit burden, these authorities need to make sure that they are transparent to those who matter most: the local people they seek to serve. The publication of meeting minutes, agendas and papers is crucial for local people to see how the council is being run and how their taxes are being spent. Limiting the access to this information to just once a year would severely restrict local accountability. I am sure that most of us can relate to the conviction that greater transparency helps secure better services and greater accountability. Consultation responses have demonstrated broad support for increased transparency and for making the code mandatory. We should listen to these messages—and, based on them, I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, explained, the purpose of this order is to expand the description of information that the Secretary of State may require authorities to publish more frequently than annually. It affects a number of smaller public bodies, of which 5,300 have a turnover of less than £25,000 per annum. They will be exempt from routine external audit but will instead be required to publish information as specified for the benefit of local residents and others to see what has been spent, by whom and to what effect.
I agree that it is important to make this code mandatory. It is a substitute for external audit, and there will be benefits for the authorities concerned, because a considerable amount of information that they would be required to provide under FOI requests will be published routinely. That is welcome. It is also important that people are able to get access to information about what their authority is doing and to get that information in a timely manner; the point about the production of papers such as minutes and so on is therefore very welcome.
I have only a couple of points for the noble Lord. Can he confirm what the complaint process will be after expenditure details are published? If a resident has a complaint, what will that process be? Will it be, in effect, the same system that we have at present, or will it be something different? Can he outline that for the benefit of the Grand Committee? Can he also outline the process if an external audit is thought necessary? In such cases, how would it actually be triggered? With that, I am content with the order.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the first point, certainly nothing changes in terms of looking into complaints and raising those issues. The matters here are ones of transparency; if anything, the existing procedures and processes will be used more readily because of the fact that more information is available more readily.
The noble Lord raised an important and valid point on replacing the audit requirement with a requirement of greater transparency. If I may, I will write to him; we need to ensure that we provide a detailed answer because it will be relevant to local authorities. I look to my officials on this, and will ensure that that forms part of the code in terms of any exceptions that might arise. With those assurances, I commend the order.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Perhaps I may add that that is important in relation to the odd case among these very small authorities. I know from my time in local government that every now and again one does get problems that need to be dealt with. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would come back to me on that point.
Community Right to Challenge (Business Improvement Districts) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Community Right to Challenge (Business Improvement Districts) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will know that town centres in England face significant challenges to survive and prosper in the internet age. In order to thrive, there is often a need to innovate and renew. The Government have recognised the importance of local high streets and sought to provide support through a range of programmes, including for example funding for the Portas pilots and town teams. We have established the Future High Streets Forum to advise government and develop practical policies, and we have supported retail markets through the Love Your Local Market campaigns, which have been incredibly successful in promoting local businesses. I visited one in Kingston-upon-Thames, which showed some incredible innovation by local entrepreneurs.
We have supported the establishment of business improvement districts, with a loan fund to help start up costs; we have introduced business rate support, including doubling small business rate relief, capping the inflation increase to 2% and a targeted discount for smaller shops, pubs and restaurants; and we have lifted planning restrictions to increase flexibility on high streets. In total this amounts to more than £1.4 billion of government support. All this is having an effect. Britain’s vacancy rate was 13.3% in November, its lowest level since June 2010 according to the Local Data Company figures of 8 December 2014. In February 2014, more than half of small business employers said that their profits had increased in the last 12 months, up by 13% on June 2013.
Business improvement districts are an important part of the efforts to revitalise town centres and the Government are committed to making sure that they can maximise their impact. That is why the Government conducted a review of business improvement districts to look at options to further strengthen the role of BIDs to ensure that they are able to play a key role in shaping and revitalising their town centres. The review was undertaken during the spring and summer of 2014 and involved meetings with British BIDs and Associations of Town and City Management, as well as round tables involving more than 20 individual business improvement district bodies. The department also met with the Local Government Association and visited a range of business improvement district bodies and local authorities.
The review demonstrated the additional value that a business improvement district can bring to a town centre. However, it also highlighted how the current model and legislation can restrict business improvement districts from being actively involved in important decisions that affect them. One identified option was to give business improvement districts the opportunity to run local authority services by adding them to the list of relevant bodies that can challenge to run local authority services under the community right to challenge. As we all recognise, local government services can play a vital role in making town centres clean, attractive environments, running local markets and supporting a thriving business environment. In many cases, local working between BIDs and local government is helping to regenerate high streets that might otherwise succumb to the pressures of out-of-town retail and online shopping.
In some instances, though, BIDs, as with the voluntary sector, have become frustrated by their inability to get their ideas for improvements listened to. In some cases, the BID may be a more appropriate body to deliver a service in their area; in others, they may simply want stronger levers to influence how services that are meant to benefit the retail area are delivered. The community right to challenge was introduced by this Government to allow the voluntary sector, social enterprises and parish councils the ability to make local authorities give full consideration to their proposals to deliver a service where they believe that they can do so better or differently. The right to challenge is not designed to be the first port of call for an organisation, nor does it provide an automatic right to take on a local authority service. However, it provides relevant bodies with the opportunity to have their ideas heard and to bid to run services. It is already allowing bodies such as charities and parish councils to put forward their proposals, and where they have done so it has been because they are convinced that the existing service could be improved.
The community right to challenge applies to local services, not to functions. It does not remove the accountability for a service from the democratically elected local authority, and it does not allow BIDs or private businesses to dictate commissioning decisions to a local authority. This change will add the following types of BID to the list of bodies able to use the community right to challenge: BIDs established under Section 41(1) of the Local Government Act 2003; joint BID arrangements—in other words, BIDs that operate across the boundaries of more than one local authority; property-owner BIDs; and joint BRS-BID arrangements—in other words, property-owner BIDs operating over more than one local authority area.
These changes will allow BIDs which have good proposals for delivering local services more effectively but are having trouble getting them taken seriously to use this power to make the local authority consider them, giving BIDs a further string to their bow when trying to improve conditions for business and growth in the local area. This devolves greater power and say to local bodies and helps continue to revitalise the great British high street that we all love and utilise. I commend these regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has spoken glowingly about the progress the Government have made on the high street, but I put to him a recent report from PWC and the Local Data Company which, while recognising that the pace of retailers shutting shops reduced over the first half of 2014, shows that the gulf between openings and closures has nearly doubled. That survey covered the three months from July 2014 to 30 September 2014, and analysis shows that the net decline for the year to date has risen to 964 closures. That is quite a staggering number and belies, in effect, the fundamental point the Minister has made. Will he respond to that?
I have a specific question about what he referred to as the targeted discount for retailers—the £1,000, going up to £1,500—and the impact of EU state-aid provisions. As I understand it, it is subject to state-aid consequences. Is the discount per hereditament as long as the rateable value is not more than £50,000? Is the state aid de minimis similarly per hereditament or per business? I wonder how those two things are dealt with. In relation to the £1,000, if it is per hereditament, does that mean that the likes of Starbucks, with its renowned corporate social responsibility approach, would be eligible for the discount on each of its relevant outlets?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, this regulation adds an additional type of body, the business improvement district, as a body able to deliver services locally. It can make an expression of interest in delivering a service under the community right to challenge provisions of the Localism Act. It enables certain bodies to provide services. In principle, that is fine, but it would be useful if the Minister could answer a number of points raised by my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. Could he also say a little more about the community right to challenge in itself, and what has been the benefit of the proposals so far? I have not heard a huge amount about them since they were put on the statute book. As for business improvement districts, and their work to improve town centres, have those in his department thought a bit more about the sort of service that they would see these districts actually deliver? Does he see any risk of fragmentation of services, for example by focusing on a particular high street or area, and perhaps even additional costs to business or residents?
I do not know whether the Minister was in the House yesterday, but his noble friend Lord Naseby asked a very pertinent Question about the crisis on our high streets. When she answered the Question, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, placed a lot of emphasis on “click and collect”. I notice that the Minister did not mention that once in his presentation here today, and I must say that I am a bit sceptical that click and collect is going to be the solution to the problems on our high streets. You have only to walk or drive around in London or elsewhere to see that there is a real problem in our high streets now. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, also made a very interesting point about how much tax is paid by booming internet-based companies, which again causes problems for shops that are trying to compete.
Could the Minister also talk about the whole question of infrastructure and transport, while he has his noble friend Lady Kramer here? For high streets and shops to work, good transport links are needed. That is an important point as well. If he could deal with that today, it would be helpful. If he cannot, perhaps he could write to me on that point. I am not against these orders, but they go much wider than some of the points raised yesterday in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their questions. As I said in an earlier debate, when we look at our local markets and high streets, it is important that we focus on these areas in a localised way. It is important to put on record that a business improvement district is a defined area in which a levy is charged on all business rate payers in addition to the business rate bill. The levy is used to develop projects from which those businesses in the local area will benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised the PWC report. In my opening statement, I cited the improvements that we have seen in the high streets. We are giving local communities power to save shops through the community right to bid, and neighbourhood plans are also allowing local businesses to set out changes to local planning. I take on board the concerns that he raised about local high streets and the concerns about closures that have happened in certain areas. It is important that local authorities also take greater responsibility.
I remember from my own experience in a local authority when I was the cabinet member responsible that we ensured, for example, a simple solution on parking, which is now used extensively across London and other areas—20 minutes’ free parking to bolster the local shop network. That perhaps also alludes to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised about transport and supporting transport infrastructure. We need to ease the burden on shops and local businesses by helping them to facilitate foot flow and shopper flow into them. In many areas, local authorities do a very good job in ensuring that they can ease parking restrictions, for example.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, always asks very technical questions when I am in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I am minded of the fact that he researches these issues quite thoroughly. On the impact of state aid and the two questions that he asked, I seek his indulgence and will write to him specifically on those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to the risk of fragmentation of services. I do not share that concern about BIDs because we are seeking to widen the scope of organisations that can deliver services more effectively. As I said in my opening remarks, when local authorities are looking to procure services, accountability remains with them. They are the democratically elected bodies that electors will hold to account. The idea is not to break up or fragment services but to widen their scope and to identify the bodies that can deliver services most effectively. Certainly there has been a demand to see how local businesses working in an area can take greater responsibility for local services.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, it has struck me that we have not mentioned anything about the planning process. I am a councillor in Lewisham and the Brockley Road, which is in the area I represent, is a wonderful high street. It is vibrant and has many different types of shops there—there is a Co-op, a Budgens and other smaller shops—and the variety works. Lordship Lane, which is near to where I live, also has a great deal of variety.
However, there are other places which have problems and where there are not-so-good shops that are all very similar. This legislation may be part of the solution, but is there not an issue about the powers that authorities have in being able to use the planning process to ensure that they get a better variety of shops to serve their communities? You can find very good and very poor high streets close to each other, and the variety of shops, the kind of people who use them and the transport links can vary locally as well.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On some of the specific issues and more generally, the Government have sought to again look at the planning process to see how that may be improved. The concept of the changes we have seen—for example, in neighbourhood planning—allows local business areas and local people to set out what their planning priorities are. The move has been towards ensuring greater responsibility at a local level. However, we all share the noble Lord’s concerns. Local high streets are the lifeblood of what defines Britain today. The Love Your Local Market and Love Your High Street campaigns are not divided on political lines because we all support the incentive. Across the country, many local authorities of all political colours are currently looking towards their high streets and delivering and procuring good services from a variety of different providers. We need to recognise and applaud that—but, of course, there is always more work to do.
Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, this Motion will allow a new type of child seat to be used in motor vehicles in Great Britain. This has already been discussed in another place. It has long been an established fact that wearing seatbelts is an important safety mechanism. Seatbelts are a significant factor in saving lives in collisions. In a crash, individuals not wearing a seatbelt are twice as likely to die as those wearing a seatbelt. Therefore the Department for Transport takes this matter very seriously.
It is especially distressing when a crash involves young children. Safety for children in cars has improved in recent years but, unfortunately, car crashes are one of the leading causes of child fatalities. This is why the department has been involved in developing, under the auspices of the United Nations, the new standard which has been adopted by the European Union. Child seats currently come in an array of overlapping size groupings which confuse many parents and can encourage them to switch to a forward-facing seat too early. This new standard of child seat is known as i-size, and has many advantages over the existing designs currently allowed. As well as requiring a child to travel in a rearward position until the age of 15 months, it also provides side impact protection for better protection of the head and neck, with a more rigorous testing procedure for new designs, including an improved crash-test dummy. Furthermore, by doing away with the overlapping groupings and moving to a system based on the child’s height, it will be much easier for parents to choose the correct seat.
The new standard does not replace the current one. Both standards will run in parallel. Therefore, car seats complying with either standard may continue to be sold and used safely and will not require parents to purchase a new design of child seat if they are using one which meets the current standard. With the introduction of i-size, consumers will be given an extra option to choose a seat that conforms to the latest standard when purchasing a new car seat for their child. This also means that manufacturers will not have to stop making existing designs. However, many manufacturers have already designed and tested i-size products and are ready to bring them to the UK market. Indeed, they are pressing us to make this change. While it is anticipated that approvals for the old standard will eventually be phased out, it is not the intention to prevent existing products being used.
This issue is an important aspect of designing safer vehicles, which was a major challenge identified in this Government’s strategic framework for road safety. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Viscount Simon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister described this very well. It makes perfect sense. It will help maintain the health and safety of very young children. I have only two questions but I do not know whether she will know the answers. How has the new type of child crash-test dummies been changed? How has the new side-impact test been changed again?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Perhaps I may raise just one or two points on these regulations. In particular I refer to the impact assessment. Impact assessments quite often contain little gems that are not actually set out in the Explanatory Memorandum. This impact assessment sets out the policy objectives and states that:
“The policy objective is to reduce the number and seriousness of injuries to child vehicle occupants whilst keeping any additional burden to industry or vehicle users to a proportionate level”.
It goes on to talk about UN-ECE Regulation 129, to which the Minister has referred, as intending to provide additional safety benefits over and above the existing standards. As I understand it, this regulation, which has been accepted by the EU, is not compulsory. However, I note that when the impact assessment goes on to look at the policy options, it sets out the first one as “do nothing”, which is fairly obvious, while the second option would allow the use of regulation 129 covering standard child restraints in vehicles as well as the existing regulation 44 standard. It states that this is the favoured policy option, and that indeed is what the Minister has said.
The assessment then goes on to set out that a third option to require all new child seats sold from the date of implementation to be of regulation 129 standard was dismissed, which is fairly strong language, on the basis that this would go beyond the requirements of the EU directive and would be considered to be gold-plating and not be deliverable. Am I to understand that implementing a directive in a gold-plated way means that you implement it in such a way so as to reduce the number of child fatalities, as well as the number of serious and slight injuries, on the basis, as we are told, that the new restraint under regulation 129 is safer?
Further on in the impact assessment, on page 5, two policy options are set out, excluding the do-nothing one. The second one, which I think is the one that has been dismissed—I should like to know by whom—states:
“Require all new child seats sold from date of implementation (early 2015) to be of Regulation 129 standard”.
It continues:
“This would ensure that all new units sold would be of a higher safety standard, and also ensure that these safer child restraints permeate the market quicker than would be the case under option 1”.
That is the option that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, has said is favoured and is indeed provided for in these regulations. Can the noble Baroness confirm that, given the reference to the fact that this would constitute gold-plating, the definition of “gold-plating” would ensure safer child restraints being required and that they would also,
“permeate the market quicker than would be the case under option 1”?
It would be an interesting example of what gold-plating means. Perhaps a rather happier wording could have been used in the impact assessment instead of this enthusiasm for dismissing something as gold-plating. It might have been a bit more open to have said, “Yes, we have made a decision not to go for the safest option, the one that would reduce the number of fatalities, serious and slight injuries. We have decided to go for the option that does not make it compulsory but which we recognise might not achieve the same reduction in fatalities and injuries to young children”. As that is my understanding, I think it would have been better if it had been put in that way rather than this enthusiasm for using the word “gold-plating”.
I also notice that the option which was looked at was the one that would:
“Require all new child seats sold from the date of implementation (early 2015) to be of Regulation 129 standard”.
If I have understood this impact assessment correctly, it estimates that, without it being a requirement, the take-up of the enhanced car seats will still be between 70% and 100% by 2020, with what is described as a “best uptake of 85%”. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case. If it is expected that there will nevertheless still be a high uptake of child restraints that conform to the higher standard set by UN-ECE Regulation 129 over a period of five years, why was it not considered that the second option—a requirement that all new child seats sold from the date of implementation are to be of regulation 129 standard—should be brought into force in two, three, four or five years’ time? At least we would then have had a guarantee that it was going to come in.
I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but, as I understand it, under these regulations there is no date when it will actually become the required standard. If we are expecting such a high uptake of the new, higher-standard child restraint by 2020, what is the objection to saying to what would appear to be the relatively low percentage that would not conform to the higher standard that, by that time, you will have to conform to the higher standard? I do not understand why that has not been incorporated into the regulations. I can appreciate why the regulations do not require everyone to conform from early 2015 but, bearing in mind the high uptake that is expected, I do not understand why there is nothing in the order to say that from a certain date—two, three, four, five years’ ahead—it will become the required standard.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, perhaps I may respond first to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. Currently, there is not a side impact test; that now comes in with the new regulations. The dummies will be designed so that they demonstrate the damage that comes with a side impact test. If there is further information on the dummies that I have not mentioned, I will gladly write to him and let him know.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, essentially about why the new seat is not mandatory or why we do not have a date for its becoming mandatory, it is possible that the documentation has not been clear. Part of the new standard does not fit in to the car by use of a seat-belt. It requires an Isofix point to be built in, which is deemed to be a safer way for a seat to be anchored. That standard became mandatory for new cars from 2012. It would have been seen in many new cars built from around 2006 and even in some from before then, but obviously many cars that parents own date from an earlier period and therefore do not have an Isofix anchor embedded in them. If we were to make this mandatory today, we would effectively be requiring parents to go out and purchase a new car when they simply want to purchase a car seat. That really is an unacceptable burden.
There will be demand from parents who have older cars or cars which do not have the Isofix fitting to purchase a seat for their child. We are satisfied that the current standard is very safe. That does not mean that we do not want to pursue opportunities to increase the measure of safety. I described earlier the side-impact benefit and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, followed up on it. We recognise that existing car seats provide a great deal of safety for children, so we do not feel that it is necessary to tell parents that they have to buy a new car in order to buy a seat that meets the new standard.
We accept that over time, as they replace their cars and their car seats, parents will follow the new standards, but this means that there is a period of time when we need to have both standards operating in parallel. To put in a date would in fact be artificial. It is sensible to do all we can to encourage the take-up of the new car seats in vehicles which can take the fitting. It will be a matter of parent choice, but the majority of parents want the car seat that provides their child with the greatest protection. It is also true to say that as the volume of sales of the new car seats goes up—they are currently more expensive than the current car seats—the price will inevitably come down as economies of scale kick in.
I think that we will see a very good take-up of these new car seats, but to make it mandatory would place a burden on some families for whom the purchase of a new car would be exceedingly difficult. What we do not want is for anybody to be tempted not to use a car seat because the only one that they can legally purchase cannot be fitted into the car they already have. I think that the noble Lord will recognise that. Over time, we can see what is happening with the turnover of cars; that is not something that is ideally predictable. It will be possible at some point to remove the earlier standard and simply go with the new standard because there will have been sufficient turnover in the car fleet. I hope, with that understanding that this is a sensible way that does not place an extraordinary burden on families—
Lord Rosser
Am I to take it that the cost of changing an existing car and thus enabling it to take the new fitting or arrangement is either prohibitive or just not technically feasible?
Baroness Kramer
I am not an expert in whether one can easily retrofit an Isofix fitting—it has a top tether anchorage point. According to the information I have just been given, it is not possible to retrofit into a car, so it is a case of buying a car in which this fitting is part of the original design of the car, because it is so fundamental.
Lord Rosser
That is less a comment about not wanting to gold-plate an EU directive than it is actually saying that in relation to existing cars it is not possible to do it anyway. The Minister has said that it is not a question of cost, but that you actually cannot do it.
Baroness Kramer
I suppose that we could theoretically require parents to go out and buy a new car, which is why we have used phrases such as gold-plating. It is clearly not feasible to bring in the new standard and require parents to have a car that meets it. They may be in the second-hand market for cars, or they may have an older car which, because of family finances, they are not in a position to replace. But as I have said, existing car seats offer a great deal of safety to children, and parents have been very satisfied with them. The industry has demonstrated their quality, but that does not mean that we do not keep on improving, and it is the rationale for running the two standards in parallel.
Parents are very concerned about safety of their children. As the new car fleet turns over, take-up of the new standard will obviously overrule the old standard and we will reach a point—I cannot tell the noble Lord in which year—at which it will be possible to phase out the old standard.
Viscount Simon
I thank the Minister for her reply on side-impact testing. From a purely academic point of view, side-impact testing has been taking place privately for many years for research purposes by TRL, the universities and the manufacturers. It is an interesting point of view that it is now being used as a logistic point of view, and it is very good that it now forms part of the legislation.
Baroness Kramer
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for those comments. We are all very focused on the issue of safety and we have to give credit to the industry and the consumer for constantly driving forward the technical progress that makes cars safer. That is something we all want and it is an important part of the work that the Government have done on a whole series of fronts. With that understanding, I hope that this is a sensible way in which to bring in a new standard for car seats which gives parents the opportunity to move to the new standard without making life impossible for those for whom it would be unaffordable for a whole variety of reasons. Having addressed the range of issues, I hope that noble Lords will be able to agree to the regulations and that they can be brought into force.
Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
That the Grand Committee do consider the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2015.
Relevant documents: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, the order follows a good deal of consultation and makes some relatively small but important changes to the renewable transport fuel obligation scheme—the RTFO. The changes would improve consistency in the way the RTFO treats two different types of biodiesel, and would encourage investment in renewable gaseous fuels. The RTFO is a certificate trading scheme that places an obligation on suppliers of fossil fuels in the UK to ensure that certain amounts of sustainable biofuel are supplied. The obligation can be met by redeeming renewable transport fuel certificates known as RTFCs. Their value is determined by the market, and trading them provides a financial reward for those supplying renewable transport fuel.
The RTFO order was amended in 2011 to ensure that only biofuels meeting mandatory sustainability criteria were rewarded with RTFCs. The 2011 amendment also introduced new requirements on suppliers to report on the sustainability of the biofuel being supplied and for this to be assured through independent verification. In April last year we published our response to a call for evidence on additional support mechanisms for advanced and more sustainable fuels. At the same time, we concluded a post-implementation review of the RTFO scheme. The review considered the extent to which the RTFO had achieved its objectives to support the supply of sustainable biofuels in the UK. The review also noted the significant achievements made by the UK biofuel industry to date.
Since the RTFO was introduced in 2008, savings in greenhouse gas emissions, excluding impacts from indirect land use change, have increased from 46% to reach 69% in 2013-14. The most recent statistics also showed that 46% of biofuels supplied in the UK were made from a waste or residue such as used cooking oil, which does not compete for land with food crops. A further public consultation on the proposed changes to the RTFO order we are considering today ran in the summer of 2014.
This small group of amendments aims to build on the RTFO scheme’s success and deliver two important commitments. The amendments will, first, provide consistency in respect of how we treat renewable fuels under the RTFO by aligning the treatment of two particular types of biodiesel; and, secondly, encourage investment in the development of emerging renewable transport technologies such as sustainable renewable gaseous fuels, by adjusting the reward provided to reflect their higher energy content relative to liquid biofuels.
Hydotreated vegetable oil, or HVO, and fatty acid methyl ester, or FAME, are both renewable fuels that can be blended with diesel. The biological feedstocks used in the HVO process are similar to those used for FAME: for example, vegetable or plant oils and waste animal fats. In both the FAME and HVO processes, a secondary, non-biological feedstock is used and incorporated into the final fuel. For FAME, this is methanol derived from natural gas, while for HVO it is hydrogen produced from natural gas. However, although FAME is deemed to be 100% renewable in calculating the reward of RTFCs, HVO is currently not. The effect of the order would be to provide for HVO to be treated in the same way as FAME. This is in line with our emerging understanding of how HVO should be treated under the renewable energy directive and is consistent with the approach in other EU member states to these two types of biodiesel.
Our policy aim for gaseous fuels is to level the playing field for renewable gaseous and liquid fuels. Doing so provides a clear signal that the UK Government will provide a positive investment climate for those looking to supply renewable gaseous fuels in the HGV and other sectors. Renewable gaseous fuels are currently rewarded at one RTFC per kilogram of fuel supplied, and liquid renewable fuels at one RTFC per litre. However, the energy contained in a kilogram of gaseous fuel is generally higher than the energy found in a litre of liquid fuel. The draft order would provide that 1.9 RTFCs per kilogram would be rewarded for biomethane and 1.75 RTFCs per kilogram for both biopropane and biobutane. As is the case now, double the amount of RTFCs would be awarded where the fuel is produced from wastes or residues.
I am aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reasonably advised the House that the order may imperfectly deliver the policy, due to uncertainties highlighted by the department in our cost-benefit analysis. I will address the concern that has been raised. The range of costs and benefits is essentially determined by which sort of biodiesel will be displaced by extra RTFCs going to renewable gaseous fuel. We are estimating discounted carbon-reduction benefits of £2.65 million, assuming a 50:50 spilt in the displacement of biodiesel from waste versus biodiesel from crop.
Waste-derived biodiesel is incentivised by being awarded twice the number of certificates per litre compared to crop-based biodiesel. As a consequence, it is a more cost-effective option in meeting the obligation. There would only be a carbon cost should a significant volume of waste-derived biodiesel be displaced—and then only if approaching 60% of the displacement was of waste-derived biodiesel.
As biodiesel from waste is the cheaper option to meet the obligation, and is in limited supply, we fully expect that biodiesel from crop would be displaced by increased rewards for renewable gaseous fuels. This means that the carbon savings for 2015 to 2020 are likely to be towards the higher end of those estimated in our cost-benefit analysis central scenario—nearer the £16 million benefit end of the scale. Further, I stress that we have limited options to decarbonise the heavy goods sector, and I believe that, in the long term, renewable gaseous fuels will be an important element in meeting our carbon-reduction targets.
The draft order will also introduce two measures to support effective administration. The first would update and streamline the powers of the RTFO administrator to require information. The second measure would put it beyond doubt that the administrator can apply mathematical rounding as part of calculating the number of RTFCs it issues.
Biofuels have proved a complex and controversial topic over the years. However, we know that vehicles are going to continue to require liquid and gaseous fuels for decades to come. We therefore need to develop technologies and capacity to produce low-carbon fuels in the UK, to reduce emissions from road transport and to encourage sustainable growth and jobs.
The proposed changes in the draft order are supported by stakeholders and make a number of worthwhile improvements in that direction. I know that the industry and investors would like to see greater certainty on the pathway to meeting the 2020 transport renewable energy target. The Committee will be pleased to hear that, in anticipation of measures to address indirect land use change—ILUC—being agreed in Europe later this year, we have been working with a very broad group of interested parties through our Transport Energy Task Force on precisely how to improve the investment climate. The group will report to Ministers in the coming months. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The only issue that I wished to raise—and I am sure that the Minister will hardly be surprised—was the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the concerns it expressed. I had intended to mention them in order to give the Minister the opportunity to put the Government’s response on the record. She has, of course, already done that in her introductory comments.
In the light of the Minister’s speech, it rather begs the question why the three different scenarios of low, central and high were drawn up for the period 2015-20, given that, as I understand from her speech, she is almost dismissing at least one, if not two, of those scenarios as being based on unrealistic modelling assumptions. If she is so sure that the issue raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—that this is about not just a range of carbon savings but a range covering both carbon savings and carbon costs—will not be the case, why did we end up with a cost-benefit analysis that contained those projections? What is the case for having projections that the Government apparently do not believe for one minute are likely to occur? I would be grateful if she will address that point.
One of the things that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said, in paragraph 28, was:
“The central scenario assumes an increase in the size of the HGV fleet able to use gaseous fuel from the current 500 to 7,400 by 2020, that 12.5% of fuel used is renewable gaseous fuel and a 50/50 displacement split between the two types of biofuels. These are modelling assumptions. They do not as the CBA explains … ‘represent today’s mix of biofuels’”.
I am grateful to the Minister for having set out the Government’s response straight away, but I am still a little puzzled about why we have ended up with a document that has raised scenarios which, as I understand it from the Minister’s speech, the Government are now saying are extremely unlikely. Why include them in the first place if the Government do not believe that they are going to happen? What is the answer the point made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the 50/50 displacement split between two types of biofuels does not actually represent today’s mix of biofuels?
Baroness Kramer
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his comments. It is standard practice to look at a range of impacts in developing forecasts. I came out of business, and the department very much follows the same pattern of talking to the industry and all the various relevant groups whose behaviour can impact on those forecasts and coming up with a forecast that seems reasonable and likely and in which it has a high level of confidence. In this case, from the perspective of the department, it was considered to be quite a conservative estimate. It was chosen as what could be called the central forecast in which the department has the greatest level of confidence, based on the work, research and analysis that it has done.
It is also standard practice to then say, “What if we were wrong?”, and to look at both a more pessimistic range and at what would happen if we could, reasonably, be more optimistic about the behaviour of certain factors. I would hate to see the department, in doing its analysis, simply going with the forecast in which it had the greatest confidence, without presenting, for other people to consider, what the impact would be of variations in the underlying factors, both downwards and upwards. That is fairly standard and a wise way to present issues. It is also a way to tease out concerns that then have to be answered.
The answer to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is that the department is convinced that all the logic and the discussions with all the various players indicate that the form of fuel most likely to be displaced is crop-based biodiesel rather than waste-based biodiesel, and because of that, the department has a great deal of confidence in the carbon benefits. Again, we raised those issues to discuss the cost-benefit analysis, as I think was entirely appropriate.
Lord Rosser
I asked the Minister about the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which ends up saying:
“For this reason, we draw this Order to the special attention of the House on the ground that it may”—
may, not will—
“imperfectly achieve its policy objective”.
Is that a view with which the Government agree or disagree:
“it may imperfectly achieve its policy objective”?
Baroness Kramer
The Government have a high degree of confidence in their central forecast. I have never seen forecasts turn out exactly right, to the right-hand side of the decimal point. Forecasting is an attempt to look into and understand the future, so it is never a perfect science. It is right that that is always recognised. The noble Lord will also recognise that biodiesel and biofuel prices will always be volatile in this industry. That affects the trend, and there will be variance year on year in actual behaviour. It is right that there is always an element of uncertainty in forecasting, but it is also right to use the research, the analysis and the discussion with the industry to come up with the scenario in which one has the greatest confidence. That is what I think the department has, entirely appropriately, done. It has shaped and presented its policy on that basis. Given that understanding that it would be sheer arrogance to present only one scenario without considering both upside and downside, this is a considered policy that I think, generally, has been widely welcomed by all players and participants.
I also point out that the amendment makes only a small change to the current market for RTFCs. Although we are concerned to make sure that our modelling is as good as it can be and that it does not have the arrogance to ignore the fact that there are variances and volatilities, we also recognise that, were either the upside or the downside scenario to prove to be the one that actually played out, the impact would be relatively small because this is only a very small change in the current market for RTFCs.
I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will feel that the Government have taken a rational approach and that he will feel capable of supporting the order.
Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
That the Grand Committee do consider the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, this order is makes four amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in consequence of the introduction of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which inserted a new Section 5A into the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Section 5A creates new drug-driving offences of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a specified drug in the body above specified limits. The Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014 were made on 24 October 2014. They specified the drugs and their limits, and will come into force in England and Wales on 2 March 2015. Although the new Section 5A applies to Scotland as well, it is for the Scottish Government to make regulations to specify the drugs and their limits. I understand that the Scottish Government are in the process of considering responses to a consultation and hope to publish an analysis report shortly. The views offered in the consultation will inform their decision on the drugs and their limits for the new drug-driving offence in Scotland. This order therefore applies to Great Britain where the amendments extend the penalties already available in relation to similar driving offences connected with drink-driving and drug-driving to the new drug-driving offences. It also provides for the endorsement of an offender’s driving licence counterpart and the driver’s record in relation to the new offences.
As noble Lords are aware, the review of drink and drug-driving law by Sir Peter North concluded that there is,
“a significant drug driving problem”,
and recommended the new offence. Drivers impaired by drugs kill large numbers of people, and there could be as many as 200 drug-driving-related deaths a year in Great Britain. Statistics show that a drug-driver has 1/50th of the chance of being prosecuted compared to a drink-driver. European evidence from the driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and medicines project—DRUID—suggests that drug-driving is about half as prevalent as drink-driving. We estimate it to be around a third as prevalent in Great Britain, so enforcement related to drugs is disproportionately low. Ensuring we have the full range of penalties and the ability to record offenders fully to support the new offence will thus enable more effective law enforcement and act as a deterrent to those who recklessly risk killing and injuring on the road as a result of taking drugs and driving.
I turn to the detail of the order we are proposing. Section 45 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides for the period during which an endorsement remains effective on the counterpart of a driving licence following a conviction where endorsement of the offence has been ordered. This order amends the Act so an endorsement ordered upon a person’s conviction for the new offence remains effective until 11 years have elapsed since the conviction, in line with other drink-driving and drug-driving offences, rather than just four years as it currently stands.
When the relevant part of the Road Safety Act 2006 is brought into force, Section 45, which relates to the endorsement of counterparts, will be repealed and Section 45A, which relates to the endorsement of driving records, will be in force. The amendments made by the Road Safety Act 2006 are part of the legislative changes which abolish the paper driving licence counterpart so that all endorsements will need to be recorded electronically on a person’s driving record only. This order has therefore been drafted so that when these Road Safety Act changes commence, the amendments made by this order to Section 45A will enable the endorsement of a person’s driving record for the Section 5A offences of driving or attempting to drive with a specified drug in the body above specified limits to remain effective until 11 years have elapsed since the conviction.
The order also amends the Road Traffic Offenders Act to provide for the penalties applicable to the offences of failing to provide a specimen for analysis under Section 7 and failing to permit a specimen to be subjected to a laboratory test under Section 7A without reasonable excuse in the course of an investigation into whether a person has committed an offence under Section 5A.
Noble Lords may be wondering why the Government have tabled this order so close to the commencement of the new Section 5A offences on 2 March. It was originally hoped that the abolition of the paper driving licence counterpart would have been completed by the end of October 2014. Our intention was to wait for that legislation to be made and make the amendment to Section 45A—“Effect of endorsement of driving records”—which would come into force instead of amending a revoked Section 45. However, industry asked for more time to get ready for the abolition of the counterpart. To accommodate the needs of industry, and so that Parliament does not have to revisit this piece of legislation in the future, this order has been drafted to refer to Section 45 but also to Section 45A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, to cover the situation where Section 45 is revoked and Section 45A is commenced.
The Government believe that it is important that those drivers who continue to commit drug-driving offences and put lives at risk have their counterparts or driving records endorsed for a considerable period of time and so are able to feel the full force of the law when prosecuted. With the power of social media, it is also important that potential drug-driving offenders are not incentivised to refuse to provide a specimen or to refuse to allow that specimen to be analysed, in order to get a lesser penalty. I urge Members to agree that we must send a strong message that this House, Parliament and wider society will not tolerate those who persist in drug-driving and the threat they pose to other road users. I therefore recommend that the Committee approves this order. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I have come very recently to this debate, but I was interested to come along and listen to it. I am interested in two areas, which are probably old territory—I hope that the Minister will forgive me. This is an important bit of legislation; drug-driving is equally as dangerous and as much of a hazard to fellow citizens as drink-driving. However, I am still unclear how the enforcement of this testing is to be done in a practical way. We always think of drug-driving as being about illegal drugs, but presumably some legal highs or even medicinal pharmaceuticals, particularly tranquilisers, can be equally dangerous. Is that covered in this legislation? I would be interested to hear and understand that context.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and content of this order. As she said, and as the Explanatory Memorandum sets out, the order amends the 1988 Act in consequence of the introduction to the Act, through the Crime and Courts Act 2013, of new drug-related road traffic offences, which make it a criminal offence to drive, attempt to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle with a concentration of a specified controlled drug above a laid-down limit. The amendments in the order extend the penalties connected with drink and drugs, including failure to provide a specimen, to the new drug-related road traffic offences and provide for the endorsement of an offender’s counterpart and driving record in relation to the new offences. As the Minister said, the new offence comes into force shortly—at the beginning of next week—in England and Wales. Regulations determined by Parliament last October, I think, specified the controlled drugs and their limits.
I appreciate that the key debate on this issue has already taken place and the decisions have been made, but can the Minister give an up-to-date indication of the number of proceedings per year expected to be brought under the new offence of driving having taken a relevant controlled drug above the specified limit and whether the ability to test for and prove that drugs above the specified limit have been taken is sufficiently robust to expect a proportion of guilty findings similar to that applicable to drink-driving proceedings, namely 96%? Perhaps she could also say something about whether the necessary equipment to undertake these tests on those who it is felt may have been driving with a concentration of a specified controlled drug above a specified limit is now available, so that we are ready to go as far the bringing into force of these new offences is concerned. What is the cost of that equipment? How many police forces already have it? Who has to pay for it? Does it have to be used back at the police station or do we have equipment that can be used at the road side? It would be helpful if the Minister was able to comment on those points.
As I understand the penalties and levels, a zero-tolerance approach is being adopted towards anyone who is found to have a concentration of a specified controlled drug unless they are able to show that it resulted from having taken a drug for medical reasons.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“No formal consultation for these amendments has been undertaken as these are consequential amendments upon the creation of new drug driving offences”.
Has consultation taken place previously on what the penalties should be and whether they should be on a par with, lower than or higher than those related to drink-driving, or has it just been assumed that they should be on a similar level? Was a view taken on whether driving having taken drugs is likely to have a lesser or greater impact on driving ability than having consumed alcohol? One assumes, in the light of the comment in the Explanatory Memorandum that the penalties are on a par with those for similar driving offences connected with drink and drugs, that the impact is deemed to be the same. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that point because, if the impact is deemed likely to be greater, one would have thought that that would have been reflected in the penalty; if it was deemed likely to be lower, likewise it might have been thought that that would have been reflected in the penalty the other way.
Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 12 that a supplier has been selected to evaluate the effect of the new drug-driving offences. Could the Minister say who that supplier is?
Baroness Kramer
I thank noble Lords. I should make it clear to my noble friend Lord Teverson that there is an existing Section 4 offence that is used to deal with driving under the influence of drugs not specified for the purpose of the new offence. That remains in place. The existing drug-impaired driving offence remains, and therefore all drug-impaired drivers can be prosecuted, whatever and how many drugs they have taken. I give him that assurance. There is a process to add drugs to the list of specified drugs. I will write to my noble friend with the details of how drugs can be added in that process. There is both the broad brush and the ability to add new drugs to the list. For a new drug to be covered by the new offence, the following are necessary: the drug has to be recognised and classified by the Home Office under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; a consultation would then need to follow on whether to add it to those specified under the offence of drug-driving and at what level to set the specified limit; and regulations would need to be approved under the affirmative procedure. So there is a procedure in place to add to the list.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will correct me if I have misunderstood this, but one of his questions was essentially about whether or not there should be a difference between the sentencing for impairment caused by alcohol and that for impairment caused through drug use. The rationale to me is that identifying the specified drug is step one, and then defining the level above which having that drug in one’s system is the standard of impairment for the offence is step two. That, essentially, is the way in which this legislation works. In other words, first, the drug is identified—I have read out the process that is gone through to get a drug on the list, which obviously involves consultation—and, secondly, the limit above which that drug in the system would be considered an offence is determined. The noble Lord will understand that that is, in many ways, the same as the approach used with alcohol. It is illegal to drive with above a certain limit of alcohol in the system.
The noble Lord also asked about testing equipment. We understand that 12 forces at present have station-based screening devices. Manufacturers are talking widely to various forces, who are obviously considering whether to purchase devices to enhance their capacity to enforce. Mobile screeners are also available. The new mobile screener tests only for cannabis and cocaine, but those are two of the most prevalent types of drugs detected among drug drivers. Again, police forces manage their budgets and so they must decide how to use their budget to acquire equipment for enforcement.
Lord Rosser
I am sure the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong but 12 forces have station-based equipment and the new offence comes in at the beginning of next week. Does that mean that there is a significant number of forces that cannot enforce this offence because they do not have the equipment?
Baroness Kramer
At this point in time, 12 forces have station-based screening devices. We are encouraging forces to talk with manufacturers about the kind of products available. I am sure the noble Lord would not want the introduction of the offence to be delayed until all forces had decided on the kind of equipment they wished to purchase for enforcement.
Lord Rosser
I hope the noble Baroness will not take this as an attempt at withering criticism but police forces have known for some time that this new offence was likely to come into force. If I understand correctly, it does not look as though many of them have been taking active steps to make sure they have got the equipment to be able to enforce. Is it a question of cost? Does this equipment cost a large sum of money?
Baroness Kramer
I do apologise. I am not being clear. Driving under the influence of drugs, even though it has not been specified, has long been an offence, as the noble Lord is aware, and the method for enforcement has been a blood test. That has been used by all forces over many years and remains in place, so they have that capacity. However, with the new list of specified drugs, many of them are now interested in alternative screening devices, particularly mobile devices, because that puts them in a position, as it were, to issue a fixed penalty on the spot. I think we will see that take-up, given the new opportunities for enforcement that are provided by forces up and down the country. But of course they always have the fallback of using the blood test, which has always been available to them and continues to be.
I hope that I have covered the range of issues. If I have not, I will gladly read through Hansard and provide a letter with more detail. I hope, on that basis, that your Lordships will feel that they can support this order.
Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, these draft regulations are being made to change the class of electrically assisted pedal cycles—EAPCs—that are not treated as motor vehicles when used on roads in Great Britain. The changes are intended to encourage the use of EAPCs to the benefit of both individuals and businesses.
The current regulations came into force in 1983. They set out the requirements that EAPCs must satisfy in order for them not to be treated as motor vehicles when used on roads. Compliant EAPCs are not subject to vehicle excise duty and do not need to be registered or insured. Riders are not required to hold a driving licence, although no one under 14 is allowed to ride one on roads. The requirements that have to be satisfied in order for EAPCs not to be treated as motor vehicles on roads relate to their weight, the maximum power of the motor and the speed at which electric assistance cuts off. The EAPC must be capable of being propelled solely by pedals, for example, in the event of a depleted battery or motor failure. However, in practice, it is our understanding that most users pedal their machines and that, for those where a separate throttle is fitted, the riders mix the power delivery between pedalling and the throttle control.
Since 1983, there have been significant improvements to technology, in particular in relation to power supply, where heavy lead-acid batteries have largely been superseded by lighter and more efficient lithium-ion batteries. Attitudes towards cycle use, both for consumers and businesses, have also been transformed with regard to congestion, operating costs, emissions and health. Finally, legislation and standards in Europe have changed. In 2013, a new EU framework regulation on the mandatory type approval of two or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles was not applied to a class of EAPCs. The current GB requirements are more restrictive, so it is right that we now make harmonising changes to provide a wider choice of products for individuals and businesses.
We began a review of the EAPC requirements in 2010, with an initial consultation on limited changes. Further views were received via the Government’s Red Tape Challenge Review in the following year. We then commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory to,
“gather, generate and expert-review evidence from a wide variety of sources (including Red Tape Challenge and the 2010 EAPC consultation responses) on the forces and pressures influencing pedal cycle construction, sale and use in Great Britain, and provide DfT with costed, practical and appropriate options for legislative change”.
The amending legislation now before the Committee is thus the culmination of careful and extensive consideration.
Three main changes are proposed. First, the maximum motor power for bicycles is to be increased from 200 watts to 250 watts. That matches the most popular EAPCs manufactured for the EU market and will alone significantly increase the choice of products available to our consumers. Secondly, we have decided to remove all the current weight limits for EAPCs—that is, the 40 kilogram limit for bicycles other than tandems or tricycles and the 60 kilogram limit for tandems and tricycles. Again, this matches the position elsewhere in Europe.
Concern has been particularly expressed by Transport for London and the Mayor of London regarding allowing EAPCs not treated as motor vehicles on the roads to be heavier, but we are satisfied that the change is largely self-limiting as a 250-watt motor is simply not going to provide enough power to move an unacceptably heavy load. We have no evidence from other European countries, where these vehicles have been in use for some time, to suggest that they pose safety risks. Our review of the current position has indicated that a realistic unladen weight for a cargo tricycle is between 125 kilograms and 150 kilograms, well above the current weight limit of 60 kilograms. The existing weight limit forces manufacturers to use parts and materials that are not suitable for commercial use. The removal of the limit could encourage the use of innovative design and allow a greater choice of construction materials. The third change is to allow vehicles with more than three wheels to be classified as EAPCs. There is not much evidence of demand for such vehicles at present, but we consider that harmonising with the European convention in this respect has the potential to stimulate demand, particularly for light urban delivery vehicles.
I previously mentioned the electric assist cut-off speed. We plan a harmonising change from 15 to 15.5 miles per hour. This is simply to align with the European standard of 25 kilometres per hour. However, unlike the EU, we will continue to include EAPCs— those that can be powered solely by the electric motor by virtue of a throttle or switch—of up to speeds of 15.5 mph in the category of EAPCs that are not treated as motor vehicles on roads. We believe that this is a distinct benefit to our disabled and elderly users. Finally, we are taking the opportunity to replace references to a withdrawn British standard on power measurement with the latest British and European equivalent and to recognise any other comparable European measurements.
Our impact assessment of the changes anticipates that they will stimulate significant growth in EAPC sales. That growth is forecast to deliver savings to consumers of between £92 million and £267 million over the next 10 years through car operating cost savings, health benefits, reduced congestion and wider impacts. Businesses are forecast to save between £5.8 million and £22.9 million through congestion savings, and goods delivery and van operational savings. The net annual benefit to businesses is estimated to be just over £0.6 million per year. Overall, the changes have been widely welcomed by the majority of the stakeholders and individuals who commented on the draft legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, while this might not be the greatest issue confronting Parliament, it is actually quite an important little change. A couple of years ago I did some research into these bikes. Indeed, I have just sent a note to the Minister’s civil servants to check on a particular kind of vehicle which I thought might have fallen within this designation, but I understand that that is not the case because it does not have pedals. During the course of her speech, the Minister said that bikes without pedals might, at some stage in the future, be the subject of an amendment to the law. I think I heard that correctly.
The bikes I am referring to do not have pedals and do not exceed 15.5 miles per hour, so they cannot go very fast. They do not need an MOT, nor do people need a licence or insurance for them. People do not need to use a helmet at the moment or pay road tax. There is very little difference between these bikes and the electrically assisted bikes or mopeds that are covered by the order before the Committee. To what extent will genuine consideration be made of these more advanced vehicles without pedals?
I would imagine that nationally there are a lot of bikes being held in stock that fall under the old regulations. I have seen these bikes in Tesco, where they cost around £450. I presume that a number of retailers must be holding stocks under the old regulations. Were they consulted and did they express a view on whether the implementation of this regulation should be delayed?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Before I start, I shall say that have a number of questions. They relate to the impact assessment and I suppose that being confronted by a 21-page impact assessment full of statements and figures constitutes a challenge. I am not expecting answers today to the questions, some of which are highly detailed, so there is no need for any frantic activity behind the Minister. I am more than willing to have a response subsequent to this meeting, if she would like to do it that way.
I also note with interest in the impact assessment the statement of fact that this measure seeks to increase the EAPC sales,
“by harmonising GB legal standards for EAPCs with European standards”.
In some parts of the House that kind of statement would be dynamite to those with a certain lack of enthusiasm for the EU. Perhaps that is why this item is being discussed at 10 minutes to six in the Moses Room, when attendance might be fairly limited, rather than in another environment that might have provoked a few more people to turn up. I make that comment somewhat facetiously, bearing in mind the commitment to harmonising with EU standards.
The Minister has set out that to be currently classified as an EAPC—an electrically assisted pedal cycle—in this country the vehicle has to comply with a number of requirements and has set out the changes. As she said, those requirements are that: the continuous rated power of the motor must not exceed 200 watts for standard bicycles and 250 watts for tandems and tricycles; the electrical assistance must cut off when the vehicle reaches 15 mph; and the unladen weight must not exceed 40 kilograms for standard bicycles and 60 kilograms for tandems and tricycles. The changes which this order makes to bring us into line with European standards are that: the maximum motor power for standard bikes is increased to 250 watts; the electronically assisted cut-off speed is amended to 15.5 mph; all the weight limits are removed; and vehicles with more than three wheels are permitted.
Although the impact assessment tells us that there will be an anticipated increase in bike sales by 7,850 units to 20,400 by 2024, it does not really explain which of the changes that will be made by this order will be driving this increase. Is it the increase from 15 to 15.5 mph, which does not appear significant? Is it the increase in the maximum motor power for standard bicycles from 200 to 250 watts? Is it—as I think my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours suggested—the removal of the weight limits? Or is it the change permitting vehicles with more than three wheels?
How many vehicles with more than three wheels do the Government anticipate will appear on our roads as a result of this order? If the weight limits are to be removed, could the Minister confirm that these are unladen weights, which is what I understand to be the position? I know the Minister addressed this point in her opening comments about not expecting anybody to go stupid over the weight limits because of the fact that the bike would not be able to move if it got above a certain weight, but is there any weight beyond which an EAPC—bicycle, tandem, tricycle or vehicle with more than three wheels—becomes potentially unsafe for the driver or for other road users? Or is the Government’s view that that level would be reached only in a situation where you could not actually pedal the bicycle, tandem or tricycle in any case and therefore it is an irrelevant consideration?
On safety, page 1 of the impact assessment states that the objective is “to simplify and reduce” legislation,
“whilst maintaining or improving safety standards”.
Can the Minister say a little more about how the order will actually improve safety standards?
The impact assessment also states on page 1 that,
“the most commonly produced EU bicycles cannot be used in the UK without road tax and a driving licence”.
Since the order will change that situation, could the Minister say what the impact of the order will be on the UK bicycle manufacturing industry, as opposed to the retail sector, when the most commonly used EU bicycles can be used in the UK without having to pay road tax or have a driving licence? My understanding is that the UK bicycle manufacturing sector is stated in the impact assessment to be valued at, I think, just over £50 million. It is very small in that sense. Is it not possible that this order and the changes it incorporates will be something of a blow to what is left of the UK bicycle manufacturing sector? Is that why the impact assessment does not address that issue, saying in paragraph 5.8 that it,
“concentrates solely on the benefits to the retail sector from increased sales of EAPCs”?
The impact assessment tells us on page 3, although the Explanatory Memorandum does not, that:
“The current GB Regulations define an EAPC”,
as including a requirement—which I think comes on to a point that my noble friend has been making—that:
“It must be fitted with pedals by means of which it is capable of being propelled”.
Could the Minister confirm that that requirement is not being deleted by the order we are discussing at the moment?
Page 5 of the impact assessment states, at paragraph 5.1, that as,
“no evidence has been provided or otherwise identified that suggests any significant quantifiable additional safety (accident/casualty) or other costs, the impact assessment assumes negligible costs”.
However, since the impact assessment holds out the prospect of a significant increase in EAPC sales, is it the contention that users of EAPCs are less likely—or no more likely—to suffer fatalities, or serious or slight injuries, than users of cars or trucks engaged in similar trips?
Paragraph 5.22 states:
“The accident benefits from reduced car use are ignored as any potential costs from increased accidents are not included in the earlier section for bikes”.
What is the evidence that these two figures would cancel each other out, as this would appear to be the justification for making that statement?
The order aligns the UK with the EU 250 watt maximum motor power limit. Does it also mean that in future in the UK, drivers of EAPC vehicles with engines of between 201 and 250 watts will no longer have to undertake compulsory basic training or wear helmets? If that is the case—I may well be wrong—will the Minister point out where in the documentation it says that, and what the impact would be on safety? Could she also say whether any people in this country currently drive EAPC vehicles of between 201 watts and 250 watts with the current regulations in force? What she has been saying is that the current regulations on the tax and driving licence act as a deterrent to anyone driving vehicles of between 201 watts and 250 watts.
In paragraph 5.2, the impact assessment refers to higher sales of EAPC bicycles having the potential to displace journeys by bus. I do not want to exaggerate this because I appreciate that we are talking about relatively small numbers, but is there any significant estimated impact of this on bus revenue, or is it deemed to be so negligible as to be—I say this in the best spirit—not worth bothering about? If there is going to be this transfer from bus travel to bike travel, how will that contribute to the declared objective set out in the impact assessment, to which I have already referred, of,
“maintaining or improving safety standards”?
I will not raise the next issue regarding a gap in the wording of the impact assessment. I will forget that for the moment.
Paragraph 5.7 of the impact assessment states that the direct benefits to business are assumed to be,
“increased profits from increased bike sales”.
Is that a net figure that also reflects any adverse impact on car or van sales, since the documentation clearly envisages a transfer of journeys from car, van and, indeed, bus as a result of this order?
If I read it correctly, the impact assessment claims benefits from the order of between £97 million and £290 million over a 10-year period to 2024. Having a gap of nearly £200 million from benefits that, at a maximum, are less than £300 million does not, frankly, inspire confidence in the likely impact of this order.
The impact assessment on page 2 states that benefits to the cycling industry from increased bike sales are,
“likely to be displaced by reduced expenditure in other retail sectors”.
Is it the Government’s view that one will cancel out the other—and, if so, what is the evidence for that?
Paragraph 5.16 on page 9 of the impact assessment states, in respect of EAPCs:
“Evidence from online appraisal of lifecycle benefits typically provide estimates of life expectancy of 15,000 miles, equivalent to just over 6 years’ use”.
That works out at some 2,500 miles per year. Paragraph 5.19 on page 10 of the impact assessment states that,
“this impact assessment assumes EAPC users cycle 2,392 kms per year”.
That is considerably less than the 2,500 miles per year figure quoted in paragraph 5.16 of the impact assessment. Why are the figures so different—unless they are not comparable, which may well be the case? But if they are not comparable—if I am not comparing like with like—perhaps I may have a response, albeit at some later stage, on what different considerations they are reflecting.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have been listening very carefully to my noble friend’s comments. There is a danger that the targets will not be met, although if electrically powered bicycles without pedals which fit the same criteria about kilogram limits and miles per hour are included, they will be far exceeded. We are missing an opportunity, if I have understood it correctly. If it is simply bicycles with pedals, that is going to limit the market very much. I suspect that those who have been responding to the impact assessment may well have had in mind the kind of electrically assisted vehicles to which I am referring.
Lord Rosser
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. One of the questions I raised earlier was whether there is still a requirement for pedals or whether it has been removed, which is part of the point that my noble friend has made. I think that is probably the situation, but I am asking for confirmation that it is still there.
My final point—I am sure to everybody’s great relief—is that the net present value of business benefits reflected here, which I assume means increased bike sales, is quoted in paragraph 5.14 of the impact assessment as being £2.7 million to £10.3 million over the period 2015-24, but in paragraph 5.26 of the same document as being £2.6 million to £10 million. Is that simply a case of slightly different figures being quoted or am I not comparing like with like? If I am not comparing like with like, what are the different factors taken into account in the two sets of figures? Can the Minister say whether the net present value of business benefits are in addition to or included in the overall widely different benefit figures of £97 million and £290 million? I assume that they are in addition to them, but I would be grateful for confirmation.
I have raised a number of questions which arise from, frankly, basically one read of the impact assessment. I am afraid I could not face going through it again, and if I had gone through it again I might well have found the answers to some of the questions that I have raised. I do not want anybody to take that as a derogatory comment about the impact assessment. It contains some very interesting statistics and information, and I appreciate having received it. I would not wish my comments to be taken as a hostile reaction to it.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, did not read the impact assessment another two or three times because I suspect he would have come forward with other questions and queries. I will make sure that those who prepared the impact assessment are told of his compliments, if I may take them that way, on the detail that has been provided.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and partly to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I think the vehicle the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, described is classified as a low-powered moped and that it would be sensible to have a conversation after this Committee to understand exactly what kind of non-pedal bike he is talking about.
Lord Campbell-Savours
They are vehicles which at the moment carry a limit of a 200-watt motor and cannot exceed 40 kilograms.
Baroness Kramer
I think we will have to investigate that because the noble Lord deserves a more detailed response. These regulations apply to vehicles which must have a pedalling capacity, so that continues in place. Only those kinds of vehicles are covered by these regulations. I will look at the regimes for the other vehicles the noble Lord has described.
I will just try to address some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, although he has kindly said that we could respond in writing. Particularly when comparative numbers are involved, that will be a wise approach, but I shall make some more general comments around the questions he raised. For example, he asked where the benefits for this would come from and whether it was because of a particular aspect of the change in regulation. The argument as I understand it—it makes sense to me—is that it is the harmonisation which creates the change because it means that suddenly people in the UK are able to access the much wider range of models available in continental Europe but which have not been available here because, under the British classification, they would have required registration, taxation, insurance, licensing and so on. A much greater range of models will suddenly become available.
He asked whether that could have an impact on UK bicycle manufacturers. I would argue that for them one of the most hampering experiences has been the need to produce one bike for the British market and another model to compete effectively in the European market. With harmonisation, they can now look at a model that reaches the entire population of the EU, which should change the dynamic significantly. Having a single market, as it were, for electrically assisted pedal cycles creates an opportunity for UK manufacturers to focus not just on the domestic market alone but on a far broader market. That is potentially a very significant opportunity for them.
Lord Rosser
I appreciate that one can look at the issue as the Minister has done, but the other obvious point is that we can now have bicycles in this country that we could not have before, and they are being manufactured big time within Europe and presumably not being manufactured on any great scale by the bicycle manufacturing industry in this country. Therefore, we are likely to be dominated by bicycles manufactured in Europe. But I appreciate that one can look at it the other way, as the Minister is doing, and say that it is an opportunity for the bicycle manufacturing industry in this country to start to manufacture these bicycles and sell them. She said that the great majority of those who responded welcomed the change. Was there any response from the UK bicycle manufacturing industry and was it quite happy with what is happening?
Baroness Kramer
I would be glad to see whether there is anything that we can share that comes from those manufacturers. I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord an answer at this moment in time. I am sure that he would not want to see a protectionist approach to an industry. Typically, the UK has thrived from a much more open trading environment rather than a protectionist environment, and I see no reason why that should not be true in this industry as well as any other.
The noble Lord asked about four-wheeled vehicles, which now come within scope provided that they meet all the other criteria. Royal Mail in the past, as well as others, have seen this as a potential mechanism for last-mile delivery, rather than sending around white van man on all occasions. So there is potential in this area that so far we have been unable to test because these vehicles have not been available to people. It is an area that we will be watching with great interest.
The noble Lord asked about safety. Perhaps I can at the same time address the weight issues. The noble Lord said that the fact that the power of the engine is limited constrains the weight of the vehicle—but with a weight constraint there is a constant intention to try to lightweight the vehicles to get them under the barrier. Removing the weight restriction gives an ability to consider a sturdier construction and a more appropriate one for those vehicles that carry goods, albeit in relatively small amounts—otherwise one would never be able to move them. We see removing the weight restriction as a safety measure, because in effect it prevents the gaming of that particular standard, which we do not think has anything much to add.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to come back on the question of pedals. Is any work being done on whether we can change the regulations to include vehicles without pedals subject to exactly the same limits as the ones with pedals? That would be of great interest to the industry—because if we could develop that, we would have a winner.
Baroness Kramer
I do not know. This is not an area on which I have direct policy responsibility, so I do not know of any work that is happening. I would be glad to share with the noble Lord any particular work that is being done. On the other hand, the department is always looking at technology. At times we have looked at things such as Segways, and there is constant discussion about mobility scooters, so there is a constant lookout for different technologies to see whether they require an adjustment in regulation. But at this moment I know of nothing.
Under EU law, this regime could not apply to vehicles without pedals. I am not aware of what other regimes could be available. We will write to the noble Lord if there is anything happening that would help flush out some of the issues he has raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, continued the discussion about three-wheeled and four-wheeled vehicles and whether there are particular safety risks around them or around changing the regulations. We have a lot of continental European experience to look at, and after reviewing that information there is nothing to indicate that there is any particular safety risk associated with changing these parameters. Relatively few four-wheeled vehicles are sold, and most tricycles that are sold are towards the heavier end of the permitted range and are quite difficult to manoeuvre—but nothing has indicated to us that there are any particular safety risks.
I hope that I have covered most of the questions. There were quite a number of very specific questions and I will be glad to follow up on them. I sense a general understanding that this is a sensible measure for us to support. I hope that the Committee will support the Motion.
House of Lords
National Curriculum: Animal Welfare
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any proposals to include animal welfare in the national curriculum in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, the new primary science curriculum, introduced from September 2014, focuses on the essential scientific knowledge that young people need to be educated citizens. It teaches primary pupils about the requirements for animals to survive: appropriate habitat, food, water and air. Subjects such as citizenship and PSHE also provide opportunities for pupils to learn about animal welfare, and teachers are free to decide what further activities they offer on this subject.
Lord Hoyle (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that positive reply. As he says, it is important for young people to know about animals—not only domestic animals or farm animals, but wild animals and the environment. Is he aware that the RSPCA did a survey in 2014 of 800 teachers, 95% of whom thought that it ought to be taught to young people? Indeed, 83% thought it ought to be part of the national curriculum.
Lord Nash
I am aware of the survey to which the noble Lord refers, and I know that the RSPCA teaches around 4,000 teachers about this every year. We feel that it is very helpful for young people to learn about animal welfare in the national curriculum, but we do not think it is right to include it, certainly not at this stage. We have a long way to go to make sure that the majority of pupils in this country have an education in core academic subjects first.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
This year the Government are reviewing their codes on how to care for dogs, cats and horses. Does my noble friend agree that it is important that children are made aware of those new codes? If so, will the Government be offering any advice about their inclusion in school timetables?
Lord Nash
As I said, I agree entirely that animal welfare is an important subject for pupils to learn about, but we have to recognise the low base from which we are starting education in this country. When we came to power, fewer than one in five pupils attending a comprehensive school was getting that core suite of academic subjects that would be a basic expectation in many countries, and certainly in any private school. We have recovered substantially from that position: now nearly 40% get that core suite, but the Question underestimates the low base from which we are starting.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister commend those organisations that take the trouble to take animals, particularly dogs, into care establishments and schools for children with learning disabilities? It has been shown that those youngsters improve their behaviour on encountering animals. Maybe this is one area where we could increase attendance.
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. Organisations such as Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Blue Cross, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and PDSA do excellent work. I am sure she will be interested to know that, under the Government’s successful free school programme, we will have the Milton Keynes special free school opening next year. It will be a 70-place alternative provision primary school for pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. It will incorporate a forest approach. They will keep chickens and will be taught by an experienced poultry keeper.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that hunting with dogs is a cruel and unnecessary sport? If so, how would he explain to young people in schools that the Tory party is threatening to repeal the hunting ban?
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that when topics such as the use of animals in scientific experiments are dealt with in schools they should be dealt with in a balanced way, and that children should be able, as he has just said, to balance the various arguments on different sides?
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it is slightly unfortunate that he chose to use this really quite innocuous Question to make a very crude party-political point? Would he also accept that, in doing so, he undermines the morale of teachers who have been working in the system for very many years and doing the very best they can, sometimes in quite difficult circumstances? Would he further he accept that the best primary schools have animals for the children to look after and that is how they learn about animal welfare?
Lord Nash
As I think the noble Baroness has heard me say on a number of occasions, I regard teaching as the most noble of professions. It is certainly the most important profession at this time as far as the future of this country is concerned. But I think we just have to get real. Under the previous Government, the number of pupils getting a core suite of academic subjects in education slumped. We are recovering from that position, but until we start loading up the curriculum with extras on a compulsory basis we have to recover educationally to provide our pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with that core cultural literacy that they need.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister gave a rather strange reply to an earlier question on the Hunting Act: that, somehow or other, properly educated pupils will be able to make up their own minds on the subject. It is not a question of making up one’s own mind on the subject. When a law of the land has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, the assumption is that people will obey it. I hope that he thoroughly agrees with that in relation to the Hunting Act.
Gurkhas
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boothroyd
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Gurkha battalions and to acknowledge their service to the United Kingdom and their relationship with the British people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, this year we mark the bicentenary of Gurkha service to the British Crown. Gurkhas hold a special place in the hearts of the British people and we will be celebrating our close and enduring relationship. The Brigade of Gurkhas will be holding many events over the year, including a parade and a memorial service in Whitehall in April, and Gurkha units will conduct public duties in London during May.
Baroness Boothroyd (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the 200th anniversary of Gurkha service to this country provides an opportunity to mark the unique relationship forged in battle across the world by the Gurkha soldier and his British comrade? Is not the bicentenary of the Gurkha Brigade a reminder to us all that religious differences and diverse ethnic origins are no barrier to shared values and lasting friendships?
Lord Astor of Hever
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness and I pay tribute to her work as an ambassador for the Gurkha Welfare Trust. Gurkhas within the British Army are proof that different religious and ethnic groups can work together in defence of a set of common values based on the mutual trust and respect that has grown over the last 200 years and I am immensely proud to have served alongside Gurkhas in Malaysia and Hong Kong.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We on this side also recognise the unique contribution made by the Gurkhas over the last 200 years. Do the Government agree that the best way to mark the 200th anniversary would be to ensure a clear and continuing role for the Gurkhas in Army 2020? Can the Minister say whether that is the Government’s objective and what that role might be?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, of course we are very keen on a proper role for the Gurkhas, and we feel that they have a proper role at the moment.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that when we were conducting the Options for Change exercise and there was great competition among infantry regiments as to which should continue and which should disband, there was a suggestion that the Gurkhas should be stood down? Does my noble friend agree that one of the best decisions we took was not to listen to that advice and to ensure that the Gurkhas continued their service? Is not all the evidence that has emerged since from Afghanistan, Iraq and the various fields of activity in which the Gurkhas have been involved further tribute to the wonderful way in which they have served this nation over so many years?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I think it was Prince Harry, who served alongside the Gurkhas in Afghanistan, who put it very well. He said that there was no safer place than by the side of a Gurkha.
Lord Burnett (LD)
My Lords, the Gurkhas have served our country with the greatest loyalty and bravery. I had the honour to serve, only for a few weeks, with the 2nd Goorkha Rifles. They spelt their name a different way from the other regiments and they were known as God’s own Gurkhas. They were, as always, fantastic fighting men and I hope my noble friend will agree that we owe the Gurkhas a debt of honour which we can never repay.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. The Ministry of Defence is marking the celebration of 200 years of Gurkha service with a series of events in the UK and abroad.
Lord Howe of Aberavon (Con)
I endorse absolutely the decision of the Government in this respect. Will my noble friend take account of the fact that on my visit to Pakistan about 25 years ago—the first visit from a Secretary of State of this country—I was welcomed by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan who told me that I should be able to find that country peopled with the noble ghosts of Britain’s past.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, that is a very interesting bit of information from my noble and learned friend. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Slim, is not here; he served in the Indian Army and was on parade during the time of partition.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I agree with all that has been said about the valour of the Gurkhas, but can my noble friend the Minister answer a question that is put by many people? Many veteran Gurkhas who have retired to this country live in poverty and receive only one-third of the standard pension of military pensioners. Have Her Majesty’s Government considered how, in the 200-year celebrations and commemorations, we should treat these valiant men? It should not be by paying them a pittance so that they need to go to food banks.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, Gurkhas of working age who have been discharged since the 1990s and who are resident in the UK have integrated well and contribute to society. On the question of pensions, since 1 April 2007, any Gurkha joining the British Army receives the same pay and pension benefits as their counterparts in the wider Army. Gurkhas serve on the same basis as the remainder of the Army, with some very small exceptions designed to satisfy the Government of Nepal.
Baroness Heyhoe Flint (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may be wondering why I am involved with the Gurkhas but does he have any plans to involve Joanna Lumley in the activities? She did a magnificent job with her Gurkha Justice Campaign, which was ably funded and supported by a person for whom I worked for 45 years, Sir Jack Hayward, who, sadly, died in January. I am sure that her involvement would be greatly appreciated by all Gurkhas and would be a tribute to the memory of Sir Jack Hayward.
Lord Astor of Hever
I have listened very carefully to what my noble friend has said but I do not have any plans to meet Joanna Lumley.
Yarl’s Wood
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what requirements were set in the contract for Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre recently reawarded to Serco regarding the dignity and privacy of women detained there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, contracts for the operation of immigration removal centres require service providers to comply with the Detention Centre Rules 2001. This is in addition to the contracts’ operational specifications, which contain measures to ensure the dignity and privacy of women.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. In June last year Yarl’s Wood was the subject of 31 allegations of sexual misconduct. Those were investigated and a number of staff were dismissed. None the less, in November the Serco contract for Yarl’s Wood was extended for eight years. However, the harassment goes on. The January report by Women for Refugee Women documented inappropriate behaviour by male staff towards female inmates—themselves already the victims of sexual abuse. Can the Minister tell us when innocent women who have committed no crimes can expect to be treated with respect?
Lord Bates
I think that the answer to the noble Baroness is: right now. I believe that the standards provided by Serco, the current operators of the scheme, are of a very high level. Yarl’s Wood was inspected by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and he found it to be a safe and secure place. In addition, there is an independent monitoring board. Just two weeks ago, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set up a special review of all immigration removal centres to ensure that they are of the highest standard. I read the report by Women for Refugee Women very carefully and the most critical point was that it was felt that women’s privacy was invaded and that there were insufficient female staff. One of the key elements in the contract offered was that the proportion of female staff should increase. The proportion is going up from 42% to 60%, and that is a step in the right direction.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend may have read the report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission about deaths in custody, published only recently. Does he accept that the organisations and institutions do not deliver the standards outlined and recommended in the EHRC report and that they are therefore at risk of being in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights? In the light of that, does he accept that it is time for HM Inspectorate of Prisons to carry out a thematic review of how these standards are being observed at the Yarl’s Wood centre?
Lord Bates
Her Majesty’s inspectorate’s last visit was in June 2013. These are not planned visits; they are meant to be surprise visits to try to get an accurate picture of what is going on. They are meant to happen every two years, so we are expecting one fairly soon. Following the very serious allegations, some members of staff were suspended, and Bedfordshire Police is undertaking criminal investigations in that respect. The inspectorate returned to Yarl’s Wood to undertake 50 further interviews to make sure that its conclusion that it was a safe and respectful place could be upheld.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I have visited Yarl’s Wood in recent years. Can the Minister confirm that no pregnant women are held there now? Will he agree that many detainees feel very cut off there and do not know when they will be released? Can he tell the House how many suicides or serious attempts at self-harm there have been in the past two years?
Lord Bates
At Yarl’s Wood, in the past two years, the answer is, fortunately, none. These are very vulnerable people; we accept that totally. The noble Lord asked about pregnant women in particular. There is a limit which says that no women past the 24th week of pregnancy can be held or put into the detention fast track. The point is that they should be in Yarl’s Wood only for a very short time. They are people who are identified for quick return and their stays should be no more than a few weeks.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Secretary of State’s review of the welfare of detainees, but I am anxious to know whether it will include a review of whether the decision-making is to the appropriate standards. The evidence shows that victims of abuse in these centres feel greatly traumatised by the very fact of detention. Surely the reviewer should be encouraged to meet ex-detainees as present detainees might be reluctant to speak of some of the things that have happened to them. Would it not also be good if he met members of organisations that work closely with traumatised victims who have been detained—organisations such as the Helen Bamber Foundation, which deals with victims of torture; Freedom from Torture, and Women for Refugee Women? Will the reviewer meet those people, and will he review the very decision-making as to whether people should be detained at all?
Lord Bates
It is, obviously, set up as an independent review, so it will be for Stephen Shaw to do that. However, as he is a former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman I would expect that his attention will be drawn not only to the current detainees but to former detainees and also to those excellent charitable organisations. To the list of excellent charitable organisations that the noble Baroness mentioned I would add Hibiscus, particularly at Yarl’s Wood. It does an outstanding job of providing humane care, advice and friendship to people in that situation.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, over the past two years Yarl’s Wood has developed a reputation, and not a very good one, for the way that it treats women in the centre. Can the Minister say a bit more about whether the number of girls under the age of 18 being detained there has gone down? The Minister rightly said that people should not be held there for great lengths of time. Can he tell us what the average length of stay is now?
Lord Bates
Certainly; the latest statistic we have is that 92% of people are held for less than six months, and about 48% for less than 42 days. We want that to come down because, as I say, this is used very much as a last resort. In relation to children, as a result of action taken in your Lordships’ House children are, fortunately, no longer detained in immigration removal centres, and that is a good thing.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, in view of the concerns expressed only last Friday by the Joint Committee on Human Rights about women and girls who claim to have been victims of violence and are detained at Yarl’s Wood under the fast-track process, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have any plans for a screening process for people in that position?
Lord Bates
This is subject to a very careful screening process, and the decision to send someone to Yarl’s Wood is not taken lightly. There are medical reviews by a GP and reports are provided to the caseworkers before any decision is made. The point is that these are people who have overstayed their stay, their asylum immigration applications have been denied and, therefore, they are about to be deported imminently. That is the reason they are there. However, that does not mean that they should be treated with anything less than the highest standards of dignity and respect.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the review that has been announced is very welcome, as is what the Minister has said, but the terms of reference of the review do not explicitly include women generally; they refer just to pregnant women. The Minister himself has said that all the women about whom we have heard evidence from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, are vulnerable. Will he now confirm that the review will look explicitly at the treatment of women, many of whom have fled gender-related violence in their home countries?
Lord Bates
I would have thought that the noble Baroness might welcome the fact that the Shaw review will range much wider. Of the 30,000 people who are held in detention, around 80% are male, and it is important that their needs are reviewed as well. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness’s observation will be fed back to the review.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that there is no concern at all about any of the detention centres that we have in the UK, or is there any detention centre that is really causing a worry at the moment?
Lord Bates
How do we define “worry at the present time”? We have rigorous systems of independent monitoring boards at every single centre. They consist of 12 independent people. We have the inspectorate carrying out its review. We have the independent review that we announced. We are happy that the places are safe and secure, but we are not complacent. These are vulnerable people and need to be protected.
Armed Forces: Baltic Defence
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the ability of the United Kingdom’s armed forces to participate fully in any NATO-led Baltic defence operations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, NATO remains the cornerstone of UK defence. We are committed to Article 5 as a fundamental principle at the heart of NATO. An attack on one is an attack against all. We maintain a range of forces at the required readiness and standard and would respond to any NATO request to defend the Baltic states against external aggression. The level of our participation would depend on what requests NATO made of us.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, there is a saying that it is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism if the wolf is of another opinion. Is my noble friend not ashamed and embarrassed that, with clear Russian aggression in the Ukraine and major increases in Russian defence expenditure, all our major political leaders, ostrich-like, totally fail to spell out their respective positions on the levels of overall defence expenditure? Do we not need a clear commitment to maintain a 2% of GDP spend on defence and, indeed, probably more? Can my noble friend tell us why the Chief of the Defence Staff was gagged yesterday from speaking at Chatham House?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we have met the NATO target since coming to office and will do so to the end of financial year 2016. NATO membership means equitable sharing of risks and responsibilities, so it is a case of comparing Russia not to the UK but to NATO, which spends 10 times more on defence than Russia. On my noble friend’s second question, the Defence Secretary decided that the Procurement Minister should speak, given the conference’s focus on relations between industry and government.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, four destroyers and frigates were lost in the Falklands; eight were very badly damaged. That is 12 destroyers and frigates. Today, if we lost 12 ships, we would have seven destroyers and frigates protecting this great maritime nation. Our defence forces have been cut too far. Will the Minister pass on to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister the message that, bearing in mind the world situation, with chaos in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia and Ukraine, and risk of growing tension with Russia, we need to spend more money on defence and must not have a block to proper discussion of defence in the lead-up to this election?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, sufficient defence spending is particularly required in light of recent events. We need to be able to deal with multiple challenges and undertake a range of operations across the military spectrum, as well as maintain our standing commitments. This Government have consistently committed to spending 2% of GDP on defence and 20% on equipment, and, along with the US, we have been one of only two allies that currently meet the NATO guidelines.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
In their present mood, the Russians are likely to be using a whole variety of hybrid and cyber forms of warfare, as they have in the recent past in the Baltic area. Are we fully prepared to meet that?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, NATO is working to tackle the challenge of hybrid attacks. There is little new in the tactics and techniques of hybrid warfare, such as subversion and the use of proxy forces, but the scale of sophistication of Russian activities, combined with the use of new instruments such as cyber, presents a new challenge and we are doing our best to get on top of it.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
What assessment is being made by the British Government and Ministers of the impact on Russian public opinion of provocative NATO exercises on the border with Russia?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we are well aware of the very good point made by the noble Lord.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the information given by my noble friend the Minister is to some extent reassuring, but perhaps it might be more reassuring if there were two aircraft carriers actually in service and if F-35B assault aircraft were actually working on those aircraft carriers. Will the Minister tell us what message we send out to our enemies, to whom we might seem somewhat unprepared?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we are not unprepared. Our equipment programme represents a substantial investment: some £163 billion over 10 years on equipment and equipment support, ensuring that our Armed Forces retain a formidable range of cutting-edge capabilities, and the ability to project power across the globe, hence aircraft carriers. This investment is not only securing the best possible military capability; it is also helping to secure UK jobs and growth.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is in this House quite a mood of concern about the level of defence expenditure? We have also seen the concern expressed in the media. We are aware that there is a Bill currently going through your Lordships’ House to place 0.7% of GDP into the international development budget by law. Would the Minister consider a government amendment to that Bill, or an addition to that Bill, to link that to 2% of GDP for defence spending?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I note the concern, but the defence budget this year is £33.8 billion. We have the second largest defence budget in the alliance—behind the US—and certainly the largest in the European Union. The UK remains a global power, making the second biggest contribution to the campaign against ISIL and sending 750 military personnel into Sierra Leone to help fight Ebola.
Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Bill
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lords object, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Consumer Rights Bill
“Secondary ticketing platforms
Secondary ticketing platforms: seller profiles and ticket information
(1) Secondary ticketing operators must, on the website on which tickets are offered for sale or transfer, provide information concerning the sellers of tickets so that sellers may be easily identified.(2) Information provided by virtue of subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—(a) the name of the seller;(b) if the seller is an undertaking, its registered number, jurisdiction of registration, registered office address, and if registered outside the United Kingdom, a valid address for service; and(c) the VAT registration number of the seller, if applicable.(3) Information provided under subsection (1) must be—(a) accurate; and(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to complete the purchase of the ticket.(4) Secondary ticketing operators must disclose clearly and prominently where the seller of a ticket is—(a) the secondary ticketing platform or a subsidiary undertaking or parent undertaking of the secondary ticketing platform;(b) a person or persons employed or engaged by the secondary ticketing platform;(c) other persons connected to employees, directors or shareholders of the secondary ticketing platform, or any of its subsidiary undertakings or parent undertakings;(d) the event organiser or an agent acting on its behalf;(e) any other party connected to the organisation of the event.(5) Where a ticket is offered for sale or transfer through a secondary ticketing platform—(a) the seller must provide all relevant information about the ticket;(b) the secondary ticketing operator must publish all relevant information about a ticket in a prominent and clear manner; and(c) the secondary ticket operator must immediately remove the ticket from sale when it is informed by the event organiser that the information provided is inaccurate or incomplete.(6) Information to be provided by the seller and published by the secondary ticketing operator for the purposes of subsection (1) must include, without limitation—(a) the face value of the ticket;(b) any age or other restrictions on the user of the ticket;(c) the designated location of the ticket including the stand, the block, the row and the seat number of the ticket, where applicable; and(d) the ticket booking identification or reference number.(7) Where tickets are being resold in contravention of the terms and conditions agreed to by the original purchaser, this must be stated prominently by the secondary ticketing platform at every stage of the purchasing process.(8) Information provided by virtue of this section must be— (a) accurate; and(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to complete the purchase of that ticket.(9) For the purposes of this section—“secondary ticketing platform” means an internet-based facility for the resale of tickets to events in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the owner of the service is registered;“secondary ticketing operator” means, in relation to a secondary ticketing platform, the person (whether incorporated or not) operating that secondary ticketing platform;“ticket” means anything which purports to be a ticket, including any item, tangible or intangible, which grants the holder the right to entry to an event;“event” means any sporting, music or cultural activity taking place at a specified time and place for which tickets are issued and required for entry or attendance;“event organiser” means the person responsible for organising and holding an event and receiving the revenue from the event;the term “undertaking” has the meanings given in section 1161 of the Companies Act 2006 (meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions);the terms “subsidiary undertaking” and “parent undertaking” have the meanings given in section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006 (parent and subsidiary undertakings);the term “person” refers to a natural person or a body corporate.(10) This section will come into force no later than six months after this Act is passed.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A, but do propose Amendments 12B to 12H in lieu—
“CHAPTER 3B
SECONDARY TICKETING
Duty to report criminal activity
(1) This section applies where—
(a) an operator of a secondary ticketing facility knows that a person has used or is using the facility in such a way that an offence has been or is being committed, and
(b) the offence relates to the re-sale of a ticket for a recreational, sporting or cultural event in the United Kingdom.
(2) The operator must, as soon as the operator becomes aware that a person has used or is using the facility as mentioned in subsection (1), disclose the matters specified in subsection (3) to—
(a) an appropriate person, and
(b) an organiser of the event (subject to subsection (5)).
(3) Those matters are—
(a) the identity of the person mentioned in subsection (1), if this is known to the operator, and
(b) the fact that the operator knows that an offence has been or is being committed as mentioned in that subsection.
(4) The following are appropriate persons for the purposes of this section—
(a) a constable of a police force in England and Wales,
(b) a constable of the police service of Scotland, and
(c) a police officer within the meaning of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
(5) This section does not require an operator to make a disclosure to an organiser of an event if the operator has reasonable grounds for believing that to do so will prejudice the investigation of any offence.
(6) References in this section to an offence are to an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.
(7) This section applies only in relation to an offence of which an operator becomes aware after the coming into force of this section.”
“Enforcement of section (Duty to report criminal activity)
(1) A local weights and measures authority in Great Britain may enforce the provisions of section (Duty to report criminal activity) in its area.(2) The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may enforce the provisions of section (Duty to report criminal activity) in Northern Ireland.(3) Each of the bodies referred to in subsections (1) and (2) is an “enforcement authority” for the purposes of this Chapter.(4) Where an enforcement authority is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a person has breached the duty in section (Duty to report criminal activity), the authority may impose a financial penalty on the person in respect of that breach.(5) A local weights and measures authority in England and Wales may impose a penalty under this section in respect of a breach which occurs in England and Wales but outside that authority’s area (as well as in respect of a breach which occurs within that area).(6) A local weights and measures authority in Scotland may impose a penalty under this section in respect of a breach which occurs in Scotland but outside that authority’s area (as well as in respect of a breach which occurs within that area).(7) Only one penalty under this section may be imposed on the same person in respect of the same breach.(8) The amount of a financial penalty imposed under this section—(a) may be such as the enforcement authority imposing it determines, but(b) must not exceed £5,000.(9) Schedule (Secondary ticketing: financial penalties) (procedure for and appeals against financial penalties) has effect.”
“Duty to review measures relating to secondary ticketing
(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) review, or arrange for a review of, consumer protection measures applying to the re-sale of tickets for recreational, sporting or cultural events in the United Kingdom through secondary ticketing facilities,(b) prepare a report on the outcome of the review or arrange for such a report to be prepared, and(c) publish that report.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force. (3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament.(4) In this section “consumer protection measures” includes such legislation, rules of law, codes of practice and guidance as the Secretary of State considers relate to the rights of consumers or the protection of their interests.”
“Interpretation of this Chapter
(1) In this Chapter—“enforcement authority” has the meaning given by section (Enforcement of section (Duty to report criminal activity))(3);“operator”, in relation to a secondary ticketing facility, means a person who—(a) exercises control over the operation of the facility, and(b) receives revenue from the facility,but this is subject to regulations under subsection (2);
“organiser”, in relation to an event, means a person who—(a) is responsible for organising or managing the event, or(b) receives some or all of the revenue from the event; “secondary ticketing facility” means an internet-based facility for the re-sale of tickets for recreational, sporting or cultural events.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a person of a description specified in the regulations is or is not to be treated for the purposes of section (Duty to report criminal activity) as an operator in relation to a secondary ticketing facility.(3) Regulations under subsection (2)—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;(b) may make different provision for different purposes;(c) may include incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
“(1C) Chapter 3B of this Part comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
“section (Enforcement of section (Duty to report criminal activity))(1) or (2) of this Act.”
“SECONDARY TICKETING: FINANCIAL PENALTIES
Notice of intent1 (1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person for a breach of the duty imposed by section (Duty to report criminal activity), an enforcement authority must serve a notice on the person of its proposal to do so (a “notice of intent”).
(2) The notice of intent must be served before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence of the person’s breach, subject to sub-paragraph (3).
(3) If the person is in breach of the duty on that day, and the breach continues beyond the end of that day, the notice of intent may be served—
(a) at any time when the breach is continuing, or
(b) within the period of 6 months beginning with the last day on which the breach occurs.
(4) The notice of intent must set out—
(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,
(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the penalty, and
(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 2.
Right to make representations2 A person on whom a notice of intent is served may, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was sent, make written representations to the enforcement authority about the proposal to impose a financial penalty on the person.
Final notice3 (1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 2 the enforcement authority must—
(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and
(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.
(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must serve a notice on the person (a “final notice”) imposing that penalty.
(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was sent.
(4) The final notice must set out—
(a) the amount of the financial penalty,
(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,
(c) information about how to pay the penalty,
(d) the period for payment of the penalty,
(e) information about rights of appeal, and
(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.
Withdrawal or amendment of notice4 (1) The enforcement authority may at any time—
(a) withdraw a notice of intent or final notice, or
(b) reduce the amount specified in a notice of intent or final notice.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice in writing to the person on whom the notice was served.
Appeals5 (1) A person on whom a final notice is served may appeal against that notice—
(a) in England and Wales and Scotland, to the First-tier Tribunal;
(b) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.
(2) The grounds for an appeal under this paragraph are that—
(a) the decision to impose a financial penalty was based on an error of fact,
(b) the decision was wrong in law,
(c) the amount of the financial penalty is unreasonable, or
(d) the decision was unreasonable for any other reason.
(3) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn.
(4) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or the court may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.
(5) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (4) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of more than £5,000.
Recovery of financial penalty6 (1) This paragraph applies if a person does not pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which, in accordance with this Schedule, the person is liable to pay.
(2) In England and Wales the local weights and measures authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(3) In Scotland the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
(4) In Northern Ireland the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may recover the penalty or part on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(5) In proceedings before the court for the recovery of a financial penalty or part of a financial penalty, a certificate which is—
(a) signed by the chief finance officer of the local weights and measures authority which imposed the penalty or (as the case may be) issued by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and
(b) states that the amount due has not been received by a date specified in the certificate,
is conclusive evidence of that fact.
(6) A certificate to that effect and purporting to be so signed or issued is to be treated as being so signed or issued unless the contrary is proved.
(7) A local weights and measures authority may use the proceeds of a financial penalty for the purposes of any of its functions (whether or not the function is expressed to be a function of a local weights and measures authority).
(8) In this paragraph “chief finance officer” has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, we are coming to the final stages of the Consumer Rights Bill—an important reform of consumer law. I am looking forward to it receiving Royal Assent so that consumers have new, simplified rights when they buy goods, services or digital content and businesses can plan with certainty for the legislation to come into force.
The one remaining issue to resolve is the proposals for the secondary ticketing market. I would like to start by thanking those who have engaged in a really constructive dialogue with us over the past few weeks: the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and his team, other noble Lords, clerks of the House and the long-suffering departmental teams, both ministerial and official. It has been a long two months since we last debated the issue and I thought it would be helpful to give a summary of the issue and the Government’s proposals. Before I start, it may be helpful to make clear to noble Lords that I intend to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to facilitate the smooth passage of this important Bill.
The amendment to the Bill made by noble Lords at Report stage demonstrated the House’s concern about some aspects of the online secondary ticketing market. A range of issues were raised. The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Grade, and others drew our attention to the level of fraud in the market, which was suggested by the National Fraud Authority to be £1.5 billion per year. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and other noble Lords gave heart-wrenching examples of fans arriving at a venue looking forward to a wonderful evening only to be turned away because they had bought counterfeit tickets. They argued that the current rules in place to protect consumers were not effective enough.
The noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Deben, and others had done their own research into tickets available on the secondary market and expressed concern about the lack of transparency. The noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Moynihan, and others were concerned that alleged profiteering might be taking funding away from sports or cultural activity and reducing opportunities for genuine fans who could not afford high prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, have been especially keen to resolve this issue as part of the Consumer Rights Bill, in order to allow fans to access events and have similar protection to that used for the London 2012 Olympics.
Of course, many of those who spoke, including the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Borwick, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, agreed with me about the importance of a thriving secondary ticket market and the need to ensure that the market remains open and competitive. I think that that sentiment is shared more widely across the House. The secondary marketplaces can provide a much safer environment for people to buy and sell tickets than other methods. If we can further increase confidence in the service that they can offer, I would hope to see their business flourish and grow.
The Government have been working hard to address the issues in the market. They are not easy issues, and we have been wary of unintended consequences at every turn. We have had to make some very difficult decisions, based on an uncomfortable evidence base. We have given the matter much attention and we now need to reach a conclusion.
The Government have tabled amendments to address some of these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has included our provisions in the most recent draft of his amendment. Our amendments are in two parts. First, we propose a statutory review of the secondary ticketing market. This will be a full review of consumer protection measures in the market. It will be independently led and it will be presented to Parliament. It will start this summer and must report within a year of the start date.
We need time to consult stakeholders and the individual leading the review before deciding on the detailed terms of reference and I know that noble Lords will want to express opinions on the matter. However, I can say that the review will broadly cover the following areas.
First, there will be an assessment of the current law and the changes we are making today. Noble Lords have rightly asked which laws apply to online ticket sales, and how effectively they are enforced. Secondly, it will cover business models in the market. Speakers in our debates have asked whether the market is dominated by consumer sellers or by traders; whether those in the market are seeking profits or mainly seeking to recoup their original costs; and whether national interests are supported. Thirdly, on access to tickets, I fully understand how frustrating it can be for tickets to sell out suspiciously quickly after release. The review will look at this, including the possibility that event organisers might deliberately restrict access to tickets to inflate prices artificially.
Lord Moynihan
As an amendment to Motion A, leave out “Amendments 12B to 12H” and insert “Amendments 12J to 12S”—
“CHAPTER 3B
SECONDARY TICKETING
Duty to provide information about tickets
(1) This section applies where a person (“the seller”) re-sells a ticket for a recreational, sporting or cultural event in the United Kingdom through a secondary ticketing facility.
(2) The seller and each operator of the facility must ensure that the person who buys the ticket (“the buyer”) is given the information specified in subsection (3), where this is applicable to the ticket.
(3) That information is—
(a) where the ticket is for a particular seat or standing area at the venue for the event, the information necessary to enable the buyer to identify that seat or standing area,
(b) information about any restriction which limits use of the ticket to persons of a particular description, and
(c) the face value of the ticket.
(4) The reference in subsection (3)(a) to information necessary to enable the buyer to identify a seat or standing area at a venue includes, so far as applicable—
(a) the name of the area in the venue in which the seat or standing area is located (for example the name of the stand in which it is located),
(b) information necessary to enable the buyer to identify the part of the area in the venue in which the seat or standing area is located (for example the block of seats in which the seat is located),
(c) the number, letter or other distinguishing mark of the row in which the seat is located, and
(d) the number, letter or other distinguishing mark of the seat.
(5) The reference in subsection (3)(c) to the face value of the ticket is to the amount stated on the ticket as its price.
(6) The seller and each operator of the facility must ensure that the buyer is given the information specified in subsection (7), where the seller is—
(a) an operator of the secondary ticketing facility,
(b) a person who is a parent undertaking or a subsidiary undertaking in relation to an operator of the secondary ticketing facility,
(c) a person who is employed or engaged by an operator of the secondary ticketing facility,
(d) a person who is acting on behalf of a person within paragraph (c), or
(e) an organiser of the event or a person acting on behalf of an organiser of the event.
(7) That information is a statement that the seller of the ticket is a person within subsection (6) which specifies the ground on which the seller falls within that subsection.
(8) Information required by this section to be given to the buyer must be given—
(a) in a clear and comprehensible manner, and
(b) before the buyer is bound by the contract for the sale of the ticket.
(9) This section applies in relation to the re-sale of a ticket through a secondary ticketing facility only if the ticket is first offered for re-sale through the facility after the coming into force of this section.”
“Prohibition on cancellation or blacklisting
(1) This section applies where a person (“the seller”) re-sells, or offers for re- sale, a ticket for a recreational, sporting or cultural event in the United Kingdom through a secondary ticketing facility.
(2) An organiser of the event must not cancel the ticket merely because the seller has re-sold the ticket or offered it for re-sale unless—
(a) a term of the original contract for the sale of the ticket—
(i) provided for its cancellation if it was re-sold by the buyer under that contract,
(ii) provided for its cancellation if it was offered for re-sale by that buyer, or
(iii) provided as mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) and (ii), and
(b) that term was not unfair for the purposes of Part 2 (unfair terms).
(3) An organiser of the event must not blacklist the seller merely because the seller has re-sold the ticket or offered it for re-sale unless—
(a) a term of the original contract for the sale of the ticket—
(i) provided for the blacklisting of the buyer under that contract if it was re-sold by that buyer,
(ii) provided for the blacklisting of that buyer if it was offered for re-sale by that buyer, or
(iii) provided as mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) and (ii), and
(b) that term was not unfair for the purposes of Part 2 (unfair terms).
(4) In subsections (2) and (3) “the original contract” means the contract for the sale of the ticket by an organiser of the event to a person other than an organiser of the event.
(5) For the purposes of this section an organiser of an event cancels a ticket if the organiser takes steps which result in the holder for the time being of the ticket no longer being entitled to attend that event.
(6) For the purposes of this section an organiser of an event blacklists a person if the organiser takes steps—
(a) to prevent the person from acquiring a ticket for a recreational, sporting or cultural event in the United Kingdom, or
(b) to restrict the person’s opportunity to acquire such a ticket.
(7) Part 2 (unfair terms) may apply to a term of a contract which, apart from that Part, would permit the cancellation of a ticket for a recreational, sporting or cultural event in the United Kingdom, or the blacklisting of the seller of such a ticket, in circumstances other than those mentioned in subsection (2).
(8) Before the coming into force of Part 2, references to that Part in this section are to be read as references to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083).
(9) This section applies in relation to a ticket that is re-sold or offered for re-sale before or after the coming into force of this section; but the prohibition in this section applies only to things done after its coming into force.”
“Duty to report criminal activity
(1) This section applies where—
(a) an operator of a secondary ticketing facility knows that a person has used or is using the facility in such a way that an offence has been or is being committed, and
(b) the offence relates to the re-sale of a ticket for a recreational, sporting or cultural event in the United Kingdom.
(2) The operator must, as soon as the operator becomes aware that a person has used or is using the facility as mentioned in subsection (1), disclose the matters specified in subsection (3) to—
(a) an appropriate person, and
(b) an organiser of the event (subject to subsection (5)).
(3) Those matters are—
(a) the identity of the person mentioned in subsection (1), if this is known to the operator, and
(b) the fact that the operator knows that an offence has been or is being committed as mentioned in that subsection.
(4) The following are appropriate persons for the purposes of this section—
(a) a constable of a police force in England and Wales,
(b) a constable of the police service of Scotland, and
(c) a police officer within the meaning of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
(5) This section does not require an operator to make a disclosure to an organiser of an event if the operator has reasonable grounds for believing that to do so will prejudice the investigation of any offence.
(6) References in this section to an offence are to an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.
(7) This section applies only in relation to an offence of which an operator becomes aware after the coming into force of this section.”
“Enforcement of this Chapter
(1) A local weights and measures authority in Great Britain may enforce the provisions of this Chapter in its area.
(2) The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may enforce the provisions of this Chapter in Northern Ireland.
(3) Each of the bodies referred to in subsections (1) and (2) is an “enforcement authority” for the purposes of this Chapter.
(4) Where an enforcement authority is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a person has breached a duty or prohibition imposed by this Chapter, the authority may impose a financial penalty on the person in respect of that breach.
(5) But in the case of a breach of a duty in section (Duty to provide information about tickets) or a prohibition in section (Prohibition on cancellation or blacklisting) an enforcement authority may not impose a financial penalty on a person (“P”) if the authority is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that—
(a) the breach was due to—
(i) a mistake,
(ii) reliance on information supplied to P by another person,
(iii) the act or default of another person,
(iv) an accident, or
(v) another cause beyond P’s control, and
(b) P took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the breach.
(6) A local weights and measures authority in England and Wales may impose a penalty under this section in respect of a breach which occurs in England and Wales but outside that authority’s area (as well as in respect of a breach which occurs within that area).
(7) A local weights and measures authority in Scotland may impose a penalty under this section in respect of a breach which occurs in Scotland but outside that authority’s area (as well as in respect of a breach which occurs within that area).
(8) Only one penalty under this section may be imposed on the same person in respect of the same breach.
(9) The amount of a financial penalty imposed under this section—
(a) may be such as the enforcement authority imposing it determines, but
(b) must not exceed £5,000.
(10) Schedule (Secondary ticketing: financial penalties) (procedure for and appeals against financial penalties) has effect.
(11) References in this section to this Chapter do not include section (Duty to review measures relating to secondary ticketing).”
“Duty to review measures relating to secondary ticketing
(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) review, or arrange for a review of, consumer protection measures applying to the re-sale of tickets for recreational, sporting or cultural events in the United Kingdom through secondary ticketing facilities,
(b) prepare a report on the outcome of the review or arrange for such a report to be prepared, and
(c) publish that report.
(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament.
(4) In this section “consumer protection measures” includes such legislation, rules of law, codes of practice and guidance as the Secretary of State considers relate to the rights of consumers or the protection of their interests.”
“Interpretation of this Chapter
(1) In this Chapter—
“enforcement authority” has the meaning given by section (Enforcement of this Chapter)(3);
“operator”, in relation to a secondary ticketing facility, means a person who—
(a) exercises control over the operation of the facility, and
(b) receives revenue from the facility,
but this is subject to regulations under subsection (2); “organiser”, in relation to an event, means a person who—
(a) is responsible for organising or managing the event, or
(b) receives some or all of the revenue from the event;
“parent undertaking” has the meaning given by section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006;
“secondary ticketing facility” means an internet-based facility for the re-sale of tickets for recreational, sporting or cultural events;
“subsidiary undertaking” has the meaning given by section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006;
“undertaking” has the meaning given by section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a person of a description specified in the regulations is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as an operator in relation to a secondary ticketing facility.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2)—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;
(b) may make different provision for different purposes;
(c) may include incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
“(1C) Chapter 3B of this Part comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
“section (Enforcement of this Chapter)(1) or (2) of this Act.”
“SECONDARY TICKETING: FINANCIAL PENALTIES
Notice of intent1 (1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person for a breach of a duty or prohibition imposed by Chapter 3B of Part 3, an enforcement authority must serve a notice on the person of its proposal to do so (a “notice of intent”).
(2) The notice of intent must be served before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence of the person’s breach, subject to sub-paragraph (3).
(3) If the person is in breach of the duty or prohibition on that day, and the breach continues beyond the end of that day, the notice of intent may be served—
(a) at any time when the breach is continuing, or
(b) within the period of 6 months beginning with the last day on which the breach occurs.
(4) The notice of intent must set out—
(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,
(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the penalty, and
(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 2.
Right to make representations2 A person on whom a notice of intent is served may, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was sent, make written representations to the enforcement authority about the proposal to impose a financial penalty on the person.
Final notice3 (1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 2 the enforcement authority must—
(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and
(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.
(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must serve a notice on the person (a “final notice”) imposing that penalty.
(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was sent.
(4) The final notice must set out—
(a) the amount of the financial penalty,
(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,
(c) information about how to pay the penalty,
(d) the period for payment of the penalty,
(e) information about rights of appeal, and
(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.
Withdrawal or amendment of notice4 (1) The enforcement authority may at any time—
(a) withdraw a notice of intent or final notice, or
(b) reduce the amount specified in a notice of intent or final notice.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice in writing to the person on whom the notice was served.
Appeals5 (1) A person on whom a final notice is served may appeal against that notice—
(a) in England and Wales and Scotland, to the First-tier Tribunal;
(b) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.
(2) The grounds for an appeal under this paragraph are that—
(a) the decision to impose a financial penalty was based on an error of fact,
(b) the decision was wrong in law,
(c) the amount of the financial penalty is unreasonable, or
(d) the decision was unreasonable for any other reason.
(3) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn.
(4) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or the court may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.
(5) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (4) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of more than £5,000.
Recovery of financial penalty6 (1) This paragraph applies if a person does not pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which, in accordance with this Schedule, the person is liable to pay.
(2) In England and Wales the local weights and measures authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(3) In Scotland the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
(4) In Northern Ireland the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may recover the penalty or part on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(5) In proceedings before the court for the recovery of a financial penalty or part of a financial penalty, a certificate which is—
(a) signed by the chief finance officer of the local weights and measures authority which imposed the penalty or (as the case may be) issued by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and
(b) states that the amount due has not been received by a date specified in the certificate,
is conclusive evidence of that fact.
(6) A certificate to that effect and purporting to be so signed or issued is to be treated as being so signed or issued unless the contrary is proved.
(7) A local weights and measures authority may use the proceeds of a financial penalty for the purposes of any of its functions (whether or not the function is expressed to be a function of a local weights and measures authority).
(8) In this paragraph “chief finance officer” has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her careful consideration of the points that we made when we tabled the original amendment. We did so because we recognised that, based on the Government’s own figures, the level of online ticket fraud was of the order of £1.5 billion in 2012. That was of course a momentous year but that figure of £1.5 billion does not include the Olympic or Paralympic Games because, as your Lordships will recall, the opportunity was taken both in this House and in another place to criminalise the secondary market for that specific event. It is important to recognise that that figure of £1.5 billion was one where online ticket fraud occurred when victims purchased tickets for an event—such as music, sport, theatre or a performance—which did not materialise.
In the many hours of negotiation and debate, we have sought to address the causes of our concerns: that there is a very significant volume of counterfeit and invalid tickets sold to the public through the secondary sites. As 85% to 90% of resale now takes place through the four platforms, which are owned by three companies, the overwhelming majority of these invalid tickets come through those sites. The biggest problem in this day and age is not the old-fashioned tout. It is the wholesale harvesting of tickets by touts from their computers, with specialised software. They are incentivised by these four platforms, not least through power seller programmes. This harvesting is now out of control and volumes of tickets are acquired on such a scale that it is proving difficult, if not impossible, for genuine music and sports fans to purchase a ticket at face value for high-demand events. In the time when you are typing in your name, address and details, the specialised software is sweeping the volume of tickets available to the general public and within a matter of minutes, sometimes, those tickets are appearing on the secondary websites. The sheer number of tickets for high-demand events going on to the platforms is sufficient to facilitate price manipulation, to the detriment of the public.
Against that background, I would like to address a number of points that my noble friend the Minister has made. I say straight away that it is really important that anyone considering the position we are taking on this Motion recognises that there has been universal support throughout the proceedings in your Lordships’ House for a secondary market to thrive. But that secondary market needs to be effective; it needs to be transparent and accountable. That is the really important point. To use the words of my noble friend the Minister, we are seeking light-touch regulation to ensure that we can absolutely guarantee to individuals who want to go online the right level of information, from which they can then make a decision to purchase.
In the past, we have not had the legal support for consumers to have that information available. As the Minister rightly points out, the four key elements are information, face value, seat number and row number. It is absolutely right and proper that someone who is disabled or in a wheelchair knows that they can have access to that seat before they make that purchase. At the moment, that is not the case. Following this legislation, if your Lordships agree to the Motion in my name, all those details and information will be available before a decision is made and before the purchase takes place—not after the purchase has taken place. That is in subsection (8)(b) of the proposed new clause. It is an exceptionally important point for the secondary ticket operators to recognise when they implement this legislation, as I hope they do.
The second point is that for too long the terms and conditions set by the original event organisers have not taken full legal precedence. If you are the event organiser and you are putting on Glastonbury, for example, and request pre-registration to ensure that the person who is buying the ticket is pre-registered and, in the case of Glastonbury, that there is a photo—that is what the organisers want—it must be right that those terms and conditions take precedence. They do so because Glastonbury does not want touting. They do so because in many cases there are law and order issues. It should be right for theatres to decide whether they want children under the age of four, for example, to come to a performance when they might possibly disturb other people’s enjoyment of the evening. Those terms and conditions, however, must meet the fairness test and they must be legal. That is on the face of the Motion. That is vital, so that there is no avoidance of doubt: the action taken by event organisers in setting terms and conditions must meet the fairness test and must be legal.
The two Motions that were originally tabled by the Minister covered a duty to report criminal activity and the review. I am most grateful to her for her consideration of the many aspects of these tickets and the information that we wish to see provided on them. The matter has been considered in full by her team and, indeed, by her. I give one case in point. The movers of the original amendment were very keen to see a booking reference on the ticket. This would enable an individual to check with the event organisers whether that ticket was valid. Apparently, neither a booking reference number nor a ticket ID number falls within the “main characteristics” of a ticket and, therefore, under EU law, we cannot require that information to be provided. There are different legal opinions on that. There are many lawyers who believe that an essential characteristic —indeed, a main characteristic—of a ticket is its original ID number. We recognise, however, that government advice was that this is not the case. This is a compromise amendment and the result of many hours of negotiation. I hope that, when we come to the review, that issue will be looked at in more detail.
It is also important that, while we are putting the responsibility on the secondary market through this Motion to take a whole series of steps, at the same time we recognise that the event organisers need to reflect during the review on how they can improve the opportunities for resale. Resale is a difficult and sensitive subject, but to have good relationships with your consumers and your fans, looking at resale under certain circumstances is a very important priority for the event organisers. Wimbledon’s policy on non-transferable tickets is that, provided that the ticket is returned before the start of play, the buyer gets a full refund. The ECB allows face-value resale to family and friends; it will not cancel face-value on the secondary market. The Oval and Lord’s offer full refunds and ticket exchanges. The 2015 Rugby World Cup will have a full ticket exchange. So event organisers are very much aware of the importance of keeping good relationships with their fans and recognising that sometimes it is not possible to go to an event, maybe due to a family crisis, and that where possible resale policies should be put in place. I very much hope that, during the process of the very important review that the Minister has announced today, the question of resale will also be considered in detail.
It is right that when the Secretary of State at the DCMS, who has policy responsibility for this subject, appoints the chair of the review, he considers in detail the points raised in both Houses before proposing the final terms of reference. It has become clear from your Lordships’ interventions on all sides of the House, and from the excellent work of the all-party group on this subject led by Sharon Hodgson and Mike Weatherley, that a thorough investigation of the operation of the secondary market is essential. We need to understand why that £1.5 billion of fraud has taken place and to address it; we need to look carefully at the business models employed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as a signatory to the original amendment and a member of the All-Party Group on Ticket Abuse, I very much support Motion A1 and I am absolutely delighted that the Government do as well. To say the least, this has been a cliff-hanger. I hope that my noble friend Lord Moynihan, Sharon Hodgson MP, Mike Weatherley MP, and of course my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint, all get roles in a remake of “Chariots of Fire” for their efforts in securing this agreement, which will benefit music and sports fans immensely. My noble friend Lord Moynihan in particular has been incredibly tenacious in his pursuit of the right solution and I pay strong tribute to him. I also pay tribute to my right honourable friend Vince Cable, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, my honourable friend Jo Swinson and their adviser Ashley Lumsden, who have been instrumental in forging a deal in BIS and in convincing their colleagues in the DCMS to adopt the solution before us today.
When our amendment came before the House of Commons in January, my honourable friend Jo Swinson said:
“A careful balancing act is needed. We want to make sure that as many people as possible can access events, whatever their means. We want sports and entertainment in the UK to flourish. We … want to protect consumers and allow the ticket resale market to work as well as it can”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/1/15; col. 657.]
I believe that these clauses will do all this. My honourable friend also criticised the previous amendment, which was passed by this House. She said that there were,
“difficulties involved in Lords amendment 12”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/1/15; col. 658.]
She said that it would require sellers to provide their name, that it would enable event organisers to cancel tickets put up for resale and that,
“more stringent information requirements would go beyond the provisions set out in the consumer rights directive”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/1/15; col. 660.]
Again, I believe that these clauses meet those objectives. These safeguards now set out in the Bill will be much more reliable than the assurances belatedly given by the secondary sellers or the information on their websites.
To be clear, this is not about closing down the secondary market. A secondary market that works in the interests of fans buying and selling tickets is reasonable; an opaque stock exchange with links to criminal activity is not. I hope that this amendment will ensure that the secondary market is the former. These transparency measures are good news for fans looking to buy tickets, and do not impose an unfair burden on sellers. It is also good to see that Ministers will support measures which uphold fair and reasonable ticket terms and conditions. Ticket terms and conditions must be fair in law, and the new Motion recognises this.
Just as a reminder, serious money is involved in ticket touting. A single Rugby World Cup final ticket is on sale on StubHub today for £59,000. No tax is being paid; the seller is anonymous, and may even work for the secondary platform; and the buyer has no guarantee about where the seat is. These amendments will introduce some much needed transparency, and then we will also have the statutory review, to which my noble friend referred, to ensure that the market is operating fairly.
I welcome that the review of the law and its effectiveness and what can be done to improve it, in particular as regards enforcement, is enshrined in today’s amendments. There are a number of questions for review, which my noble friend went through, such as: will this stop speculative sales? Rugby World Cup tickets were on sale on secondary websites before the organising body had even set the ticket prices and launched the application process. Is the £5,000 fine adequate? I hope that all this will include looking at how to tackle bulk-selling and how effectively to enforce the law against traders impersonating consumers to evade consumer law. However, that is an ongoing matter. We have come today to the right conclusion, and I congratulate all those involved.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to briefly say a few words on this good news day for sports fans. It is fair to say that it has been a long time coming, but in the measures that we are adding to the Bill today we are giving greater choice and information to sports fans to help in the fight against those who commit fraud or seek to exploit the pockets of hard-working families.
My own role in this battle dates back two decades to 1994, when I led from the Labour Benches in the other place a campaign to have the then Government extend the provisions they were introducing to ban ticket touting at football events to other sports in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. We were partly successful in that we had reserve powers added to that Bill to allow the Home Secretary of the day to designate other sporting events.
Ever since then, together with other Members of both Houses, from all parties, I have called for more effective action as the problem has grown and grown, especially with the introduction of the internet, which created a fertile new environment for the problems we have heard explained so well by the proposer of this Motion. I therefore wholeheartedly endorse the measures being added to the Bill. Most of all, I pay tribute, as others have done, to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. He was battling 21 years ago in support of the kind of measure we have here now, and is still fighting as hard as ever to protect the sports that he loves.
I have spoken to some sports governing bodies today, and I know that they are hugely grateful for the enormous amount of time and effort that the noble Lord has put into this issue ever since the amendment was voted for by this House in November. There have been many hours of meetings with Ministers, Bill teams, lawyers and experts, and that shows in the well balanced and fair proposals that have addressed the concerns raised by the House. Certainly on this issue, I think that the House will respond favourably to the words of the noble Lord and the amendments. Through his grasp of how the sports sector works and of the way to get things done in this place, we now have an effective improvement in the law and, alongside it, a review that allows the matter to be considered in greater detail. I hope that the noble Lord’s expertise will remain on tap for the review; he will certainly add weight to it.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, this Bill, as the name suggests, is supposed to be about protecting consumers—indeed, most of it does. However, this recently tabled amendment, which places new duties on ticket sellers in secondary markets, could actually allow consumers to be ripped off under the guise of protecting them. All the tickets which the sports and music bodies are concerned about will now go back to being sold in pubs, clubs and car parks, where no consumer protection exists, so this amendment could increase fraud by forcing customers to buy tickets on the street. It is no surprise that the amendment is completely out of step with public opinion.
I am sure that I can trade polling statistics with my noble friend. Polling by ComRes shows that 80% of the public support the right to resell tickets, 64% believe that they should be allowed to pay more than the face value of a ticket to get into a sold-out event, and 66% believe that event organisers should not be allowed to restrict what happens to a ticket once they have sold it. We could see thousands of fans criminalised if they do not provide the right information on their listings. The reality is that a seller will not provide the right information if they think that their ticket could be cancelled. They could provide adjacent seat numbers, for instance, and other fans could then see their tickets cancelled, causing havoc at the event.
The treatment of the secondary market in ticketing is completely out of step with other online markets. Is there a need to declare where what you are selling comes from when you are selling goods on Amazon, for example? These proposed new clauses try to deal with an issue that does not exist. The wording of the amendment is clever in that it seems to provide a protection against ticket cancellation, but this protection is meaningless as it does not apply where there are terms and conditions which state that tickets will be cancelled if they are resold. The wording makes it clear that terms and conditions used to enforce cancellation should not be unfair terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. This is because certain restrictions such as terms and conditions which allow resale at face value have been judged as not in breach of these regulations. This means that event organisers will be able to impose a de facto price cap on resale. Event organisers will be able to use the law to enforce their own commercial terms and conditions. We are about to give event organisers total control over tickets after they have been sold. This is a carefully constructed legal monopoly. Will my noble friend the Minister assure me that one of the subjects to be looked at in the review is how the number of people employed in the secondary ticket market has changed, and how the market share of the ticket issuers has changed?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, following the debates on the subject of secondary ticketing in Committee and on Report, which caused considerable polarisation of views across party lines, I am pleased that today there appears to be good agreement on the way forward. I know that my noble friend the Minister has worked assiduously to find common ground. Reaching this point today is an example not just of how effective this House can be in spending the necessary time discussing the detail, analysing the issues with all those concerned, reviewing and scrutinising the law and moving forward, but also of how many company boards work with much interaction on challenging issues, which takes place initially behind the scenes, enabling the final decisions to be made in situ with relative accord and rapidity. To that extent, it would have been interesting to have secured my ticket to be a fly on the wall at some of these discussions, in which case there would have been no pillar impeding my view and I would not have needed the guarantee of a seat number. However, I would have needed a guarantee from the event organiser that there were no spiders’ webs—real or political, perhaps.
Although I welcome the Government’s willingness to act to address many of the strong concerns expressed on the secondary ticketing market through their Amendments 12B to 12H laid today, and their agreement to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, this is the beginning of a journey, as my noble friend said. First, there were clarion calls from some quarters for the secondary ticketing market to be banned. It is pleasing that there is now a general view that the secondary ticketing market has a necessary place in allowing fans to purchase seats for cultural and sporting events. A corollary of this is that it makes it more likely that seats at events will be filled—a frustration often expressed by observers and would-be fans.
It is now also accepted that the issue under debate, described generically as secondary ticketing, is much more complex. However, there is a main concern over sharp practice at best and fraud at worst. The victims are those, of course, who buy bona fide tickets and find that they are invalid. Along with some other noble Lords, I am adamant that there is legislation in place to protect against fraud but that it has to be made to work, with prosecutions, recompense for victims in relation to detriment suffered and with deterrents to putative fraudulent activity. I have also mentioned the need for more transparent and detailed guidelines for ticket operators and consumers, which is very much in the spirit of the Consumer Rights Bill, but without creating any unnecessary new bureaucracy.
Therefore, I welcome the move to make it mandatory for online ticket marketplaces to have to report criminal activity to both the police and the event organiser. Many of the persistent secondary ticketing troubles emanate from illegal websites, so the Action Fraud initiative as a national reporting centre for fraud and internet crime is to be welcomed. Of course, with the emergence globally of millions of websites, the question of how to regulate, monitor and harness the web is a matter for all Governments in all countries across most sectors. Therefore, my first question to my noble friend the Minister is: how proactive will this Action Fraud unit be, or is it merely a reception centre for reporting such crime?
The House may like to be reminded of the success of PIPCU—the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. Deep in the City of London some highly effective work is being carried out to identify fraud proactively, to intercept and to prosecute the owners of websites who are effecting and facilitating the transit of counterfeit and pirated goods into this country. In terms of the work it does, to what extent could the Action Fraud unit link up with, or learn from, PIPCU’s experience?
My main question about the statutory duty to report is: how can we know if the online marketplace is not reporting crime? Subsection (3)(b) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 12B states that the duty to report applies when,
“the operator knows that an offence has been or is being committed”.
Surely it should additionally apply to operators who suspect that an offence might be committed. Do we not seek the early tip-off? How proactive a role is the enforcement authority expected to have? To borrow a phrase used in an earlier debate by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, “Not a clue, guv”. There is a danger that a market operator will be able to turn a blind eye to a criminal activity, where he can legitimately say that he was not aware or could not have known. The enforcement authority will have the leeway of needing to be satisfied that on the balance of probabilities a person has breached the duty—but will the onus of proof be too difficult to establish, and too costly to work effectively, to achieve prosecution and for a fine to be imposed?
Finally on the duty to report, I wonder whether the cap of £5,000 provides an adequate deterrent for failing to report. The Minister may reply that she thinks it proportionate. However, I suggest that the stakes could be raised by doubling the maximum fine—on the basis that a fine is payable only if a suspected crime, which turns out to be an actual crime, is not reported. Your Lordships may be interested to be reminded that, for example, a fine of up to £20,000 is payable by employers for not paying the minimum wage.
I turn now to the second, welcome, element of the Government’s amendment—the statutory review. I welcome it because it will start as soon as possible and will have a tight reporting period. The purpose of the review is to address many of the complex issues relating to ticket sales, but it is as yet unclear what the terms of reference will be, and what such a seemingly catch-all review will cover. I have heard that it should encompass some aspects of the operation of the primary market—such as the sensible and proportionate block-booking of tickets by the RFU or the ECB for rugby or cricket events where clubs or schools are the beneficiaries. The review should also cover unscrupulous block-bookers who seek to make an unhealthy profit by selling on.
As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, there is the question of who is defined as a consumer and who as a trader. Conversely, there is also the need not to have a chilling effect on the secondary marketplace. There is the issue of guidelines for contracts for ticketing for myriad events, and also the question of how to protect UK sports, theatre or concert fans who choose to book tickets for UK events through operators or sites overseas. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the CMA is playing an active role and is taking some action. I ask the Minister for reassurance that the Government know that the review needs to be particularly wide ranging, but also tightly worded, to be effective and useful for taking the several steps forward that are needed in 2016. I note her encouraging comments today.
Finally, in repeating my support for the Government in acknowledging the valuable role of the secondary market, I add that the amendment would have been improved by the inclusion of a sunset provision for the review, perhaps at the point when it reports its recommendations. I ask my noble friend to comment on that. There will always be persistent fraudsters, but I welcome the consensus today that the review, while not providing all the solutions that some seek now, does provide us with a sensible platform from which to establish some concrete facts and to analyse the different elements of a complex landscape.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House long, as I understand the real reason why everybody is here. However, I wish to make one or two points, particularly as I disagreed with the proposers of the amendment at earlier stages of the Bill.
First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Moynihan on his persistence and cheerfulness as the long-distance runner on this issue. I congratulate both him and the Minister, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, on having worked so hard in the last few weeks to arrive at a workable compromise. I have enjoyed working on this Bill with them, with my noble friends Lady Jolly and Lady Bakewell, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her colleagues on the Opposition Benches. I acknowledge the mutual courtesy and constructiveness that have been displayed at all times.
I accept that this compromise can provide more transparency in the marketplace in the interests of consumers, but we have always maintained that that must not be at the expense of the recognised and reputable operators in the secondary ticketing market. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Moynihan acknowledged that these proposed changes have been designed to protect the reputable secondary ticketing market. He recognises that there is public support for greater regulation, but there is also wide public support for having a system of secondary ticketing. This proposal is better than encouraging people to go back to the ticket touts at events—or, indeed, using online and offline classified advertising.
On this side particularly we welcome the 12-month review of consumer protection issues relating to secondary ticketing. I reiterate the points that my noble friend Lord Moynihan made. I hope that the review will cover the wider issue of wholesale ticketing harvesting—the computer programs designed to circumvent procedures designed to contain sales to individuals, and how they can be best countered. I hope it will also examine and promote best practice techniques and the phasing of ticket sales, which maximise the chances of real fans obtaining the tickets.
There is, however, one final concern that should be expressed. I was glad to have the Minister’s reassurance on this matter; I hope that she can speak again on it without reservations. We welcome the compromise restricting event organisers’ ability to cancel the tickets that have been legitimately sold if they are identified in the secondary ticket market. However, the proposed new clause permits cancellation if the resale terms flout the terms and conditions of the ticket. That could cause confusion. I understand that it is right that the original seller should apply a cancellation if, for example, an adult was sold a child’s ticket. Can the Minister repeat that it will be completely unacceptable to have a blanket condition in ticket terms and conditions banning all resales—and, indeed, resale at a higher value? If either of these conditions prevailed it would drive a coach and horses through what we assume are the good intentions of this compromise. It would appear to be an unreasonable and unfair restraint for consumers in the ticketing market.
Apart from that, I welcome this compromise. I look forward to seeing it properly implemented.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the A1 is a beautiful road linking north and south. Motion A1 is a beautiful Motion, linking the sports fan back to the sport and the music fan back to the gig. It goes to the heart of a problem that has dogged sport, music and live entertainment for decades in this country. It is a great day for the sports fan and a fantastically bad day for the fraudster. Let the fraudster—the cyber, sheepskin-clad fraudsters—begone. This will make a tremendous difference to anybody who truly has sport, music, art, cultural and creative events in their hearts in this country.
There will be much to discuss in the review—many minutiae and details need to be bottomed out. I also believe there is still much that sport and music promoters can do to further protect their product and truly drive the primary market in tickets for their events. This is a great amendment and a great day across sport and music. It is testament to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has shown dogged determination over months to get us to this stage. The man from Monmouth has coxed this amendment to a successful and superb conclusion.
Baroness Heyhoe Flint (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for bringing such a smile to my face. I love the word “dogged” here; I know he has a beast of a similar persuasion at his feet. The vision of a sheepskin-clad fraudster outside Lord’s when it is 75 degrees in the summer trying to get rid of his tickets brought a wonderful degree of levity to the occasion.
As I have spoken at every stage of the Bill on this issue, I hope the House realises how strongly I have felt about seeking to establish a fair market for sport and entertainment. I hope by the time the Minister has stood up there will have been reassurance to my noble friends Lord Borwick and Lord Stoneham for the slight concerns they have in certain areas. Secondary selling has now had an enormous amount of scrutiny and I am convinced that we have got to the right point in the Bill, crafted with so much ability and long-life energy by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. He has worked so enormously hard that he deserves to sit down in a darkened room after this and have a break. It really has been quite remarkable.
I declare an interest as a board member of the England and Wales Cricket Board and I hope I do not offend any Scots when I say thank goodness that England managed to beat Scotland in the World Cup a few days ago. No disrespect to the Scots but I might not have been able to walk through the door had that not happened.
The amendment before the House is not as comprehensive as the one we voted for just before Christmas but after lengthy negotiations, as mentioned by my noble friend, it addresses the key concerns raised and introduces—in that wonderful phrase—some new light-touch regulation. Alongside this it introduces the statutory review which many of my noble friends have complimented, and it is hugely welcome.
I too thank the Minister for the enormous amount of time she has spent considering this issue with all of us championing the cause, and for making her officials so available. That is so important and they helped us to drive through and draft this Motion. It will benefit fans of sport and entertainment across the country and up and down the A1—this is an A1 Bill, we must not forget that—and it has been greeted with huge congratulations from hundreds and thousands of people within the worlds of sports and entertainment. I almost feel that we should break out into a Mexican wave when we reach the conclusion of today’s discussions.
As we have heard, the Motion protects the consumer on the reselling of tickets by introducing the basic information we have so desperately wanted. Crucially, it does not in any way prohibit or ban the resale of the tickets. Concern was voiced before during the passage of the Bill about what information should be required and it is clear that we have sought to protect privacy issues by neither the name nor the address of the seller being given.
The information reporting set out in the Motion is important. It provides a way of detecting fraud and misleading selling. Indeed only last week, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned, the DCMS acknowledged that it was important that information was provided at the point of sale so that both consumers and event organisers could be certain whether listings were of genuine tickets. This will help to eradicate the curious practice used by many sites of tickets being listed for sale before they have even gone on sale officially by the event organisers and the venues. It is quite remarkable. The review to be established will assess if any further information is required or whether we have got the balance right first time. I hope it is the latter.
When this measure becomes law, those who buy a ticket from a secondary seller will receive exactly the same information and protection when they make the purchase as they would expect to receive when purchasing directly from the event organiser. They will know the value that the event holder has placed on the ticket—its face value—and the exact location of the seat. They will also have the option of checking with the event organiser that it is a genuine ticket. It is simple and effective.
Let us reassure the House about how this amendment would work in relation to the rights of the consumer. It is clear that event organisers will be able to uphold only terms and conditions which are fair and which have been communicated to the public when they buy the tickets. Nothing will come as a great surprise to the purchaser of the tickets. It will not have an adverse impact on the ordinary fan who wants to sell on a ticket if he or she cannot attend. All major sporting events—and, we assume, entertainment—either have exchange mechanisms or allow some form of resale at face value. It is hoped that this will encourage the best practice already identified by my noble friend Lord Moynihan concerning the theatre ticket and the terms and conditions on the back of it. Presumably no four year-olds are allowed to go and watch “Fifty Shades of Grey”, as that might contravene the terms and conditions.
Nowadays, for example, the ECB has no intent to cancel tickets sold on at face value, and it already allows the transfer of tickets. This is a form of governance that should be imitated and copied by any event organiser or governing body. It will not cancel those tickets if sold on the secondary market, and why on earth should it? That would cause reputational damage and would no doubt lead to investigation and complaint, as well as turn away and turn off genuine fans.
With the security of this amendment, event organisers will be empowered to take action against the worst abusers of ticket terms and conditions, as has already been mentioned. This covers issues such as fraudulent sales, bulk ticket sales by professional touts—not always in sheepskin jackets—and the use of bots to purchase tickets. To the uninitiated, a bot is a computer program that repeatedly logs in to buy tickets automatically. My noble friend referred to it as “harvesting” tickets; I refer to it as “hoovering up” tickets, but perhaps harvesting is more his scene and hoovering may occasionally be mine. It also covers the advance selling of tickets not yet on sale, as I have already mentioned, exploitative touting, and concession tickets sold to the wrong people in the wrong place, which can lead to embarrassment and discomfort.
The passage of this Bill will play a role in helping the UK to maintain our position as an open and honest showcase for international sports and entertainment events in this country, attracting millions of fans to our venues annually.
Cricket venues are doing everything they can to keep prices affordable, to encourage family audiences and not to overprice the market. However, visiting one or two of the websites referred to and looking at Ashes test match ticket sales, one can see that an averagely priced ticket costing £100 is currently on offer at at least £600. It is possible to get a ticket with a full hospitality package in one of the stands costing £1,950. I thought, “That must be a very expensive meat pie that they sell at Lord’s”, but it just shows what an amazing, incredible and dishonest mark-up is put on these tickets. It is completely unfair to supporters, who are denied the opportunity to attend major international events.
We have provided much needed protection to fans who spend their hard-earned money watching the sport they love. Those fans or consumers deserve our protection. I do not wish to sound triumphant but I know that there is a collective huge sigh of relief that common sense has prevailed. Now, hundreds and thousands—nay, millions—of fans can give a standing ovation to my noble friend the Minister and her team, as well as to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, for helping to protect the hard-working fan.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I see no reason why the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, should not feel triumphant. I think that is the right approach, and I join her and others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who has done so much to bring us here, and also, as others have said, the Bill team; the sports and arts bodies; my colleague Nicola Jayawickreme, who has seen us through this; my noble friend Lord Stevenson, who alas is in a jungle today and cannot be with us; my gig-attending honourable friend Stella Creasy, who fought this much more alone, I have to say, in the other place; and also, if rather at the wire, the Government.
However, given that this will affect some of our premier sports, perhaps that final spurt, the holding of our collective breath till the very last moment when the line was crossed, and the smiles and cheers at the Minister’s words are particularly appropriate. Indeed, had the Minister sung her speech, that would have reflected as well the arts world’s relief that sense has prevailed and that genuine fans of music or sports will have access to the best without having to witness only those with the deepest pockets being able to pay to see the best of British performers, whether on the track or on the stage.
Furthermore, the money paid by fans will now, we hope, go to the promoters or the performers but will not be skimmed off by those who buy tickets purely to make excess rent, in the economic jargon. This was never an issue of individual fans wanting to sell the odd ticket they could no longer use. It is, as has been said, about industrial-scale touting—the buying up of sheaves of tickets to make a quick bang—and it is that that Motion A1 seeks to address.
We know that the Government had strongly resisted until almost the very last moment Motion A1 and all attempts to tackle an industry that makes a few people very rich but sucks money not just from fans but from sports and arts bodies—those that want to keep prices within the reach of all, not just the rich, so that ordinary rugby club members can go to Twickenham, tennis players to Wimbledon and music fans to their favourite gigs.
I remember that some years ago Paul Hamlyn opened the opera house—I think to celebrate his wife’s birthday—simply to groups of young people or community groups. I took 20 people there who would never have gone into the opera house without this. I will remember their faces, I think, for as long as I live, and the delight they had. I think they paid £10 a seat. In today’s world, with today’s methods, all those tickets would have been hoovered up and all those people denied that wonderful chance to go there.
Today the Government have accepted that it is time to deal with that industry, and we are delighted. There are of course issues not yet covered by the Motion, but these can fall to the review to consider. I hope the Minister can assure us that both sporting and arts representatives will be consulted on the choice of chair as well as on the terms of reference so that we learn from other inquiries. To add to the mix that has already been mentioned, I also ask that the Government consider for the review research into the impact of touting on fans and events, the effects it has in terms of pricing out ordinary fans and the wider reputation damage to events. They should also consider actions on bots, which have been explained to us, and enforcement of existing legislation; also, what constitutes a ticket—is it a piece of paper or is it the right to attend an event? Finally, they should consider whether the ticket identification number needs to be added to those tickets where there is no block, row or seat number.
Today, as the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, suggested, shows a job well done by your Lordships’ House. This final change will strengthen the Consumer Rights Bill. I think it is a triumph for the rights of consumers, in this case in the guise of fans and supporters. We wish the whole Bill well as it gets its final sign-off from the other place.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Before the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, responds, perhaps, rather than repeating them, I will say that I share the many tributes that have been made during this debate to and by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. They have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Stoneham and Lord Holmes, the noble Baronesses, Lady Heyhoe Flint and Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, with his deep knowledge of the football world. On his question, the Bill provides for the measure to come into force two months after Royal Assent—so ahead of the Ashes and the Rugby World Cup, I hope.
I am also grateful for the points made by my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Younger, who did so much for enforcement of IP and the battle against counterfeiting. I will take away his various ideas, notably for dealing with fraud, and look forward to discussing his questions with him and feeding them into the review. I was also interested in his reference to sunsetting, which is one of the ideas that we look at in our Better Regulation work in the business department.
My noble friend Lord Borwick raised two important issues relating to how the amendments affect the secondary market in terms of employment and market share. As has been said, we have yet to set the terms of reference for the review, but I assure him that those issues will be considered for inclusion. He also expressed the concern that the amendment might criminalise consumers who give incorrect information. I reassure him that it will not introduce any criminal offences; the enforcement is but by civil penalties.
I can confirm that the blanket protection on ticket resale of the kind cited by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, is not provided for in the amendment. I reiterate what I said earlier on this important point: terms that prohibit or restrict resale above a particular price are assessable for fairness. They are not always fair and are not binding on the consumer if that is the case.
This is, of course, a compromise provision. The Government were not willing to jeopardise the passage of the Consumer Rights Bill. Therefore, while we share some of the concerns raised about how the industry could interpret the new legislation, it is up to it to show that it treats all fans fairly and to make these changes a success. We have a statutory review, which will be an opportunity to look at this matter and at many of the issues debated today. I know that this House will be very interested in the results of the review and that many noble Lords will feed in their thoughts and ideas. I should make it clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, touched on the subject, that the review is a joint one between the DCMS and BIS—the reviewer is to be appointed jointly by the two Secretaries of State. I note the various points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and will take them away to ensure that we have the right independent chair and the right terms of reference.
I thank noble Lords for their expert scrutiny of the Bill, and in particular for the provisions we are discussing today. I look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, I express my further thanks to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate on what is, as has been rightly pointed out, a compromise provision. For the avoidance of doubt on the part of one or two speakers who may not have fully appreciated it, all those who have spoken in favour of this Motion reiterated that it is very important for a secondary market to thrive. We are looking through this Motion for an effective, transparent and accountable secondary market. I appreciate in all humility the generous personal comments that have been made and ask the House to agree to the Motion standing in my name.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:16 - Division on Lord Deben’s amendment - Ayes: 48 / Noes: 280 - Amendment disagreed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of the regulations is to enable women to have their own genetic children, free of terrible disease caused by disorders in their mitochondrial DNA. The regulations do so by allowing healthy mitochondria from a donor to replace the unhealthy mitochondria in a woman’s egg or embryo.
Mitochondria are present in almost every cell in the body and produce the energy that we need to function. This is why they are often referred to as the “powerhouse” of the cell. Unhealthy mitochondria can cause severe medical disorders known as mitochondrial disease, for which there is no cure. There are 37 genes in the mitochondrial DNA, compared with more than 20,000 in the nuclear DNA. This represents less than 0.1% of the total genetic make-up. The techniques provided for by these regulations offer the only hope for some women who carry the disease to have healthy, genetically related children who will not suffer from the devastating and often fatal consequences of serious mitochondrial disease.
Provision to make these regulations was introduced by Parliament into the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. It followed an amendment that recognised the progress being made in research. In 2010, researchers at Newcastle asked the Department of Health to take forward steps to develop regulations. Over the last five years, there has been extensive engagement and consultation with the public on this issue, including, first, an ethical assessment by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in 2012; secondly, a highly commended, respected and wide-ranging public dialogue and consultation exercise carried out by the HFEA in 2012-13; and, thirdly, a public consultation on draft regulations carried out by the Department of Health in 2014. There have been three separate reports into the safety and efficacy of these mitochondrial donation techniques by an expert panel convened by the HFEA, published in 2011, 2013 and 2014. The expert panel members were selected for their broad-ranging scientific and clinical expertise, and for having no direct or commercial interest in the outcome of the review.
This process was commended in a recent letter to the Guardian from eminent scientists and Nobel Prize winners from the UK and across the world. The letter included this sentence:
“the UK has run an exemplary and internationally admired process for considering benefits, risks, ethical issues and public consent, which must properly precede a change in the law”.
Given the extensive scrutiny given to this issue during the life of this Parliament, I believe it is appropriate to allow this Parliament to decide whether to take the next step for mitochondrial donation, which can make meaningful progress to actually help families only with the passing of these regulations. The two proposed techniques that would be allowed under these regulations are maternal spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer. These replace the mitochondrial DNA, which contains a small number of unhealthy genes, with healthy mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is just 0.054% of our overall DNA. One important point to emphasise here is that none of the nuclear DNA, which determines our personal characteristics and traits, is altered by mitochondrial donation.
I know that many noble Lords will have their own tributes to pay, but I would like to make my own acknowledgment of the ground-breaking work that the scientists at Newcastle University have led, which is world-leading in the development of these new techniques. It is also very important to praise the Lily Foundation, a charity founded by families who have lost their children to serious mitochondrial disease, which has reminded us about the human story that inspired this scientific advance.
I turn now to the detail of the regulations made under powers in the 1990 Act which, as I said, were added in 2008, with Parliament’s express agreement, in anticipation of the advancement of science to this point. These powers would permit mitochondrial donation in order to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease.
Lord Deben
To leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 laid before the House on 17 December 2014 and calls on Her Majesty’s Government not to lay new draft regulations until a joint committee of both Houses has been established and has reported on (1) the safety of the procedures permitted by the draft regulations, (2) the compliance of the draft regulations with European Union and domestic law, and (3) the key definitions used in the draft regulations”
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, first, I have to say that I am in favour of mitochondrial donation. I am not opposed to it in principle. I tabled this amendment because otherwise it would have passed through this House—in the Moses Room—without the kind of concern that we now have. The numbers present show it to have been right to discuss this matter very carefully. It is right because we are dealing with something of incredible importance to the families concerned: the fathers and mothers who can produce children but cannot, because those children will, almost certainly, carry this terrible disease. They deserve all the care that we have expended on them. The fact that some suggest that there are not that many of them is nothing: if there were but one we should be as concerned about this as we are.
I yield to no one in my determination to try to do what is right in this area and I do so for a personal reason, which is that I am thankful every day that my wife and I produced four children who in that sense—though perhaps in no other—are perfect. Those of us in this situation have a particular need to be concerned. We should be concerned with the parents; we should be concerned with the wider community; and we should be concerned with the children who would be born in these circumstances. My concern is that the Government have approached this in a way that is very unhappy. Because there are so many of us who would find the movement of a spindle from a non-diseased egg to a diseased egg something that we could accept, there was a basis for a commonality of understanding and support. That was there. All we needed, therefore, was to be assured that the procedure was safe and legal.
My noble friend—and he is a noble friend; he was one of my Ministers, and we worked closely together—has carefully covered his view of the law. I think that the law is very often an ass. I am certainly not one who would demand that lawyers should decide what we should want. I say sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who looks unhappy at that comment. However, I believe that we should obey the law and it is quite clear that there is considerable disagreement—I put it simply like that—about whether this action is legal under European law. Although my noble friend gave the best account that he could, it is worth saying that many others take a different view. What is more, the two law officers, the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor, voted against these regulations. The Attorney-General has said clearly that he did so on legal grounds, so it cannot be said that those of us who suggest that the legal arguments are at least uncertain have an entirely unreasonable position.
Many who are present will have been sitting through the last part of the previous debate on ticketing. I had taken a particular view on that but felt that the House had heard enough of me without intervening on that occasion. But it may be within the memory of the House that the Government fought very hard not to take action on ticketing until they were absolutely sure about the legality, under European law, of what was being proposed and that there was a proper investigation of it. I had expected my noble friend to say that he had been to outside experts and to the European Union itself to be assured that he was not going to find himself in court were this passed. He has not done so. The only legal advice that has been presented to this House is the internal advice of the Department of Health. I do not find that satisfactory.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Does he accept that the Wellcome Trust has published and given to all Members a legal position which has all the authority of its own lawyers and which backs up the position of the Minister?
Lord Deben
The Wellcome Trust has certainly done that but I was referring at that moment to the ministry and the Minister. However, the Wellcome Trust has not gone to experts in European law; it went to an expert that it chose. I am perfectly happy about that but it is only one of a series of opinions, which are contrary one to another.
I started with this point because of my concern about the families. It seems that it would not be a good beginning for this change if, immediately afterwards, the large number of Members of the European Parliament —from the right to the far left—who have said that they would see this as so clearly contrary to European law seek to refer it to the courts. That would not start this off very well. The real question is why the Government have not taken the steps which would enable us all to accept that this was legal. I do not understand why they have not done that, so my first questions to my noble friend are: why was that not done and why, even after we asked for it, did the ministry not go out and see that it had exterior and clear European advice, so that we would know where we were?
That is of course only the first part of it; the second is a question of safety. I have said that if we talked about transferring the spindle from one egg to another, I would not have any ethical objection. Indeed, it would be the opposite; I would want to support it. I ought to say that, because one noble Lord, who I know is going to speak later on, at an earlier meeting said, “Well, he only says all those things because he’s a Roman Catholic”. I think I will face that. Those Members of your Lordships’ House who took part in the proceedings on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will remember that I spent a good deal of time supporting the Government’s position on that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes)
I assume the noble Lord would like to move his amendment.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I am sorry for rushing in, but the noble Lord, Lord Deben, excited me so much with the comments he made that I have to answer some of his points, particularly on safety. I hope that noble Lords will have patience, because I need to go through each of the points he has made on safety, as I have no doubt that they will come back again in subsequent debate.
It is important that I put down some ground work. What are we talking about? We are talking about a mitochondrial DNA disease that commonly affects multiple different organs. Symptoms include severe muscle weakness, diabetes, heart problems, cardiac failure and sudden cardiac death, as well as central nervous system problems, which include dementia, epilepsy, stroke and such other horrible conditions. It results in death, which can occur early in childhood or after a prolonged period of incapacity and pain that can last for years.
It is important to have some facts about mitochondrial DNA genetics and inheritance. Mitochondrial DNA is strictly inherited maternally, via the egg. The mitochondrial DNA copy number and the number of mitochondria vary between cell types, with more than 200,000 in the egg and early embryo down to perhaps as few as 10 to 20 in many cells of the two to three-week old embryo, and hundreds to thousands in most cell types in adults, where the number tends to correlate with energy demand. Cells can have a mixture of two or more types of mitochondrial DNA sequence, a condition referred to as heteroplasmy, in contrast to homoplasmy, where each copy has the same sequence. More than 300 distinct mutations of mitochondrial DNA have been found in patients with mitochondrial disease. Although some mutations are far more common than others, if an individual is heteroplasmic, with a mixture of mutant and normal mitochondrial DNA, the proportion of the former determines whether they show symptoms of mitochondrial disease. Some women at risk of transmitting mitochondrial disease to their children are heteroplasmic and may have levels considerably below the disease threshold, but their eggs can have very high levels of mutant mitochondrial DNA or even be homoplasmic. This can be explained by the so-called bottleneck, which I will not go into in detail, but, during the development of the egg, only a certain number of mitochondria go into fertilisation, and that causes a bottleneck that sometimes results in only the mutant mitochondria getting through.
It is estimated that at least one in 200 children in the UK is born with some faulty mitochondrial DNA—so quite a lot of them may well have some faulty mitochondrial DNA. It is estimated that one in 6,500 babies goes on to develop serious mitochondrial disorders. The severity varies from mild to extremely debilitating and may result in early childhood death. Almost 2,500 women of child-bearing age in the UK are at risk of transmitting mitochondrial disease to their children. Estimates based on this figure suggest that between 100 and 150 births a year in the UK risk passing on mitochondrial disease to the child. If today we were discussing cancer or dementia, and how we could modify those diseases with some form of genetic or mitochondrial manipulation so that people would not get it, everybody would be in favour of it; but as mitochondrial disease affects 100 to 150 people a year, we do not take it so seriously—or so it seems.
I will now go on to what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said about the two techniques that we are likely to be discussing—the maternal spindle transfer, which the noble Lord prefers, and pronuclear transfer—and I will say why I believe it is necessary that currently the HFEA, as a regulator, is allowed to decide which method might be appropriate for a given patient in a given centre. We do not know which technique is the more efficient and safer, despite what some others may believe. In fact, they may not be equally efficacious in every woman.
Pronuclear transfer has been used successfully in animals for more than 30 years with no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, maternal spindle transfer is a newer technique, which is likely to result in less carryover of mitochondria but has a higher risk of chromosomal abnormalities. That is an important point: pronuclear transfer may have more carryover of mitochondria but maternal spindle transfer has a higher risk of chromosomal abnormality. Maternal spindle transfers are very sensitive to manipulation. The embryo is less sensitive in its early stage to such manipulation.
Furthermore, both techniques have been found to be variable for avoiding mitochondrial disease. Which technique will be used for each individual patient will be a decision for the patient, based on their informed consent, their clinicians, the evidence from research and the safety aspects. In my view, it would be inappropriate for Parliament to make a scientific judgment as to which technique should be able to be used. One thing is certain: the scientists and the clinicians will go with whichever method is the safest and most efficacious. If it turns out, through research that is currently going on, that we can make maternal spindle transfer safer and less likely to lead to chromosomal abnormalities, that is the method that the scientists and the clinicians will choose. Research is going on to make that process safer. There are many ways of doing this. I am not being flippant when I say that one of the methods that has been tried is to use a small amount of caffeine to make the maternal spindle transfer more stable. Eventually, we will get that research right and whatever method is safest will be used. However, it would be wrong to opt now for one method which is not as successful as others.
Issues have been raised about the health and safety risks of some of the techniques. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that it is never possible to be certain that new medical procedures will be 100% safe or effective. That applies to the whole of medicine—drugs, devices or surgery. Risks have been assessed in detail. As the Minister said, there have been three separate reviews of the scientific evidence on the technique’s safety by a specially convened independent panel of experts. It would be wrong to suggest that these experts might be biased when none of them has any financial interest in mitochondrial research or treatment, or that they might not have understood the issues and that we in this Parliament are more likely to understand the science which underpins this research, which has led to the point where it is now possible to use this technique to help women to have normal babies.
Decisions on safety and efficacy should be taken by the statutory regulatory authority created to do this—the HFEA. Risks must be balanced. Evidence suggests that any risks of mitochondrial donation are proportionately less than the significant risk that children will continue to be born who will develop severe mitochondrial disease if these techniques are not used. Ultimately, it will be up to affected families to judge the balance of these risks. They are the ones who will take the risks.
I would like to explore some of the health risks that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned, although he did not mention that of the potential effects of the donated mitochondrial DNA on the rest of the cell. I turn first to traits attributed to mitochondrial DNA. On variations in the 37 well studied genes, a whole mitochondrial genome has been sequenced for all these genes and they have all been found to have one function in expressing the protein that produces energy. No other trait has been identified from the sequencing of the whole mitochondrial genome. Therefore, the variations have been well studied. Although this is still contentious among mitochondrial experts, theoretically—I admit—it is possible that a child born after mitochondrial donation might have a slightly different energy metabolism compared with his or her female ancestors. However, none of this has resulted in devastating mitochondrial disease.
Evidence has also been cited that a mismatch between the DNA in the donor’s mitochondria and the mother’s nuclear DNA might have a negative impact, namely sterility and impaired growth—the noble Lord mentioned sterility—in the resulting child, as well as slow metabolism. This issue was considered in great detail by the HFEA scientific panel. In normal human populations the mixing of nuclear DNA during sexual reproduction means that there can be a complete exchange of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA type over a few generations—I calculate it to be about six generations. Given that I married an English lady, the mitochondria of my children have changed dramatically. My ancestors’ mitochondria are no longer in my children—they have English mitochondria. However, I am glad to say that they have produced terrific children. Evidence of mismatch between nucleus and mitochondrial genomes has come mostly from research where new combinations have been made experimentally across animal species that have been separated for many hundreds of thousands of years or longer—for example, rats and mice. Within species, such as in some experiments involving mice or fruit flies, evidence of mismatch is seen only when particular sub-strains of a species have been reproductively isolated from each other and each inbred. The one species, the human race, is the most outbred species there is. Some of us are examples of that.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
Would the noble Lord comment on the HFEA’s recommendation that, as available data are limited, an extensive range of pre-clinical research should be carried out before proceeding?
Lord Patel
The data that the report suggested were not available were actually presented to the committee. They have not been published because, as any scientist would know, if you publish—
Lord Winston (Lab)
I wonder whether I can help my noble friend Lord Patel. Does he agree with me that there were very few available data for the first in vitro fertilisation babies, and that that was a step in the dark, as were pre-implantation diagnosis and sperm microinjection? Before he concludes his speech, would my noble friend be kind enough to answer an important question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the possibility that we might be making infertile children? Was that not the accusation made when infertility was treated by in vitro fertilisation, and was there not a widespread fear at that time, too, that we would be making infertile children?
Lord Patel
I thank my noble friend for that interruption. It was worse than that: it was suggested not only that those children might be infertile, but that they might be half monsters of some kind. To answer the question raised earlier about the HFEA’s evidence—yes, it did ask, and the evidence was verbally produced. The reason why it is not published is that anything that is published, even in the form of an extract, cannot then be published in a reputable journal. I know that that evidence has now been sent for publication.
To go back to the subject of the evidence requested, if we were to go down that road and do those experiments, what would be required in the human population is the deliberate creation and destruction of many hundreds, if not thousands, of embryos—to prove a point that does not require proving. Hundreds and thousands of human embryos have already been tested and found to go to a blastocyst state, and I hope my noble friend Lord Winston will agree that if we see them in that state, the embryo will be satisfactory. He nods slightly.
The alternative would be human population genetic studies to fulfil that requirement for evidence. What that shows is that exchange of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes by normal reproduction should reveal combinations that are deleterious. Human population genetic studies will do that. Such studies include genome-wide association studies and whole genome sequencing projects looking at many specific diseases and syndromes. Those kinds of studies will be required. They do not require embryos to be created, nor is it necessary to do these studies before this treatment is available.
I know I am going on a bit, but other points were made. If there are points about epigenetics et cetera, those are also spurious and have no basis in science.
Let me go now to something that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned twice: the Chinese example. The technique that was used in the United States and in this Chinese example is called cytoplasmic injection. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is more familiar with it from his work than I am. It is a technique that is not allowed in the United Kingdom. That is the first point. It is completely different in design and intent from what we are talking about in mitochondrial replacement; it is nothing to do with it.
What was done in China was a cytoplasmic injection not for replacing mitochondria, but for infertility treatment in older women. That was also the case in the United States; it was an extra cytoplasm with possible mitochondria in older women, where both are at risk of producing chromosomal abnormality. In China it was used in only one study, which was conducted by an American, Professor Grifo. They inserted five embryos. We do not allow that in the United Kingdom because of the risk of multiple pregnancy. It resulted in a multiple pregnancy. They then tried to reduce the number of foetuses by injecting one of them to reduce the number of foetuses from three to two. I do not know what kind of technique they used—
Lord Patel
“Dangerous”, my noble friend says. It killed the other two and resulted in a premature birth. They never published this, despite being asked if there was a publication. It is wrong to say that the HFEA did not ask them; the review panel did. Professor Grifo sent a letter saying that, in his view, all the foetuses were normal but they died of prematurity. What they died of was an obstetric botch-up. It had nothing to do with what we are talking about today. It was a completely different technique. We should dismiss it completely. It would be wrong to put any credence on it and say that it is a good reason why we should not do this.
I could go on about other safety aspects that were brought up, but let me close by saying that hitherto the science has gone as far as it can in thousands of animal experiments that have resulted in normal pups. In human embryos it has gone as far as it can to produce normal embryos, which, if implanted, there is no reason to believe would not develop into normal, healthy babies who would not carry the defective mitochondria. All we are doing today is allowing the regulator henceforth to decide, on a case-by-case basis, to issue a licence to those clinics for those mothers who request this treatment, and which are allowed to use both techniques that we currently know are safe while further research goes on. None of us stops researching: the noble Lord, Lord Winston, still carries on researching; the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, still carries on researching. If a chance was given, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would still carry on researching. We do not stop researching; that is the nature of medicine and of academic medical science. I hope that we will pass these regulations.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for setting out the issues so carefully at the beginning. I listened with great attention to the eloquent and persuasive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, but I am afraid I was not persuaded. I cannot go along with the idea that we should put this regulation on hold for the time being. My reason is the awful position parents find themselves in when they have a child severely affected by one of these dreadful mitochondrial diseases. They are desperate to avoid having more children with the same disease. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, started from the same position but I believe that we are now in a position to move forward.
We have all been bombarded with information about mitochondria to the extent that few of us can be entirely ignorant of what they are and what they do. Yet there is still considerable room for confusion, at least according to some of the correspondence I have received. References to GM crops and cloned animals are way out of line. Suggestions that mitochondrial transfer techniques are a form of cloning when they are nothing of the sort, or that they are on the slippery slope to genetic manipulation and designer babies when there is no conceivable link between them, are very unhelpful and not part of any reasoned discussion about the issues. I could elaborate on that but will leave it for the moment to concentrate on what I think are the more rational arguments that have been and will be made today.
The noble Earl discussed the safety issues, as did the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The suggestion has been made that the techniques may not yet be safe enough. Let me take this a little further. The basic animal experiments have been going on since the 1980s and the specifics of maternal spindle and pronuclear transfer have been very fully researched for the last seven years. We have heard about the three thorough scientific reviews by expert panels set up by the HFEA. In each, further research that needed doing was suggested and each time the research has been actively and successfully pursued. On the last occasion, in 2014, they clearly stated that there were no major safety issues remaining. It is true that they suggested some further tests—and they are all under way, as we have heard—but they pointed to the fact that at the end of the day there will be no substitute for trying it in humans who carry the abnormal mitochondria.
In vitro studies in the test tube with human embryos after mitochondrial replacement have revealed no problems, and experiments with macaque monkeys—yes, they have been done—and maternal spindle transfer are all reassuring. It is interesting that monkeys are not suitable models for pronuclear transfer techniques because research shows that pronuclear transfer in vitro fails in monkeys but works perfectly well in human studies. The only way in which safety can be finally tested is in humans since no procedure or drug can be certainly safe without that. We have gone almost as far as we possibly can before that step is taken. We have heard some issues about the China syndrome, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has dealt with perfectly well. Clearly, that was quite something else and not relevant to our discussions today.
Equally important is that these regulations do not simply allow human trials to start now—they do not; they allow the HFEA only to examine applications made to it for full assessment. It will then decide if the science is persuasive enough, that those proposing to do it have sufficient experience and capacity, and that the patients being put forward are clearly those likely to benefit. Remember that the HFEA is no pushover. It has in its membership not just three scientists and a clinical geneticist but three patients who have gone through IVF, a barrister, a professor of philosophy, a bishop and a national security adviser. That is quite an interesting mix but not one likely to be easily moved by faulty argument. It is they and their scientific advisory panel who will be assessing applications when these regulations come into force in October.
Other anxieties have been expressed that we will be disrupting the relationship between the nuclear and mitochondrial genes: the nuclear genes carry the information that determines all the characteristics that make us human, and the mitochondrial genes provide the energy supply for cells. This argument was discussed at great length in the HFEA’s scientific report in 2014 and was found wanting, not least because half the genes in a fertilised egg are derived from the father and are therefore already foreign to the mitochondria, yet they do not interfere with each other. Furthermore, mitochondrial genes are pretty well conserved between different individuals because they perform a limited number of functions, while there are large differences between the nuclear genes of different people, each of whom is made up of a mixture of DNA from a mother and a father.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, for those among us—and I include myself—who are not scientists, this is a demanding topic. In fact, I guess that even those who are scientists do not always find it exactly straight- forward. A significant part of that complexity derives not from the difficulty of the science itself but from the different—sometimes diametrically opposite—things that we are told by people who have been studying and researching mitochondrial transfer for many years.
Like many others in your Lordships’ House, I have recently attended a number of presentations, drop-ins and seminars on this subject. I have also read through the many written representations that have been referred to and which most of us will have received. They mirror the speeches being made in this debate.
On the one hand, we are assured, as we have been today, that scientists are clear about both the safety and the efficacy of mitochondrial transfer. It is no different from giving a blood transfusion or changing the batteries, so there is no problem there. On the other hand, we are warned by scientists—not just the correspondents to whom my noble friend Lord Turnberg referred—that mitochondrial transfer is a form of genetic modification which does affect the germ line, albeit not the nucleus, and could have a potential impact on the traits of any children, and their children, born as a result of this procedure. Some suggest that this would involve crossing a key bioethical threshold that we could later regret, and we are all aware of the pressure that is being brought to bear on us from elsewhere in the world.
In addition to all that, from a purely ethical point of view, as my noble friend Lord Deben mentioned, one form of treatment, maternal spindle transfer, is for many people clearly preferable to the other type—pronuclear transfer. Unfortunately, as my noble friend Lord Patel pointed out, the spindle method is currently less stable, although that may change.
The so-called “genius” of the Church of England has always been its via media—the middle way—and that is where I find myself today. Over the last few years, we have consistently taken a fairly nuanced position on this subject. Despite some misleading press reports, we are not in principle opposed to mitochondrial transfer, and it makes a pleasant change for the church not to be against something. Indeed, I explained this to the Minister, Jane Ellison, before the debate in the other place and she referred to our conversation in her comments there. But, at the same time, we have always counselled a degree of caution, given the potential implications of this development. In particular, we have always argued that the research tests into safety—set out quite clearly as essential before any further move is made by no less than the HFEA expert panel in 2011— should be completed and reported before these regulations are approved. That has not yet happened. We are therefore disappointed by the element of rush now, which I guess could be occasioned by the forthcoming election. I was talking this morning with a GP friend, who said that she could not imagine any drug or treatment being authorised before all the necessary tests had been undertaken and reported. In this case, that clearly, according to the HFEA’s own recommendations, has not been achieved, even though, as we have been reminded, the research has of course been taking place for several years.
Like every other Member of your Lordships’ House, I am very keen to see help offered to couples who face the terrible prospect of a child born with mitochondrial disease. I also know which of the conflicting scientific viewpoints I would rather believe. To reiterate, both personally and as a representative of the Church of England I am basically very much in favour of this development. However, I cannot ignore the compelling arguments against pushing this through in haste, and for that reason I am minded to vote for the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I know that it is regarded by some as a wrecking amendment. I do not see, read or hear it in that way. I would hope that any Joint Committee’s work could be completed without undue delay. For the same reason, if we reach a Division on the initial Motion before us, I will feel compelled to abstain.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I must declare an interest in that much of the groundbreaking science of mitochondrial donation has happened at Newcastle University, where my wife also works, although in a different field. Also, some of the relevant work has taken place on the premises of the International Centre for Life in Newcastle, of which I am honorary president. I am also a fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences.
I shall be as brief as I can. We have a duty to consider five simple questions. Is it legal? Is it safe? Is it necessary? Is it ethical? Is it rushed? It seems to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, we have clear evidence that it is legal for Parliament to enact these regulations. They are explicitly foreshadowed in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. They are not covered by the clinical trials directive. They are not eugenic, and therefore not in conflict with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Is it safe? We have heard that the safety and efficacy of both techniques have been established as far as is possible by exhaustive study, independent scrutiny and public consultation. The case of the Chinese example, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has said, is simply not relevant to this case. This was an obstetric disaster that happened to one woman and was a technique that was intended to cure infertility and had nothing to do with mitochondria anyway. As far as we can tell, the mitochondrial transplant element of that technique worked.
As for the infertility question, I have to say that I think my noble friend Lord Deben has misquoted a very distinguished scientist, Professor Robin Lovell-Badge. I was in the same meeting and I did not hear him say the words that the noble Lord said. He made the point that some techniques that are already legal and used probably perpetuate some forms of infertility. We therefore already accept that some techniques that are used may produce children who lead very happy lives but will themselves require assisted reproduction.
Incidentally, I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that we should not argue from authority, that the consensus of scientists may sometimes be wrong and that we should make up our own minds. As always in science, however, it is the evidence, not the existence of a consensus, that convinces me that this is efficacious and safe.
Is mitochondrial donation necessary? If there is one thing that we have learnt from 30 years of in vitro fertilisation, it is that adoption is not a full alternative to conception. Were we right to give women assisted reproduction so that they could have their own children? Yes. Millions of happy mothers bear witness to that.
Is pre-implantation genetic diagnosis an alternative in this case? Often it is not, because it is more likely, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, because of heteroplasmy, to produce an afflicted child. I was also surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Deben, say that the reason we are going ahead with the techniques of maternal spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer is “about money”. I just do not think that is the case. It is very clear, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others, that there are very good reasons to go ahead with both these techniques.
Is it ethical? We do not, in the 21st century, have the luxury of deciding these things in a theological way. If we block an advance of this kind and it turns out that it could have eliminated suffering safely, then it is on our consciences in a way that it would not have been 30 years ago, when we could do nothing. In losing our impotence, we also lose our innocence. In other countries, this decision would be up to the regulator already. Here, uniquely, we have explicitly said that Parliament should first decide whether the regulator can take such cases, which is what we are deciding today.
Once Parliament has decided that mitochondrial donation is not likely to be unsafe, and the HFEA has judged that it is safe, it should be up to families to decide whether they wish to use it. It would be unethical for the state to deny them that choice.
We may become the first country to do mitochondrial donation, but there is nothing wrong with that. Britain has been the first with most biological breakthroughs, from natural selection to the double helix, from monoclonal antibodies to in vitro fertilisation. In every case, we look back and see that we did more good than bad as a result.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I very much support the Motion that has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for the reasons he very articulately expressed. The Minister has reassured us significantly about these regulations, but he did express many of the uncertainties that remain. In moving his Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about uncertainty. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, gave us graphic details of the uncertainties of the two processes that are proposed, which may result in increased risk of chromosomal defects. In the light of all that uncertainty, how can it be right that your Lordships’ House be asked to make a decision of this magnitude before the conclusion of all the necessary research?
I want to talk briefly about one issue that relates to the protection of women’s health. We are told that these proposals are all about advancing women’s rights, and yet it seems to me that we are at risk of overlooking one very important matter in relation to which these procedures plainly do not advance women’s rights. That is the repercussions of the increased demand for donor eggs for the women who donate the eggs. The requirement for more eggs is a consequence of scientific development, and that is widely accepted. A Nuffield Council on Bioethics report looked into the ethical issues around mitochondrial donation and stated:
“One of the major barriers mentioned by scientists when assessing the potential for cell reconstruction techniques to become treatments is the fact that many more egg donors will need to be found to undertake the research required in order for the safety and efficacy of PNT and MST to be established, and if therapies are to be provided in future. A shortage of egg donors is an acknowledged problem in respect of donations for reproduction, and it is not yet clear whether egg donors would be more likely to come forward”.
Lord Winston
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, but I do not think that she speaks from experience. Sadly, I have to say that I do speak from experience. I have run a very large infertility practice for a very long time, and we found donors very easily when it was concerned with these sorts of serious conditions. There was never a problem about finding donor eggs for this kind of problem.
Baroness O'Loan
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. However, the research shows that there is a shortage of women donors.
Eggs used have to be extracted from women’s ovaries by a process known as controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, which can lead to complications for women. According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, it affects up to one in three women to some degree. It says that between 3% and 8% of IVF cycles are complicated by either moderate or severe OHSS, which can cause a variety of painful and upsetting symptoms such as abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea, haemoconcentration, thrombosis, pleural effusion and respiratory distress. It can be further complicated by ovarian rupture and renal insufficiency. In some cases, it can be life-threatening.
The Newcastle Centre for Life conducted research on the prevalence of OHSS and published the results. It found that the risk of hospitalisation increased massively if more than 20 eggs were collected. We do not know whether the pattern that it established is repeated at other research centres because the data have not been compiled. There is a gap in the evidence base. The really important point is that, as I understand it, the collection of 20 or more eggs is very common in the UK. Tens of thousands of women have been through the process, so there is a substantially increased risk of a serious medical condition.
Mitochondrial donation is impossible without a supply of donor eggs. The procedures rely on the willingness of women to undergo a process which may bear serious health risks and about whose safety there are not extensive data. Two Answers were given in Parliament last summer which suggested that the monitoring of the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is inadequate. On 9 July, the Health Minister in another place said:
“The HFEA does not, therefore, hold definitive data on the number of women admitted to hospital with OHSS, including non-patient egg donors and egg-share donors”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/14; col. 313W.]
On another occasion, it was said that,
“licensed fertility clinics are only required to report instances of OHSS to the authority that require a hospital admission with a severe grading”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/14; col. 157W.]
It was stated that other cases were reported as well. I do not think that the Government have given enough consideration to the effects of the legalisation of mitochondrial donation on the donor’s health. There is a possibility that it will lead to further problems.
This concern is underlined very effectively by the fact that the Newcastle scientists pressed Parliament very hard to sanction legislation to permit the creation of animal hybrid embryos. Parliamentarians who recall that debate will remember that the principal justification for changing the law was to allow the creation of admixed human embryos in order for research to be conducted without it being dependent on human eggs because of their limited availability. The legislation was passed; the research is dead.
Lord Patel
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. It is important to clarify that point, particularly as it was crucial in the debate on that amendment. Admixed embryos were required for the research to be carried out then in order to study the diseases in embryonic stem cell lines without using human eggs. She is correct in saying that. On why that research has been abandoned, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, may well remember, I made the comment in closing that the utopian dream of the scientist would be that, one day, we might reach a point where we were able to take a skin fibroblast and down-regulate it so that it behaved like a pluripotent cell. That dream came true two weeks after that legislation was passed, when Yamanaka in Japan published an article saying how it could be done. That is why the research stopped; it was not because it could not be done.
Baroness O'Loan
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. It remains the case that there is a shortage of donated eggs. My concern is for the women who are asked to donate eggs.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but, given that my noble friend Lord Patel mentioned this case, perhaps I might reinforce what she is saying, because Newcastle is not offering to provide donation opportunities for women but is asking them whether they will sell their eggs, at £500 per cycle. We all know that that can lead to hyperovulation syndrome, an issue which I raised in your Lordships’ House last week and which I know concerns many of us from all sides of this argument. So there is another dimension involved in this. My noble friend Lord Patel was also right to say to my noble friend Lady O’Loan that when we debated these issues in 2009 many of us pointed to things like adult stem cells and the work being done by Professor Shinya Yamanaka. We said then that arguing for animal/human hybrids was a diversion when much more important work, like that which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has just mentioned, could have been undertaken.
Baroness O'Loan
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I am not arguing against this process; I am arguing against the introduction of these regulations at this time in the absence of sufficient knowledge and protection. We have to look at the factors, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. Being paid to donate one’s eggs constitutes a very serious issue for women who are in poverty and who will do it as a way of raising money, possibly even to look after their own children. We need to provide protection for such women.
In conclusion, we should not hasten ahead without putting in place clear and comprehensive systems for monitoring the outcomes of all controlled ovarian hyperstimulation treatments, including those treatments that would result in the generation of eggs to facilitate PNT and MST. In this context, I simply ask that we proceed more carefully and that we back the Motion moved today by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
Lord Winston
My Lords, I declare an interest in that it was my scientific group which started pre-implantation diagnosis—the first attempts to diagnose genetic diseases in embryos in families who have these fatal, sad genetic flaws in them. I congratulate the Minister on his absolutely balanced and fair speech. From time to time, we have not agreed, but I think that his care, compassion and courtesy are deeply appreciated by the whole House. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on his very clever speech. I do not agree with what he said and I hope that, at other times, we can see why we disagree. I accept that he is talking with deep conviction, but I think that we have already sorted out most of his objections, both the legal and the difficulties of side-effects.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)
My Lords, before my noble friend goes any further, I say to him that there are real differences in legal opinion. I do not think that we have quite sorted them out yet.
Lord Winston
I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for that.
I want to do something which I have done previously in debates of this kind, which is to talk from personal experience. I may be one of the few people in the House who have sat with an endless number of parents who have a genetic disease in the family, have listened to their problems and have seen the kind of dilemma that they face. I am reminded of the child Jeremy “Martinez”—forgive me if I change the surname, but I do not have approval to give the surname of that patient from some time ago. We were doing in vitro fertilisation and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis in the 1980s, and the first babies, who are now 25, were born in 1990. At that time, we were looking at the very common genetic disorders. It is interesting to consider that there is a vast number—too many, some of us think—of Members of this House. At least 40 of you, on mathematical probability, will carry the fatal genetic mutation for cystic fibrosis. That is very common indeed and much more common than the problem with mitochondrial disease, even though we are beginning to see that it is becoming rather more common as we get better molecular techniques.
What is very clear, and it is very important because it has not been stated, is that the number of families who will be of child-bearing age when a mitochondrial disease is diagnosed will be very few. That is important because we are not talking about a large number of people; we are talking about a small number, but they have a definite problem for which they need some desperate solution. They are prepared to do whatever they think is best for their families, with informed consent.
In the case of Jeremy, he was a bit slow to grow, but by nine months he could not lift his head. He started to vomit; he had diarrhoea; he then progressively developed muscular weakness and started to get epileptic fits. These fits would often go on all night; this child screamed with pain and was uncontrollable; eventually, having gone both blind and deaf, with severe mental problems with his brain, he died at the age of two. There was no treatment. His mother came to see me to ask if there was any possibility that she might have some screening of her embryos in the future. This was in 1989. Certainly, Alan Handyside and I had discussed the possibility of looking at mitochondrial disease, but we did not have the molecular techniques at that time to have any chance of being able to screen an embryo. It is true that that screening has now happened and can be done; indeed, there is a very interesting report from Newcastle University showing how that can be done in some cases. However, it is not always satisfactory, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, stated.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord and I agree on much of what he has been saying today. However, in 2013—just two years ago—when he spoke at the Intelligence Squared debate, he said:
“And it’s worth bearing in mind that abnormal children have been born as a result of mitochondrial transfer. This has been completely unpredictable”.
I wonder what, if anything, has happened to change his mind about that. I suspect that he and I are agreed that there obviously are dangers involved in this and safety questions that he will want to address. May I also ask him—and I will not intervene again—whether he agrees with what my noble friend Lord Patel said earlier about the situation in China? I have with me the document Fertility and Sterility 2003, vol. 80, published on 3 September 2003, which was written by Zhang and others, who looked at the procedure that was used in China. Although we were told that this was not cytoplasmic transfer, does he agree with my noble friend Lord Patel, or does he agree with what is here in the statement that this was a pregnancy derived from human nuclear transfer?
Lord Patel
I think that the noble Lord was asking him to reply to my comment. He is quite right that China has used pronuclear transfer techniques, but the disaster was upsetting to me.
Lord Winston
I am very concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, might get into trouble with the Whip sitting on the Front Bench. I am always in her bad books, and I would not want to allow him to be in her bad books as well.
Let me answer the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is true that, two years ago, I said that it was unpredictable; of course, these things are unpredictable. In the context in which I was speaking, that was correct. To be fair, however, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows that, with the case of Jacques Cohen in New Jersey, 17 babies were born after mitochondrial transfer. Therefore, there has been some other evidence—other than that evidence from China—that suggests that this is not quite as daft as proposed. Added to which, of course, in two years, a huge amount of research has been done by our colleagues in Newcastle. They have been working flat out on a whole range of tests which, I think, have made a very big difference. Since the statement that I made in the House, three different committees have looked at the safety.
Science does not have the truth; we have a version of the truth. We have to interpret what we can as best we can.
I deeply respect the noble Lord, Lord Alton, as he knows very well. We both come from a very strong view about what is the right thing to try to do wherever possible. However, I feel here that, apart from the issue of preserving healthy life, if we decide not to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, we are doing something really important. We are expressing our concern—our compassion—as a House for people who are faced with an invidious and horrendous choice.
Under those circumstances, given that this will be a limited procedure affecting very few people, it would be utterly wrong for this House to turn down the democratically elected Chamber and not to support what the Government propose.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, at the outset, I have to declare two interests. First, I am the honorary life president of Muscular Dystrophy UK, which, along with the Wellcome Trust and other organisations, has been sponsoring and funding some of this research. Secondly, I have to say that I have an avuncular interest in the department in Newcastle upon Tyne, because Professor Douglas Turnbull, who now holds the chair of neurology in that university, holds the chair which I held 32 years ago.
I say just in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to whom I listened with the greatest possible interest, that he may not remember that I was the neurologist on the Southwood working party, which advised his department on BSE and produced a report which ultimately led to the disappearance of BSE and its human form, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, so he does not need to lecture me about the precautionary principle.
There is one sensitive matter which I feel that I must raise at this stage. I am a lifelong member of the Methodist Church, although I at present attend an Anglican church. I know full well that from the very first day that the whole issue of human fertilisation and embryology came before this House, it was bitterly opposed by the Roman Catholic Church. I do not suggest to either the noble Lord, Lord Deben, or my noble friend Lord Alton that their adherence to and strong faith in the Roman Catholic principles has in any way influenced their attitude to the regulations; but at every stage from the first regulations to allow human fertilisation and embryology to take place, they have been bitterly opposed.
I must confess that I did discuss the whole issue of the status of the human embryo with an old friend, the late Cardinal Hume, whose father was a professor of medicine in Newcastle, Sir William Hume, who taught me briefly when I was a medical student in the early 1940s. Cardinal Hume and I discussed the whole issue, and I told him that I simply could not accept what the Roman Catholic Church has now decreed. Many, many years ago, St Thomas Aquinas said that life did not begin until the foetus was capable of independent existence outside the womb. It was a Pope in the 19th century who decreed that life began at the moment that the sperm entered the egg.
I said to Cardinal Hume that I really could not believe that a small bundle of cells carries the same status in society as a mature adult, and that that was something with which I profoundly disagreed. We discussed it and regularly went on to have a powerful exchange of views and then to decide that we could not agree, but then moved on to discuss a matter of much more mutual concern: the fortunes of Newcastle United Football Club. When, in 1980, the city of Newcastle decided to create a number of new honorary freemen to celebrate its 900th anniversary, among them were me as dean of medicine, Cardinal Hume and Jackie Milburn, the former England and Newcastle centre forward. Cardinal Hume said that it was the greatest day of his life: all his life he had been waiting to meet Jackie Milburn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an extraordinary debate. We have had a feast from the best in the medical profession on all sides. It is clear that there is real agreement and empathy about the need to make a difference for those women who suffer so perniciously in relation to mitochondrial difficulties. There is also consensus on the need to do something to relieve that suffering and pain. There is no dissonance between any of those who spoke, although they differed on what we should do about it. Perhaps the calm voice of reason, if I may respectfully say so, came from the very balanced intervention of the right reverend Prelate, who, with great modesty, rejoiced in the fact that for once the Church of England could agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about something of real importance. Therefore, there is no disagreement about the need to do something.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on giving us the opportunity for this debate. He is right to say that had he not tabled the amendment, which has exercised so much of our attention, we would not have been able to take advantage of the House’s wisdom. The real question raised by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is one of timing. I listened with great care to the very fair, very balanced and exemplary introduction of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It came to this. We have now all worked extremely hard, the election is upon us and we have no idea of the complexion of the next Government. Therefore, carpe diem—do this now. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle fairly raised this question. But for that election, would we now be in such haste? The concluded results of the research would normally be waited for. An opportunity for real debate would be seized.
I, like all Members of the House, have been bombarded by emails and letters of all complexions on this issue. What surprised me as a former law officer was to see who agreed and who disagreed. There is a view that if you have three law officers in a room you might get five different results. Therefore, it was with real surprise, and a little concern, that I noted that both of my successors in title, the right honourable Dominic Grieve and Her Majesty’s current Attorney-General, did not agree that this regulation should go through now. That gave me—I do not know about any other noble Lord—real pause. Why would my two successors in title disagree on the timing? I therefore looked first at the explanation that the current Attorney-General gave to his constituents. It is probably fair that this House should have the benefit of it. He said:
“This week the House of Commons debated and decided to approve regulations allowing mitochondrial donation, a process of replacing a small amount of DNA in cells in an egg or embryo to avoid the child which will later be born suffering from genetically inherited mitochondrial disease”.
He went on to say:
“First let me set out where I think there has been general agreement. This is a difficult decision to take. Everyone will have huge sympathy for parents who know their children will inherit this severe disease and are desperate to pursue treatments which can help them to have a healthy baby. They have every right to make their case for this change. Similarly, we all admire the hard work and ingenuity of scientists who have developed these techniques with intention of combating genetic disease”.
I warmly agree with that statement. We have scientists in our country who are second to none. He continued:
“However, legislators have to consider not just individual interests but the interests of our society more broadly and should consider too what precedents are set and what lines are crossed by the laws and regulations we make. Different legislators will of course reach different conclusions on these questions and views may change, but I am not persuaded this would be the right thing to do now”.
That view was clearly shared by Dominic Grieve, because both voted against the Motion in another place. That is why I was worried. Why did my two colleagues disagree? Why were they not comfortable with this position? I looked at the science and had the most wonderful explanation—I will not call it a lecture because it was a delight—from my noble friend Lord Patel when we were in Doha of the differences that made this such a safe and necessary option. Here, on our Benches—they now sit together—are two of the best members, I respectfully suggest, of the medical profession. They, too, are urging us to go on. Why, therefore, were my two legal colleagues so concerned? I looked for myself. Did they have a point? Was there a legal problem that was not being faced? I regret to say that there is.
This issue is complex and difficult because it is an issue that is not just centred on ourselves. The European dimension is also important. One of the reasons why I understand this issue so painfully well is that I had the advantage of being the UK’s advocate when we were arguing about the charter between 2001 and 2003. I therefore looked again at the regulations. I wanted to understand them better. I must ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe, why he is so certain that these rules comply with the European legislation and why the Government are confident that the concerns expressed by both the current—
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for giving way. Can she explain to the House what advantage there would be in referring the matter to which she is now addressing her remarks to a Joint Committee? Take, for example, compliance with the statute that already exists where the regulations are ultra vires. Surely that is a matter for determination by a judge and nothing that your Lordships can say in the House today, or indeed that a Joint Committee could say in its report, would resolve that issue in a way that would tie the hands of a court. I rather suspect, although her knowledge is greater than mine, that the position is exactly the same in Europe. Therefore, I cannot see that referring the matter to a Joint Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, asks us to do, would advance it except simply to delay the decision on the issue, which would ultimately have to be taken by a court.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, the issues in relation to how the charter impacts upon the legislation that we are discussing have not been sought out, have not been argued and have not been developed. One of the essential issues, if we are to do something which everyone agrees is novel, different and important internationally, is that we have to be confident that we are on solid ground because if we are not, we give a disservice. There are two things. One is that the research that is still awaited and, as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, is to be forthcoming should be available. The second is that these issues in relation to the charter could be properly articulated. I looked quite carefully to see whether this has already been done. Had that already been looked at, and was there an answer in the letter of the 17th that the noble Lord issued? Were all the worries that I have—I am afraid that there are about 20 pages of them—dealt with? However, they have not been. So the question comes back: why the haste?
Everybody agrees that we have to get this right and having worked so hard and so long, and knowing of the pain that many have already spoken about, what a cruel thing it would be to do this and then say that the legal basis upon which it was founded was flawed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is right that if in the final analysis the arguments we articulate and which go through the Select Committee are not sufficiently sound, the only way in which the sagacity and value of these legal principles can be tested would be in a court. That is what would happen.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Does the noble and learned Baroness also agree that until the regulations are made, the matter cannot be tested because courts do not deal with hypothetical arguments? The regulations have to be made, so if this issue is to be properly tested in a court the first step is to make the regulations.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, there are two steps. I would argue that the first step is that if a Select Committee is able to deal with all these matters in the proposal currently before us in draft, and which would today go into regulations, would be the basis of the Select Committee’s examination. If that basis is found to need some minor alteration or amendment, it would be that amended version which would then come before this House and form part of the regulations. That would be the issue that would likely be tested if there was still disagreement.
My hope would be that the concerns that have properly been raised could be dealt with by the Select Committee, particularly if we were to persuade some of the noble and learned Lords who had perhaps served in the Supreme Court in the past to lend us some of their expertise on that Select Committee. One of the advantages that we have in this House is of having that level of expertise. That is why we could do this in rather a short compass. First, I do not agree with those who think that this issue should be kicked into the long grass. It should not. Secondly, I do not believe that a Government of any complexion, as has been said in this debate, who had a very well reasoned and consensual Select Committee report would hesitate from implementing it.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
Does the noble and learned Baroness agree that if the regulations were agreed today, and therefore passed, the HFEA itself would have the opportunity to test the legal opinion? It certainly did that with the cytoplasmic hybrid embryos, if we go back to 2007. The HFEA then took a series of legal opinions to inform it in its opinion against the Government at that time. Why cannot that process go on at the same time?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
The real issue is whether we are going to abrogate our own responsibility. Is this something which we should ask an outside agency to do? Should we make a decision where we cannot come to a fully informed and articulated decision ourselves? If we are left in the position of saying, “I am not entirely sure about the research or the sagacity of the legal principles being advanced that enable me to pass this”, surely we should wait until that is clarified. If the House believes that it wishes to abrogate that responsibility because the nature of the issues we are dealing with are such that we feel comfortable about doing that, then of course that is always a matter for us. But I simply argue that what is being asked for is what I hope to be a relatively short period for these matters to be fully considered and fully put to rest.
I am very conscious of time but there are a number of arguments that we could put forward on the law, which would help to further exemplify that this matter is not easy. It is complex. The reason I emphasise that the law officers are disagreeing is the following. All law officers are in the same position. We are not here to tell people what they want to hear; we are here to tell them what they need to know. That should be valued by the House and I am sure that the House would want to be confident that doing this, which everyone hopes would be a good thing, should be lawfully done, too.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, one of the bases of my noble friend Lord Deben’s amendment to the Motion is this question of whether these regulations are lawful. I have studied quite carefully the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, with a junior. I have seen other opinion as well but I am thinking now only of my own analysis of what the noble Lord and his junior said.
The first point is: is this lawful under the domestic law of the United Kingdom? My answer is that it is clearly lawful because, in 2008, this Parliament passed an amendment for the purpose of allowing such regulations to be made. That is as clear as it can be, and you do not need to be a lawyer to think that it is possibly quite a good point. The result of the opinion that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has given on this point is that that amendment would be held to be pointless. The courts are not very keen on reaching a conclusion that a deliberate action of Parliament is without point, so I feel very strongly that these regulations in draft are lawful, within the domestic law of the United Kingdom.
Now we come on to the complexities of the European law. Like the noble and learned Baroness, I have had some experience, now long past, of appearing before the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Masters of complexity are very difficult to find at a greater level than it has. The essential point about this, however, is very clear. If the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is right, it is not a question of these regulations being wrong; it is that the whole procedure that they are aiming to do is unlawful according to European law. That is fundamental. I do not believe that it is correct, because I do not think that the European Union has a treaty basis if we are dealing with medical procedures in the member states. The regulations that are referred to in great detail—huge definitions and all the rest of it—are intended to deal with the furtherance of the common market. Therefore, if you get a tablet in Germany that is supposed to be suitable for you, then it would be equally suitable in this country—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
Can I just help the noble and learned Lord by saying that the thing that concerns me is Article 6.3 of the treaty and the way in which the charter has been incorporated to consolidate all the other European laws that were there before the making of the charter? It was the charter itself, and the way in which it has changed things, which makes the difference. I am not focusing primarily on the issues that have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Brennan in his opinion. I am really looking at those issues that arise as a result of the charter. I do not believe that their proper interpretation has been dealt with. I know that the House will not like me very much if I go through the whole charter, but I am very happy to share the issues which really concern me with the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
So far as I have understood the European treaties, they do not confer an authority as yet to interfere in the medical procedures within the member states. That is basic, and means that they cannot interfere or render unlawful a medical procedure such as the one proposed in these regulations. I could go into the detail of it—I am sure that would not be very acceptable—but I have two principal reasons for thinking that that is right. The first is that no challenge, so far as I know, has been offered by the European Commission to the provisions in the 2008 Act—which of course would be the right place to challenge this, if it were unlawful. This provision was definitely intended to make these regulations possible. The second reason that I advance is that in the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a reference is cited to a treaty dealing with these matters which is outside the European Union. It has a number of members of the European Union as signatories, but it has not been signed by the United Kingdom, nor ratified of course by the United Kingdom, so it is not part of our law. That is the kind of law that deals with embryology in a way that might have been difficult for us if it had been part of the European Union.
These are simple reasons why I think this situation is reasonably clear. Of course, I accept that the law officers have taken a different view. We have not had a chance of discussing it in detail with them. The other point I have to make is that no amount of discussion in a Joint Committee can settle this matter. The only place it can be settled is in a court of law, either the domestic courts of the United Kingdom or, if necessary, the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. In a sense, if that is a real point, the sooner the regulations are passed the better so that they can be tested.
So far as the point made by the right reverend Prelate is concerned, I understood that the research that the HFEA was asking for has been done and is in the process of publication. It just does not happen to have completed publication. As he was speaking I was reminded that when I had the responsibility of taking the 1990 Act—the original Act in this area—through this House, the then Bishop of London took quite a prominent part in the discussions. His watchword was caution—and he thought that that amount of caution had been built into the procedure by having the HFEA examine individual cases and be in charge of the licensing.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I take a rather different view from some of my eminent medical colleagues. I have worked for over 30 years with families of severely disabled children. As a psychiatrist—and as the mother myself of a child born with a severe developmental disability—my heart goes out to those parents facing the prospect of inherited mitochondrial disorders. As a mother, I understand what is called the moral imperative to try to help. However, our first responsibility must be to the children who may be created through these proposed interventions: the most important moral imperative must be to do no harm.
A new technology of such potential importance must take as long as is needed to be as sure as possible of its safety. Being first is not always best. I have carefully read the HFEA 2014 review of scientific methods. It has been implied that the scientific reviews have not raised any concerns, but in paragraph 3.7.25 the review states,
“although the results with the two techniques continue to be promising, further experiments need to be carried out before introducing either into clinical practice to provide further reassurance about efficiency and safety”.
I asked a Written Question in December asking whether clinical trials were being planned and I am grateful for the helpful reply from the Minister and the mention he made of it in his opening remarks—although I disagree with his interpretation of medicine, which is defined much more broadly in the European directive. The Minister also explained that,
“for any new IVF technique there will need to be careful monitoring of the procedure and, subsequently, any pregnancies”.
But we are not talking about pregnancies primarily; this is me as the psychiatrist talking now. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out, we are talking about children—children who will, we hope, grow up to be healthy human beings, and who will themselves be able to have healthy children. But what if they do not?
In paragraph 3.7.29 the HFEA expert panel said:
“Until knowledge has built up that suggests otherwise, the panel recommends that any female born following MST or PNT”—
maternal spindle transfer or pronuclear transfer—
“should be advised, when old enough, that she may herself be at risk of having a child with a significant level of mutant mtDNA, putting her child, and if female, subsequent generations at risk of mitochondrial disease”.
The science is complicated, but there is apparently a real possibility that resulting embryos from a woman born after MST or PNT could be heteroplasmic—
Lord Patel
May I ask the noble Baroness what experiments she would propose to determine that the children born through this procedure will be healthy in every way, including reproduction-wise?
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I do not think that intervention is very helpful as it is not relevant to the point I am making. The issue of heteroplasmy was spoken about earlier, and it simply means two or more different mitochondrial DNA types coexisting in a single cell. The review panel concluded:
“These levels may still not be sufficient to cause her children to have a problem, but subsequent generations could be affected”.
In paragraph 4.3 the panel stresses that,
“it should be accepted that there will always be some risk and unknowns associated with the use of MST or PMT in humans until it is tried in practice”.
I understand that and agree with it.
One argument for agreeing the recommendations now is to enable the HFEA to license these techniques as soon as it is convinced that there is sufficient evidence of safety without then having to seek parliamentary approval, thus possibly delaying implementation. In 2008, Dr Evan Harris, the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, a champion of the 2008 Act, said:
“Safety is clearly a concern… If Parliament decides that it is not safe enough to allow the HFEA to consider licensing something, Parliament would not draft, confirm or pass the regulations”.—[Official Report, Commons, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill Committee, 3/6/08; col. 35.]
Agreeing the recommendations now seems to be putting the chicken before the egg. Supporters of the techniques—
Viscount Ridley
The noble Baroness made the point that heteroplasmy, and therefore the carryover of the diseased mitochondria, is possible under this technique. Does she agree that experiments show that the likelihood is less than 5%, whereas pre-implantation genetic diagnosis has it at up to 40%? That is a legal procedure, so we are talking about trying to legalise a safer procedure than something that is currently legal.
Baroness Hollins
Again, I do not think that is the point that I am trying to make. Maybe I am not being quite clear enough.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
Would the noble Baroness not agree that there is only one absolutely safe way to ensure that this disease is not handed down from generation to generation, and that is for those women who are carriers of the genetic fault not to have children? That may be an appalling thing for me to have said, many people would think, but there are many people who for various reasons cannot have children.
Baroness Hollins
That is a good point.
Supporters of the techniques simplify the impact of these proposed procedures by saying that mitochondrial donation is like changing a battery. Their argument runs that mitochondrial DNA relates only to power production in the cell but does not affect the DNA, which encodes our characteristics, and therefore that exchanging mitochondria should not be seen as ethically significant. In a debate last September, the honourable Member for Havant in another place summed up this position well when he said that the techniques represented,
“a change in the membrane of the cell so that the battery function continues, but it does not affect human identity even by 0.1%. That is why I do not believe that there is an issue of dignity or integrity of the individual”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/14; col. 98.]
The Government underlined how important this point was to their policy in their consultation response when they said:
“Most importantly, mitochondrial donation techniques do not alter personal characteristics and traits”,
of the person, the implication being that if this technology were to affect personal characteristics then the Government would withdraw their support.
So the ethics and the safety of the science are inextricably linked. Unfortunately, it seems that we are still at the beginning of understanding the complex interactions between mitochondrial and nuclear DNA. Some recent empirical studies on animals have suggested that mitochondria indeed affect characteristics, and that there is a relationship between mitochondria and memory, temperament and behaviour. As a psychiatrist, I see temperament as a personal characteristic, and I think it was for that reason that the New Scientist withdrew its support for the techniques. In an editorial last year it said that,
“we may have seriously underestimated the influence that mitochondria have. Recent research suggests that they play a key role in some of the most important features of human life”.
I note that the Government’s own consultation document acknowledged the diversity of problems associated with mitochondrial disease, including learning disabilities, neurological problems, autonomic dysfunction and dementia, and that every person’s symptoms are different. The Government’s response to the consultation concluded that they do not alter personal characteristics. One problem that I have with the current proposals is the idea that mitochondria are mere batteries, which is what has been quoted in so many of the papers that have been circulated to Peers. The New Scientist leader comment in September last year said that most debate around the issue had worked on the assumption that mitochondria were simply cellular powerhouses. However, given their newfound influence over our bodies, the implications of this technology may be far more radical than we have assumed. The leader made the point that it seems that mitochondria, far from being passive power plants, influence some of the most important aspects of human life, from memory and ageing to combating stress and disease. They even have influence over the DNA in your cell nuclei and change and evolve during your lifetime.
I have been inundated by emails, as I am sure we all have, from people who are concerned. I had an email from a cell biologist working in California, Professor Paul Knoepfler, who contributed to the HFEA’s call for evidence. He said that,
“mitochondrial transfer might be proven safe, but then again it might not. From my perspective as an impartial (scientific) observer … putting myself at some risk by publicly opposing this technology … its approval at this time would be a … risky gamble with children’s health and lives”.
He says that many scientists have told him that privately they share his concern.
I have one question for the Minister: would he withdraw his support for the regulations if he thought that the role of mitochondria was more than mere power production? Would he then support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for further consideration of this matter?
Until recently, the Wellcome Trust had on its website a statement suggesting that the procedure would be able to go ahead in late 2014, when the science was ready. But is the science ready? I am not quite convinced yet. As noble Lords may be aware, I chair the BMA board of science, which has not yet discussed this matter. I have discussed my support for the noble Lord’s amendments with senior officers of the BMA, and perhaps I may clarify the BMA’s position. Its support for the principle of such reproductive technologies has been expressed as an ethical principle to allow the cautious exploration and development of such technologies. I have concerns about the timing of these regulations, and for that reason I welcome the opportunity to debate them presented by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, we have heard from legal and medical experts. I am happy to say that I am not an academic and I know very little about the subject. However, it strikes me that if we look at the practicalities from the point of view of the parents who are afflicted by this condition, and we turn back to 1978 when baby Louise Brown was born as a result of the in vitro fertilisation undertaken by Steptoe and Edwards—
Lord Ribeiro
In Oldham—quite right. From that one invention, nearly 5 million children have been born who otherwise would not have been because their parents were infertile. There was a strong religious lobby against it at the time; indeed, a lot of people were against it because it was interfering with the genesis of life. This fatal Motion seems to carry some of that feeling with it.
I am a mere surgeon. I had the opportunity to visit the Lister Fertility Clinic with a parliamentary group to learn a bit more about IVF and how it was carried out. I watched the technicians—not the doctors—who had gained expertise in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. That is the technique whereby you isolate the egg, find a lively sperm and then inject it straight into the cytoplasm. The technique that has been suggested for mitochondrial donation is not dissimilar from that. A lot of expertise has been gained over the years when that has been done. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and, I think, my noble friend Lord Elton refer to the situation of donors.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
The noble Lord seems to be saying that there is no difference between IVF and the mitochondrial process. However, IVF does not require the genetic modification of human eggs and embryos, or tampering with the contents of the egg or embryo itself. This technology requires both.
Lord Ribeiro
I take the noble Lord’s point. If I wanted to, I could explain why this is not an issue. One point that arises is that it is illegal to tamper with the nucleus. The technique that we are discussing relates specifically to mitochondria.
I will move on. Having seen this technique at work in the clinic, I am absolutely reassured that the expertise is there and, therefore, that the technique of mitochondrial donation, if allowed, could be carried out successfully.
I will speak briefly about the families who are currently facing the prospect of having children with severe mitochondrial disease. We are told that the numbers of those who will have severe disease is in the order of 10 or 20 per year. This technique can be fully utilised only after the regulations have passed, the HFEA has ensured that it is safe and each unit has demonstrated that it can do it safely. Only then will these families be able to have this done.
Informed consent is a prerequisite in any medical procedure. Informed consent is important because patients have to be sure that what they are having done is in their best interest. They have a choice of whether to accept what the doctor is offering or to reject it. My noble friend Lord Ridley referred to Claire Wright, a mother who lost a baby at 18 months. I was fortunate to meet her yesterday and to hear her story. What she said to me was very moving and touching. If she had the opportunity to have mitochondrial donation done, her concern was that the clock was ticking and that she may have reached the point where she would no longer be able to undergo the procedure. Yes, she could remain childless. Yes, she could adopt. But she would like to have a child that bears some of her genetic characteristics. I think that this technology will allow that to happen.
Nothing that we have in medicine at the moment can provide 100% safety—
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Before he moves on, I want to speak to his point about adoption. Your Lordships will have seen the recent parliamentary reply on this. In the past five years, around 5,000 newborn babies have been available for adoption. That is all, compared with more than 1 million babies that have been aborted during that period. Does he not think that we should be much more interested in seeing if we can put right that imbalance?
Does he also recognise that there is a difference between the two techniques that are being offered to the House today, maternal spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer, in that one requires the destruction of human embryos, 2 million of which have been destroyed since the original legislation was enacted in 1990, and the other does not? On the basis of what I think he believes and says, is it therefore not only more prudent but more ethical to use the technique that does not result in the destruction of human embryos?
Lord Ribeiro
It was made very clear by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others that the need for the two techniques is to allow the HFEA to make a decision on which is the preferable technique. We have a situation at the moment where many of the embryos that are produced are discarded after the 14 days or so that are allowed. I will not go into the question of adoption. It is a matter of choice. If the family would prefer to have a child without this affliction, that is their choice, and they may not choose to go down the adoption route.
Returning to the subject of safety, as has been stated, no procedure can guarantee 100% safety. Even the natural birth that we all go through will produce children with defective genes and abnormalities; even nature cannot get it 100% right. To expect a situation where we have to demonstrate to all and sundry that this procedure is 100% safe is impossible.
Finally, it is important to recognise that passing this regulation is not opening Pandora’s box. We are not going down the route of eugenics and we will not create monsters. We must trust the scientists. We must recognise that we have regulation in this country—one of the most regulated countries in the world in the health field—and I believe that we must leave it to them to make the case. As was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the decision was already made in 1990, when he was responsible for taking the Bill through Parliament. In 2008, it was modified with the full understanding that this type of technique might well be brought into use.
The day has come, the time has come and, frankly, we must just get on with it.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I come to this debate without any expert legal or medical experience or perspective. As a former chair of the Human Tissue Authority, I worked closely with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the well established regulator in this area. I came to know the way in which it regulated and certainly had confidence in it, as indeed Parliament has. As a former chief executive of Universities UK, I am also familiar with the research trials that are rigorously and vigorously undertaken in health research before any change or new technique is introduced into clinical practice. I have come to know the bodies which speak for science and for medical research, such as the MRC and the Royal Society, and the Association of Medical Research Charities, of which my noble friend Lord Turnberg has been a scientific adviser, as well as the Nuffield Council and the Wellcome Trust. I realise how fortunate we are in this country to have pre-eminent organisations, respected around the world, the main aim of which is to ensure that research is rigorous, honest, thorough and ethical. I say all this because I take great comfort in the fact that, where there are complex areas of science or new techniques, particularly where they might be controversial—as with fertility and genetics—we have the knowledgeable, forensic and wise guidance of these bodies to help us in Parliament to arrive at secure solutions.
Mitochondrial DNA disease is severe. In most cases, we are told, it causes early infant death, and the few children who survive suffer multiple health problems. Mitochondrial donation, a new reproductive technology developed by our world-leading scientists in Newcastle, is important because it enables families affected to have a healthy child. Our decision today will be immensely important to those families.
A key question has been raised about the safety of the procedure. As others have said, while no medical procedure can be guaranteed to be 100% safe, a huge amount of testing has been done to establish the relative safety of this particular procedure.
I have no professional expertise in this or in any other area of disease. So, like most other women and men in the street, I rely on the rigour and competence of our regulators, ethicists and clinical testing systems to provide the best possible guidance on new techniques and procedures, to enable me to make up my mind—even if some of the evidence is contradictory. All the bodies that I referred to earlier, and others which represent the families of those tragically affected by the disease, favour this regulation to permit mitochondrial donation. They have provided excellent briefings, and there was a hugely helpful seminar yesterday where experts on different aspects of this issue addressed a range of concerns. They have pointed to seven years of intensive scrutiny, three separate reviews of the scientific evidence on the technique’s safety, independent ethical reviews and an extensive public consultation. Currently, the law allows for these techniques to be used only in research. It is up to us in Parliament to decide whether these techniques are ethical and whether they may, with safeguards, be used in patients.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics found that, given the benefits to individuals if shown to be sufficiently safe, the techniques are ethical for families to use. The public, during consultation, concurred. The Wellcome Trust has helpfully set out the scientific evidence and detailed reasons why the procedure cannot be seen as genetic modification. What is very clear is that scientists throughout the lengthy period of research have been open and transparent. Nothing has been hidden, including their disagreements. There has been no conspiracy, as some of the critics seem to have suggested.
I found that I had a lot of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. All the evidence I have seen and the arguments I have heard reassure me that this is not a slippery slope or an open door, or any other cliché. Nuclear DNA is not altered, so donation will not affect the child’s appearance or personality, or its uniqueness. It will simply allow parents to choose to have children who are genetically related to them but who are free from potentially devastating disease. I trust that the House will support these regulations.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, it is a rule of this House that only one person speaks at one time. I ask noble Lords to be seated, please. We are in some difficulty. A number of noble Lords still want to speak. I understand that; this is a serious matter. Perhaps I might suggest to them that they will attract the approval of the House if they keep their remarks brief. Most noble Lords have come here with contributions to make, and they are speaking from extensive notes. It would help us all if we could move this debate to a conclusion; many noble Lords have indicated that to me. Therefore, while I do not for a moment suggest that we move to that stage now, I ask noble Lords to be orderly in allowing others to speak and to be brief.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am grateful to the House. Although of course I have ethical objections to the regulations, which are well founded and have been pretty well rehearsed on previous occasions, the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, does not invite us to vote on the ethics. Therefore, accepting what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has just said to the House, I will not explore those ethical issues today but will stick to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, raised earlier on, which concentrate on safety, legality and definitions. In supporting the Motion I want to address three points: procedure, pertinent questions and the specific issues posed by pronuclear transfer—one of the techniques made legal by these inappropriately combined regulations. It is worth saying in parenthesis that there is a third technique, polar body transfer, which was referred to during the discussions that the noble Earl was good enough to arrange for a group of us to have. That is being explored at this time, and will require yet more regulations to come before your Lordships’ House.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Yes, and so it should, as the noble Baroness says. However, why are they not being taken together, why is there a hurry, and why are we not considering them all at the same time? Some raise particular issues, and others raise different issues, so many of us find that being asked to take it or leave it today is very difficult.
Some 41 Members from all sides of the House of Commons have written to your Lordships asking us to provide the opportunity for further consideration to be given to these regulations. For 18 years I served in another place. I would have been appalled if only 90 minutes had been provided during my time there, when we discussed in 1990 the original legislation or subsequent changes to it—90 minutes on unamendable regulations. Half the House of Commons—300 compared with 350—either voted against or abstained: 128 voted against, 172 abstained, and 300 voted for. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, said to us earlier on, the Lord Chancellor—and we have heard from an eminent and very learned noble Lord today, a former Lord Chancellor—and the Attorney-General both voted against the regulations. Subsequently, we have received representations from 50 Members of the European Parliament—I say to my noble friend Lord Walton that they were not all Roman Catholics—including Socialists, Christian Democrats, Communists, Greens and others, and internationally respected scientists, challenging the safety and the legality of what we are being asked to approve. Last week Professor Christopher Exley, a British scientist, described these procedures as,
“a genetic experiment which could have disastrous consequences for generations”.
That is not a religious view. This requires us to take the moderated view that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle commended to us earlier on. Yet, procedures permitted only a 90-minute debate in the Commons on an unamendable order, and if it were not for the noble Lord, Lord Deben, today, we would not have the opportunity to be discussing these complex questions—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
As a point of fact—and I hope that the government Chief Whip will agree with me—we would have debated this order in this Chamber under the normal procedures of this House with or without the amendment that was put down, because that is the practice of this House. I can see the government Chief Whip nodding and the noble Baroness who chairs the Delegated Powers Committee agreeing.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has said to us today. It is important that it should be on the Floor of this House, therefore we are all agreed. I contrast the 90 minutes given to the House of Commons to discuss this with the 90 hours that Parliament spent discussing fox hunting. I ask noble Lords to contrast those things. We are required to show due diligence and scrutiny, especially over controversial legislation.
It is not just the absence of the preclinical tests recommended by the HFEA that suggests that the cart has been placed before the horse, but the disingenuous decision by the clinic promoting these regulations—even before your Lordships have debated, let alone approved, these regulations—to offer women money, as we heard from my noble friend Lady O’Loan earlier on, to sell their eggs for these procedures, a practice which itself can be injurious to their health, while telling us:
“It was never about politicians voting on whether it was safe or not”.
That seems almost a contempt of Parliament, and is certainly an extraordinary dismissal of health and safety considerations, which everyone has admitted this afternoon are a consequence of what we are being asked to agree. We have a duty to satisfy ourselves about questions of public safety.
I have experienced this afternoon something of a sense of déjà vu on the arguments, which are so reminiscent of those which persuaded your Lordships to vote for animal/human hybrid embryos in 2007. Although my noble friend Lord Patel, who I think is about to intervene on me again, said earlier on that there was a significant breakthrough by Professor Shinya Yamanaka just two weeks after the Bill passed, that is not entirely accurate. The Yamanaka breakthrough came in 2006 in the journal Cell, not after the Bill passed but before it was even published. If you look back at the Hansard, as I hope Members will, I argued repeatedly that the proposal was redundant because of the Yamanaka breakthrough and that we should not have voted for it. However, despite the Yamanaka breakthrough, many argued that animal/human hybrid embryos were necessary.
Before we rush pell-mell into authorising something which the rest of the world—from the federal agency in the United States to the People’s Republic of China—has prohibited, may I ask the Minister to answer some pertinent questions? First, what regard has he had to the increasing demand for women to give up their eggs for these techniques, the failure of the HFEA to monitor the drugs and dosages used for ovarian stimulation, and published data by Newcastle indicating an incidence of hospitalisation due to such stimulation due to the frequent collection of more than 20 eggs per cycle? Does he regard it as ethical to ask women to sell their eggs for £500?
Secondly, what is the cost of these regulations, both human and financial, when pronuclear transfer—the second of the procedures that have been referred to— requires the destruction of at least two and in some cases 10 healthy embryos for every procedure? Contrast the financial cost, too, of an issue I have raised regularly on the Floor of your Lordships’ House; namely, the failure to provide vital and much needed public funding into finding a cure for diseases such as mesothelioma, which will take the lives of 60,000 British people in the next 30 years.
Thirdly, and more specifically, why have the Government not waited for the outcome of the HFEA’s recommended preclinical experiments before proceeding? Fourthly, like noble Lords today, Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, said at a meeting that I attended with the noble Earl:
“No one will guarantee that it is safe”.
That being so, and given the absence of safety trials, how much has the National Health Service set aside for compensation if safety fears are realised? One recent payment to the parents of a baby damaged at a hospital reached a staggering £10 million.
Finally, I turn to the specific issue of pronuclear transfer. These regulations have bundled together two different procedures. As I said, pronuclear transfer—PNT—unlike maternal spindle transfer, requires the destruction of human embryos. It is a technique that has been specifically advocated by researchers at Newcastle. To date, most applications of this technique have been in mice. However, the Weatherall report of 2006, sponsored by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, on page 85 stated the following:
“Humans and non-human primates share many features of reproductive biology that are not present in other mammals … Hence, rodents and other non-human primates have only limited usefulness as models of human reproductive physiology”.
Consistent with this, the report of the HFEA’s expert panel in April 2011 said that before the technique could be considered safe to use clinically, it was critical to undertake,
“PNT in a non-human primate model, with the demonstration that the offspring derived are normal”.
Has this been done? Nearly four years later, the answer is still no—even though most postgraduate researchers would have already completed a doctorate within this timeframe.
Strikingly, a news article for the journal Nature stated on 19 January 2012:
“The Newcastle researchers do not have plans to determine whether primates conceived through pronuclear transfer come to term and are healthy”.
Remarkably, the HFEA’s expert panel then changed its mind about preclinical experimentation in primates being critical for pronuclear transfer, in its ensuing report in 2013. The only explanation provided was exceptionally brief and far from compelling. It said that:
“Current research using PNT in Macaques has yet to be shown to be successful. From unpublished data it appears that Macaque zygotes do not survive the PNT process well”.
The panel now believes that the macaque may not be a sufficiently good model for the human. If macaque embryos do not have a good record of surviving pronuclear transfer, and human eggs are even more sensitive, are not problems with human embryos more likely? Surely this suggests the need for proceeding even more cautiously, not less.
The Joint Committee proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, should reflect on the HFEA expert panel’s minutes of 12 February 2013, in which Dr Dieter Egli, of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, explains that he was,
“sceptical about the clinical application of PNT”,
because a structure known as the centrosome may be left behind, and that,
“the consequences of this need to be investigated”.
The proposed Joint Committee should also consider the minutes of the HFEA teleconference with Dr Shoukhrat Mitalipov on 30 January 2013, which reported:
“Dr Mitalipov expressed the view that development of MST or PNT embryos to blastocyst was not in itself enough to give confidence that the techniques are safe and effective”,
and the recent remarks of Professor Justin St John, a geneticist at Monash University in Australia with considerable expertise on the behaviour of mitochondria in nuclear transfer, who said:
“As well as analysing foetal development in a non-human primate model, it is essential to analyse offspring to determine that no abnormalities appear at least during early life”.
Not only have the researchers at Newcastle refused to perform such preclinical research in non-human primates, I have been unable to find evidence of their own prior experience in obtaining healthy offspring of any species following pronuclear transfer, or even in taking any such embryos past the blastocyst stage.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
Clearly, I am not going to get to speak this evening, so I ask the noble Lord a very simple question. Does he have any faith at all in the HFEA to do what it actually says on this tin? If the regulations are passed today it will then have the job of deciding when it will be safe to go ahead and grant a licence. If he does not have that faith in the HFEA, will he please say that? Because I do.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I serve on my own university’s ethics committee, which looks at the use of animals in experiments. Apparently, one of my roles on that committee is to be, as it were, the animals’ friend and to ask whether the experiment is repetitive, whether it is necessary to do such things and what it is going to lead to. There is no one on the HFEA who is the friend of the human embryo. That is a bizarre situation and one I would like to see rectified. But to take the noble Lord at his word, of course I think the HFEA often does a good job, and I admire many of its members.
I will simply say one other thing to the noble Lord. The HFEA is a regulator, not a legislator. That is our duty here today and that is why we are having this discussion. I am conscious that others wish to intervene and I am grateful for the patience of your Lordships’ House in allowing me to put these points. As we ponder on these serious issues revolving around public safety and questions of definition and legality, they deserve far better consideration and scrutiny than has been provided thus far. Surely we should remember the wise advice that those who legislate in haste repent at leisure. Therefore, the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for a Joint Committee of both Houses to examine the safety and legality of these regulations deserves our support.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, since 1990, this Parliament, and, in particular, this House, has shown the rest of the world how these matters should be dealt with. It is for that reason that I hope that we will pass these regulations today.
In 1990, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, set down the ethical framework within which we make decisions and within which scientists must do their work and regulators must regulate. In 2008, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and others will remember, we debated these and related issues at considerable length. At that time, the scientists came to us and said, “We believe that very shortly it will be possible for mitochondrial transfer to happen”. At that point, Parliament sat and listened to the scientists and said, “Not yet. Not yet”. That is why we passed the permissive legislation that we did, which has led to these regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, in putting forward his very cogent and persuasive argument, missed out one crucial fact that undermines his argument: research is not linear. Researchers do research and it takes them to places that they had not imagined or they hit obstacles that they did not anticipate. Things change radically, as they did in the case of animal hybrids. That is why we operate as we do, within a system whereby Parliament sets out the principles and the ethics. We require the scientists to come back to us again and again and we are dependent on the information that they give to us.
I went to the same meeting as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I formed a very different impression of the scientists. Our top scientists have been making themselves available to Members of Parliament for all of the past year to explain as clearly as they can this science as it is emerging. I do not think that we should abrogate our responsibility in this House. I think we should continue to listen to the scientists. I like the fact that I live in the United Kingdom where we debate these matters. We have the involvement of people from the church and from different faiths and walks of life. We also listen to contributions from people such as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who are consistently and wholly opposed to this issue. However, it is important that his voice is heard. I do not want the ethical decisions to be sent off to the courts as they are in the United States.
Noble Lords have talked a lot about the emotional issue of meeting the needs of families but they have also discussed the safety of these issues. However, I simply put before the House the response of parents to the suggestion that they might have a child who proved to be infertile. When they were asked how they would feel about that, they gave the clear response, “We love our children as they are and we would not have not had them. However, if we could have had a child who did not have the illnesses that they have, we would have opted to have such a child, even if that child proved to be infertile”.
The scientists have been absolutely straight with us and have given us the relevant information. They have not said that this process is safe or guaranteed because they cannot do so. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right—they will have to come back to us if techniques developed in the future prove to be better and safer than those we are discussing. However, given the information that we have, I for one feel that this Parliament has been fully informed and that we can make a decision—and I hope that we do.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I sense that the House wants to come to a decision.
Just over 14 years ago, I asked the House to agree that embryology research could be extended to cover diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and diabetes. This provision had been anticipated and included as a regulation-making power in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which had allowed embryology research but only for conditions such as infertility and congenital diseases.
The 2001 regulations were passed following a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to whom I pay tribute for his integrity and perseverance. However, his Motion to establish a Select Committee prior to the regulations being approved was defeated by 212 votes to 92.
The 1990 Act followed the work of a committee led by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, which made recommendations on developments in science and medicine in relation to human fertilisation and embryology. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her outstanding work in helping us get the balance right between the respect owed to human embryos and the potential for the use of embryos in research and treatment for devastating illnesses.
The 1990 Act was a model in the regulation of certain infertility treatments and embryo research. It reflected the need to have a strict framework in which regulation could be conducted to take account of the advances in medicine anticipated by both the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and Parliament in 1990.
Since 1990, the science and research have developed, just as has the need for Parliament to keep up and anticipate further developments. Thus, in 2001, we passed emergency legislation to put it beyond doubt that human reproductive cloning could not take place in the UK. In 2004, we passed regulations in which the identity of the donor of eggs, sperm or embryos could be given to the adult donor-conceived person under certain circumstances.
We have heard about the 2008 Act, which amended the 1990 Act to include restrictions on the types of embryos that may be placed inside a woman. Importantly, the 2008 Act amended the 1990 Act to insert a regulation-making power to enable techniques which were under development at that time to be used in treatment to prevent a child being born with serious mitochondrial disease. Surely, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, are right—at every significant stage of embryology research and potential treatment, Parliament has been asked to give its approval and thus ensure public confidence in our scrutiny of these most difficult decisions. My view is that Parliament has discharged that responsibility thoroughly and well. However, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has given us the opportunity to have this debate. Of course, we would have had a debate but the noble Lord has served a great purpose in encapsulating the core argument and I am grateful to him for so doing.
We find ourselves asked to make a crucially important decision, with powerful contributions having been made on both sides of the argument. On the one hand, we celebrate the triumph of science that these new techniques represent. We have within our reach the possibility of eradicating mitochondrial disease from families who have been blighted by it for generations. On the other hand, we are grappling with serious moral, legal and ethical questions that are raised by the proposed introduction of such techniques for treatment. We on this side of the House have a free vote. Speaking for myself, and myself alone, I will vote in favour of the regulations.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will respond to many important points that have been raised, but I ask him to focus on a number of very important considerations that have also been raised. On the question of continuing research and the comments of the expert panel, will he confirm that the panel said there was no evidence to suggest that the techniques proposed in the regulations are unsafe? Will he also confirm that the panel has agreed that further research and reviews could take place either before or after the regulations are approved?
As regards whether this matter is being rushed through Parliament and would benefit from further scrutiny by a Select Committee, the question here is: what would be gained by delay? Will the noble Earl confirm that the principles that we are discussing were approved by Parliament in 2008 after thorough debate? I do not need to go over the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics or that of the HFEA and its expert panel because noble Lords have mentioned that, but I should comment on the 90-minute debate that took place in the House of Commons. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that 90 minutes is too short. However, I have read that debate and it seems to me that it was thorough and well informed and that the points on both sides were put forcefully and interventions were made. My honourable friend Luciana Berger was asked a number of very tough questions, as was the Minister. Could anyone say that at the end of those 90 minutes MPs were not in a position to come to a conclusion? Indeed, can anyone say that we are not in a position to come to a conclusion following a debate which has lasted at least three and a half hours?
We have heard from eminent lawyers on both sides of the argument on the legal questions. We have had written submissions from the Department of Health and the legal advice of the Wellcome Trust, and other legal propositions have been put to us. However, you reach a point when it is time to make a decision. I think that we are in a position to make such a judgment.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the two techniques and how one should be considered in relation to the other. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made. However, will the noble Earl, Lord Howe, confirm that the panel believes that at present there is insufficient evidence to choose between the two techniques? Does he consider that that is still the Government’s position? The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that this was a question of resources. I have not seen evidence to suggest that that is the case. The important question is: can the Minister refute that? Can he say that the sole issue is that at the moment we are not in a position to judge which technique is likely to be more effective, and that it is solely for that reason that we are permitting the two techniques to be in the regulations?
Finally, we come to the position of the HFEA. At every point of our debates—this goes back to 2001—we have relied on the robustness of that body. The robustness of the HFEA is absolutely essential. There have been discussions and debates about how effective it is; my noble friend Lord Winston is a well known critic of some of its activities. Fair enough—but I believe that the HFEA has proved itself a highly effective and robust regulator over 20 years. I ask the Minister to confirm that it is the Government’s intention to continue to support the robustness of that regulatory approach.
As for the Chinese experience, will the Minister confirm that, although there are issues in connection with the techniques used, one big difference between the UK and the Chinese position is the regulatory framework and the robustness of the HFEA? I suspect that that was not the case in China years ago when those developments took place.
The question is whether the benefits of trying to eradicate this dreadful disease by preventing the transmission of mitochondrial disease, in view of the likelihood that otherwise children will continue to be born who will die in infancy, outweighs the risks of the techniques, which some noble Lords have described tonight. The scientific community—on the basis not of some kind of cosy consensus but of hard evidence—and the families experiencing this disease are clear that we are right to support the regulations. It is now up to us individually to decide whether we agree them. I, for one, am convinced that it is the right thing to do.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, before the noble Earl starts his speech, may I apologise to the House? The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has clarified the fact that it was the Lord Chancellor and the current Attorney-General who voted against this measure in the House of Commons. I was told that two Law Officers had voted against, and I assumed that the two Law Officers must have been the right honourable Dominic Grieve and the current Attorney-General. It was not: it was the Lord Chancellor and the current Attorney-General. I should apologise for that; it was a misunderstanding of the information that I was given.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
It would be right to say that the Lord Chancellor is not a Law Officer of the Crown.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, that is why, having been told that it was the two Law Officers, I came to the conclusion that the Lord Chancellor was not among them.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I fully expected, this has been a debate of very high quality, with a range of views, both for and against the regulations, eloquently expressed. My principal job now is to respond to the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Deben and to some of the additional points raised by other speakers.
My noble friend’s Motion covers three main points—safety, compliance with EU and UK law, and the key definitions in the draft regulations. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in his legal opinion, argued that there was some doubt about whether the regulations were compliant with EU law, in particular the EU directive on clinical trials. With respect to both noble Lords, the Government do not agree. The EU clinical trials directive does not apply here because it is concerned with medicinal products, and mitochondrial donation techniques simply do not fall under that definition.
My noble friend asked whether we had checked our position with the European Union. The simple answer is no. Within a framework of subsidiarity, it is entirely the responsibility of each member state to ensure that its own legislation is consistent with EU law. That is what we have done. The EU would be inundated with extensive queries from member states if a “legal advice” facility existed, and there is no such facility.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
Is the noble Earl equally confident that the regulations are compliant with the European directive that is due to come into force in 2016, and which might explain the timing?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I think I can make an unequivocal statement that all the legal advice I have received is that the regulations we are considering are fully compliant with European law.
As has been said, any legislation agreed in Parliament could be subject to challenge, and it would be up to the Government at the time of challenge to defend their position. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made that point. Let me reassure noble Lords that we have considered these issues very carefully, and we are confident that the regulations are compliant. I am pleased that other noble Lords who have spoken agree with that.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, cited the European charter. The EU charter does not apply in this context, because Article 51 says that it applies to member states,
“only when they are implementing Union law”.
This means that a state must be either directly implementing an EU law obligation or acting within the scope of EU law. The regulations do not do either of those things.
We have considered the issues raised and, as I have said, we are very confident that these regulations do not contravene European law. The issue comes back to whether the clinical trials directive is engaged here. It is not. Our view, incidentally, was agreed with independent legal advice commissioned by the Wellcome Trust from Thomas de la Mare QC: mitochondrial donation simply does not come within the definition of medicinal products, to which the directive applies.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
In the context of the horizontal articles of the charter, Articles 51 and 52, have the Government considered how Article 6.3 changes things, because it consolidates what the law was then? There is a difficulty, and I do not know whether the noble Earl has had specific advice on those matters. I know that this was not contained in the opinions that were promulgated earlier.
Earl Howe
I can only say again that the legal advice I have had is that the charter cuts in only when there is an issue of European law. We do not consider that treatment services, which are what we are talking about here, are covered by EU law. The noble Baroness made a point of saying that my right honourable friend the Attorney-General did not vote in favour of the regulations, but it is difficult for me to comment on that. There was, rightly, a free vote in the other place, just as there is here. I cannot comment on the personal view of the Attorney-General—and I have to say that I do not think that anything said or quoted by the noble and learned Baroness threw much light on that issue.
I repeat that my department is confident that these regulations are necessary and have a sound legislative base in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay rightly pointed out, it was the clear intention of Parliament that this provision would enable mitochondrial donation to take place in a clinical setting.
On the issue of safety, my noble friend Lord Deben urges us to delay until further research is carried out. However, we could wait indefinitely for research and follow-up and still not have a 100% assurance about safety, because that is the nature of science and research. The standards of assurance that some are seeking are considerably higher than those for cancer treatment or heart disease. As far as the expert panel convened by the HFEA is concerned, there is no evidence to suggest that these techniques are unsafe. The critical experiments are progressing positively.
As I said, the mitochondrial donation regulations require the HFEA to assess each application for mitochondrial donation on a case-by-case basis. That will include consideration of the evidence on safety and effectiveness. As a statutory independent regulator, it is for the HFEA to determine its own procedures for assessing applications to carry out treatment regulated by the 1990 Act. Applications to provide mitochondrial donation treatment are no exception to this rule but, clearly, the HFEA will not authorise the treatment if it does not consider it safe to do so.
It is never possible to answer every safety question before new medical procedures are used in people for the first time. New techniques can be refined and reviewed. Even the most exhaustive research can establish only that a technique is sufficiently likely to be safe to justify “first in human” treatment. However, if medicine is to progress, clinicians should in my submission be permitted to use new techniques when evidence suggests these are sufficiently safe and effective. It is the Government’s view that medical knowledge in the field of mitochondrial disease and donation has now reached this stage and it is time to progress. The legislative framework of the HFE Act provides for Parliament to endorse the Government’s view before proceeding and, following the extensive process of consideration that I have already set out, we have properly brought this to Parliament for debate on affirmative regulations.
I listened with care to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I absolutely concede that there is a balance of risks to be considered. As I have said, it is not possible to be certain that new medical procedures will be 100% safe or effective. These risks must be balanced with the risk of ongoing suffering for families with mitochondrial disease. For me, the simple point is this: scientific evidence suggests that any risks of mitochondrial donation are proportionately less than the significant risk that children will continue to be born who will develop severe mitochondrial disease if these techniques are not used. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, pointed out, ultimately it will be up to affected families to judge the balance of these risks with advice from their clinicians and then to decide whether they choose to proceed with treatment, subject to authorisation by the HFEA.
My noble friend Lord Deben mentioned the Chinese study. That study has not been published and we understand that it will not be. It concerns one pregnancy, using an earlier form of pronuclear transfer. One of the clinicians involved gave a full interview to the Independent recently and explained that the complications that occurred related to multiple pregnancies from multiple embryo transfer, rather than from the mitochondrial donation process. As I understand it, there were no genetic abnormalities in the foetuses.
Turning again to the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the HFEA-convened expert panel considered the issues that she raised: if the patient and the donor have different mitochondria, known as haplotypes, the donor’s mitochondria may not, as it were, “talk properly” to the patient’s nuclear DNA, causing health problems. The panel considered that as part of its third scientific review. However, it was of the view that the data submitted to it about this potential problem were not relevant enough to raise safety concerns. However, the panel has recommended, as a purely precautionary step, that consideration be given to the mitochondria haplotype when matching donors to patients, even though the risks of not doing so are assessed to be very low.
The noble Baroness questioned whether successive generations, particularly girls, could have the same problems arise from unhealthy mitochondria. The principle behind the treatment is that the mitochondrial DNA that the child will inherit will be the disease-free mitochondrial DNA of the donor, not the faulty mitochondrial DNA of the mother, although there is a small risk that the low level of unhealthy mitochondria may be carried over when the patient’s nuclear DNA is moved from her egg or embryo to the donor’s. Evidence continues to be reassuring that carryover after mitochondrial replacement is very low and unlikely to be problematic. The risk of mitochondrial disease being present in these generations will, we believe, be low.
The noble Baroness also said that we still do not know enough about the relationship mitochondria have with the human body. This is true of many aspects of human physiology, not just mitochondrial DNA. The majority of the evidence indicates that mitochondria are primarily concerned with generating the power that every cell in the body needs to function. It is generally accepted that, as vital as the function of the mitochondria undoubtedly is to the human body, they do not play a role in developing a person’s physical appearance or personality traits, which are derived solely from nuclear DNA.
Lord Elton (Con)
Before my noble friend leaves the question of risk, may I ask him to close a little chink in the reassuring curtain that he is drawing before us? We are assured by the HFEA that there is no evidence of risk in what is proposed, but it also proposes quite a large phalanx of experiments that should be completed before proceeding. First, there appears to be a slight logical discontinuity there. Secondly, can we be reassured that, in the Minister’s view, the HFEA will not proceed to licensing anybody until they have completed that programme of experiments?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who asked a similar question, that the expert panel stated that the further experiments that it recommended could take place either before or after the passing of these regulations. However, they must be done before treatment can take place. I hope that that is sufficient reassurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, spoke about the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. OHSS is a well recognised side-effect of the drugs used to stimulate a patient’s or donor’s ovaries to collect multiple eggs for use in fertility treatments. The risks of OHSS are very well understood, with patients and egg donors carefully monitored. The HFEA’s code of practice requires women undergoing ovarian stimulation to be given information about the possible side effects and risks, including OHSS. Women are informed of the symptoms to look out for and are warned to contact their clinic if they feel unwell. Women donating eggs for use in mitochondrial donation will not be at any increased risk of developing OHSS.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both questioned the practice of paying for donated eggs. I submit that there is nothing sinister in that. Within the legal framework of the HFE Act, the HFEA sets the rates for compensation to donors of eggs or sperm; £500 for an egg donor is well within those limits. It certainly is not a sign that Newcastle University is anticipating the introduction of the regulations to allow mitochondrial donation. It is continuing its research and has an ongoing need for donated eggs for that purpose.
I turn now to the issue of definitions. In making the regulations, the Government have been clear about their approach, the definitions used and the source of their material. The Government’s consultation on the detail of the regulations set out very clearly: the definitions of scientific terms; the detail of the techniques that the draft regulations would cover; the terms that others might use, such as “genetic modification”; and the proposed approach to information for donors and those conceived through mitochondrial donation.
Lord Deben
My Lords, if ever anyone questions the value of this House, this evening proves it. It has been a really valuable debate and I hope that all noble Lords who have taken part in it and those who have listened will recognise that we have all learnt and valued what we have heard, even from those who have spoken from a different point of view.
There was a phrase used during the debate that particularly annoyed me—an attack on playing God. I do not believe that that is a proper way to discuss these issues, not least because it is of the nature of the Christian understanding of creation that we share with God in His creative power. It is the great gift of the Almighty to us. Therefore, the idea that we should not do any of these things because for some reason or other they are reserved to God seems to me to be fundamentally theologically unsound as well as philosophic nonsense. I hope no one has suggested that those who take the view that I take do so from some arcane understanding of the Almighty.
Nor do I think anyone will now suggest that we were trying to push this whole debate into the long grass—and in case anyone should be worried, I do not intend to take up the time of the House for very much longer. The long grass was certainly not my intention. As the Minister knows, I have unbounded admiration for him and he again showed why we should return to the position of Ministers in this House being Cabinet Ministers as well. However, in describing his side he still left me with three very fundamental reasons for saying that we need to have certain things in place before we vote.
First, on the two issues, he is perfectly right to say that it is reasonable to bring them before the House. The objection is that they are brought before the House without it being able to make a decision on each of them separately because they each present separate issues. I do not think he has answered that. I know why he said that. It is because the Government know perfectly well that if you divide the two it would become clear that there is an ethical distinction between them. We did not discuss that today because we knew we could not discuss that ethical distinction because only one of them held it and the other did not. So my objection to the Government’s position—not of course to my noble friend’s position—is that they could have given us that choice and they decided not to.
It is the choice that I object to, not the fact that one might use the two techniques if both were approved. I suspect that both would have been approved, but we would have been able to explain why we hoped that the work done on the maternal spindle transfer and the third mechanism, which is coming along, would be prioritised and done in an ethically acceptable way. That is the first reason why I believe it would be better to allow a committee to look at this very rapidly and to insist that it be a decision in which we have a choice.
The second reason is that there is clearly a legal disagreement. I bow to nobody in my support for my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I know that it is normal in this House to accept that what he says is infallible. If it were not for his denomination, I would use that word, but I think that it would probably embarrass him considerably if I were to use it in conjunction with his name. However, I point out that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, spoke for a number of people, including the Attorney-General, whose statement made it clear that he felt that this was unsound for legal reasons. Incidentally, I want to say that it is perhaps surprising that the Lord Chancellor is not a lawyer. I think that the Lord Chancellor should always be a lawyer. I also think that he should not be a career politician but ought to sit in this House. I make that point while I have the chance to say it, as until now I have not had a chance to make that provocative comment. However, the fact is that there are very clear legal disagreements.
I perfectly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with whom I am normally ad idem: we have marched together on most of the subjects when I have rebelled against the Government and I have taken much pleasure in our arguments. However, I say to him that there is a distinction here. It is very dangerous for this House to leave it to someone else to decide whether something is legal. I think that this House should make that decision itself, and then, if it makes the wrong decision or a questionable decision, the matter will come before the courts. I understand that distinction but I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, on that front. However, I am worried about entering into legal issues because I have always prided myself on being the only member of the Cambridge mafia who did not read law.
That leads me to the third point, which is safety. It is no good—we cannot kid ourselves about this. The terms under which we were originally told that we were going to have this debate have not been met. The experiments which we were told would be done have not been completed. The most important of those is the primate experiment to make sure that such procedures do not result in sterility. People have said that even suggesting that is an attempt to frighten people. I am not doing that at all. It is simply the case that that was what we wanted to do but there has not been enough time to do it, although it would not take very long. Therefore, I again come to the question of why this measure is being pressed at this moment when we could very rapidly have the answers to all the questions that we have raised. I want to end on that but I shall say why I think that that is important—much more important even than the issue itself.
I believe that we are moving into a society in which the search for consensus and agreement is becoming increasingly much less urgent and much less important to people. I believe that we could have gained very considerable support for this measure. The noble Earl caused a certain amount of laughter when he referred to the ComRes poll. It was intended to ask people, in the words that they had read in the newspapers, what their reaction was. That is why the poll was held. Therefore, passing the matter to the Wellcome Trust and others to look at it as though it were a scientific statement was entirely contrary. I was pleased to find out that we had so failed to communicate with the public that 90% did not want us to go ahead with these regulations, and that was the case when using words which had meaning for the public. The Government’s consultation was in fact very limited. That is not the burden of this whole debate, but I just want to say to the House that we are beginning not to try to take everyone on board. There was a real opportunity to do so here and I would still like to recapture that. That is why I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Winston
Before the noble Lord does that, I wonder whether he would consider this point very seriously for a moment. If we delay this measure, we will, as I am sure he understands very well, be committing a number of people to terminating pregnancies. Not only will we be terminating their pregnancies but those women will experience a number of lost pregnancies—a loss of life. Is that what the noble Lord really wants in pressing this amendment?
Lord Deben
I do not want to prolong this but the fact is that the human embryology committee and the terms under which it can give the permissions will take longer than it would take to have the committee that I am calling for in my amendment. It would not hold matters up for one moment. However, I think that the House wants to go to a vote.
Gambling: Fixed-odds Betting Machines
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions are being taken to address the concerns expressed by a number of local authorities in England and Wales about the growth in the number of high stakes fixed odds betting machines available on the high street.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am today pursuing a matter of considerable concern to many noble Lords which has been discussed before on a number of occasions in this House. Most recently, on 9 February, my noble friend Lord Strasburger asked about the Government’s plans to mitigate the effects of FOBTs. We also discussed the regulation of FOBTs in Committee during the passage of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act in January 2014.
Fixed-odds betting terminals—popularly referred to as FOBTs, and technically known as B2 gaming machines—are for high-stake fast play, allowing users to bet up to £100 every 20 seconds. During 2013, £1.6 billion was lost by gamblers on FOBTs in Britain, with most of the money coming from some of the UK’s most deprived communities. There are now some 34,500 FOBTs across the UK. The £100 stake on FOBTs is more than 40 times the EU average; combined with the fast pace of play, this makes them particularly dangerous, leading to high levels of problem gambling. The speed of roulette on the machines is more than five times as fast as roulette in a casino, yet the machines are in lightly regulated, high street betting shops—more than 9,000 of them across the country. The reality on the ground is that these machines are highly dangerous products that are catalysts for problem gambling, social breakdown and serious crime in communities.
Research published last year by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre found that problem gambling is seven times higher in deprived areas, seven times higher among harmful drinkers and six times higher among the mentally ill. Responsible Gambling Trust research—although flawed—shows the worrying impact of the machines. A person who has been gambling at higher stakes is more likely to make poorer judgments than after gambling at lower stakes. The number of people betting the maximum £100 stake doubles between 10 pm and midnight; 37% of FOBT gamblers are problem gamblers. We have all noted the clarification of the misquotation of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, in his Answer on 9 February by the chairman of the RGT.
Proliferation is happening around the country—not just in the cities. One street in the London Borough of Newham has 18 betting shops. However, betting shops are also spreading in towns across the country. Colchester has 14 bookies, including seven branches of Ladbrokes. Ireland has banned the machines altogether, following both public concern and parliamentary pressure. The Smith commission on devolution has recommended that powers be devolved to the Scottish Parliament to prevent the proliferation of fixed-odds betting terminals.
The Government have brought forward two proposals aimed at ameliorating the worst effect of FOBTs. First, there are the changes to the planning regime. In 2014, the Government consulted on a change to planning processes which would place betting shops in a separate use class order and require express planning application for new betting shops. However, a new use class would impact only on future shops; it would do nothing to tackle existing clusters of betting shops, which have been strongly opposed by local communities. It will do nothing about the 34,500 FOBTs already on our high streets. In fact, it will simply provide a competitive advantage to those betting shops already in place by keeping out the competition. So those planning reforms are not the answer to the FOBT problem, they are merely shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Secondly, we have the new Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, shortly to be debated in this House. They will require account-based play via a loyalty card or similar system, or talking to a staff member if a customer wants to bet more than £50 per play. That does not amount to a stake reduction. Punters can still stake £100 every 20 seconds. Vulnerable players chase their losses, and neither measure will prevent a player betting £100 per game: the root cause of the addictive nature of FOBTs.
Asking betting shop staff to restrict further betting by customers who may have just incurred large losses is likely to lead to conflict and dangerous situations, especially where shops, as they increasingly are, are staffed by only one person. There is no basis for the £50 proposal. No research has considered the impact of a £50 stake. Therefore there is no evidence that the proposal will help to protect problem gamblers.
The essential point that I am making today is that neither of the Government’s proposals will be effective. By giving the impression of taking action, they may make the situation worse by delaying the only truly effective answer: reducing the maximum stake to £2, which is the maximum stake offered in all other similarly regulated adult premises on the high street, such as adult gaming centres.
Local authorities, who see the problem on the ground, clearly do not believe that the proposals go far enough. Last November, 93 councils, led by the London Borough of Newham but from across England and controlled by all three major political parties, including colleagues of my noble friend Lord Tope in the London Borough of Sutton, called for action under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to cut the maximum stake to £2. Under the Act, councils from all those parties have called on central government to take that action due to the anti-social behaviour, crime and problem gambling that the machines are causing in their local areas. That unprecedented step represents the widest support that any Sustainable Communities Act proposal has ever received.
The Local Government Association has backed this call. It has demanded a range of measures to strengthen the role of local councils in protecting their high streets, including calling for a reduction in the £100 stake on FOBTs to £2. Under the Act, councils are given the power to make proposals to the Secretary of State as to how the Government can assist them in promoting the sustainability of local communities. The Secretary of State is then under a duty to reach agreement with councils, either via their representative body, the LGA, or directly, on which proposals will be given priority. The department is formally required to respond by June 2015. I hope that the Government will respond before then. There is clear evidence that the public supports restrictions on FOBTs. YouGov showed that only 4% of the public would oppose a ban on FOBTs, with 58% of those who gamble more than once a month in favour of an all-out ban. The Gambling Commission has stated that in interpreting the available evidence it will take a precautionary approach where that evidence is mixed or inconclusive.
It is clear that the stake should be reduced until there is evidence that it can be safely increased above the £2 level. The onus should be on the bookmakers to demonstrate that effective measures can be put in place before they are allowed to offer games at more than £2. I hope that the Government will go well beyond the actions that they have already taken, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord’s arguments. Indeed, he has put them so well that I am reminded of the advice I was given many years ago that, when all the arguments have been well put, not everyone else has to put the same arguments. I can therefore be much briefer than I would otherwise have been.
As regards the planning side of this, the Government are trying to bolt the stable door after the horse has gone, because we have such a plethora of betting shops with these machines in them that it is very hard to believe that the changes in planning will go any way towards remedying the situation. They might prevent it getting worse but that is all. I am impressed by the overwhelming number of organisations and local authorities—people who know what they are about—that are opposed to the present situation and do not believe that the Government’s proposals go far enough.
Let us take a problem gambler, a person who is pretty well addicted: we know that quite a number of people are. This person goes into a shop and he is told that there is a limit. He responds, “Oh, that’s all right, I understand about the limit. I want to bet £100 every 20 seconds”. That is not going to stop anybody. It might stop a timid soul but not a gambler of that sort. The difficulty is that because of the speed with which it happens there is hardly time for anybody to pause and say, “This is ridiculous. I shouldn’t go on backing the loss of money”. Psychologically, at least if one is somewhere where one can gamble only at intervals, one can reflect on the likelihood of losing or winning and on the need to be cautious. People get caught up psychologically. They lose money and say, “I must go on betting in the hope of getting my money back”. Surely that is the cause. It is a social evil to encourage people to bet in this way and lose money. A lot of the criticism is about how this happens in very deprived areas.
The borough of Newham has put forward some very interesting proposals and briefings on this. It says clearly, “We are a deprived area. We have all these betting shops and machines. Please, we cannot sustain a decent community if this goes on happening”. I do not for the life of me know why the Government are trying to pussyfoot around and make minor changes—and I regard them as minor changes—to placate somebody.
There is an argument that there might be a loss of employment in some bookmakers. Well, there might be, though they are not so well staffed that they have enough people to persuade problem gamblers to ease off. Even if there is a loss of turnover in the bookmakers—and I do not want anyone to lose their job—that money will go somewhere else. People are poor: they will spend it on what everyone else would spend it on in the high street. There will, therefore, be no loss of economic activity because of this. Perhaps there will be a transfer from one type of activity to another, but there will not be an overall loss of economic activity. I cannot see, therefore, that there will be an economic disadvantage. In any case, it is surely not very edifying if our high streets have one betting shop after another. Is that the sort of high street or community that we want? High streets can be positive. They can be useful for people and provide shopping facilities. We do not want these other things when there can be an excess of them—and there is. It is said that a single street in Newham has 18 betting shops. For heaven’s sake, what sort of society are we supposed to be?
There is an enormous weight of opinion against these terminals—or, to put it this way, an enormous weight of opinion saying that the maximum limit should be £2. To me, that seems a lot of money because you can spend £2 every 20 seconds. That is still a lot of money and adequate for one’s gambling instincts, but then I am not a gambler so perhaps I do not understand these things all that well. It just seems that £2 would be a sensible limit. After all, it is right that the people who are vulnerable and who have become addicted to gambling should be given some measure of ability to keep their gambling urges under some form of control. This is not asking for a great deal. We are not asking to nanny people.
Some of the figures we have been given say that over a third of fixed-odds betting terminal gamblers are problem gamblers. It is one in three—a large proportion. People do not just go in there and spend a little money, then go away again. It seems that they stay there and that it is easy for this to become compulsive. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the numbers of people betting the maximum £100 stake doubles between 10 pm and midnight. That is hardly a time when one’s judgment is going to be calm and sensible.
The weight of evidence is so much against these terminals with the stakes as they are, and so much in favour of having a significantly reduced stake. I believe that the Government’s proposals, which will come out in orders, frankly do nothing significant to help. I urge the Government to think again. We are talking about what is for some people a social evil. It is harm that we are doing to our fellow citizens; surely we have to stop that.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I was for many years a happy constituent of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Battersea South but in my many perambulations around the betting shops of the area I very rarely bumped into him, although he was a most assiduous MP. I suspect that like many of the participants in this debate, he probably does not go into them very much.
Lord Dubs
Just so that everything should be above board, I go into a betting shop once a year when we have a small bet on the Grand National. The year when I won the most was during an election campaign, when a horse called “Party Politics” won and the odds were good. Beyond that, I do not go into betting shops and never did in Battersea.
Lord Lipsey
I will give the noble Lord a tip for next year’s Grand National and tell him which shop to place it in.
We have had a slightly testing afternoon, so I may risk a rather racy analogy which gives my view of FOBTs. I am not very fond of them. If betting on a horse race is the full sexual intercourse of betting and gambling, with foreplay when you select your horse and mounting excitement as the race goes on—we know what happens after that, when the result comes—then FOBTs are a form of onanism. You see sad-eyed blokes—it is always blokes—in front of porn-like machines, made very glittery and unrealistic, shoving in pounds for momentary pleasure. If FOBTs evaporated into the air tomorrow, I for one should be delighted but that does not mean that I would ban them. There are a lot of pastimes that I do not much like: fox hunting, shooting and, although the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is beside me, I have to say also fishing. However, if others wish to practise them within the law—and of course on fox hunting there is a strict law—that is their affair. Perhaps more importantly, there is the matter of unforeseen consequences.
You do not have to go into a betting shop to place a bet. The online alternative is increasingly attractive, and I cannot see much advantage in forcing determined punters to do what they do in private rather than doing it in a betting shop, where at least there is some element of sociable atmosphere. I can also see some disadvantages. I quite take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on this: there would be a threat to the jobs of the hard-working staff—some 45,276 of them nationwide—who work in these shops. There would be a loss of tax and the loss of betting levy revenues. Those have to be weighed against the arguments we hear. Having said that—which favours the bookmakers’ arguments—I cannot believe the hash that the bookmakers have made of arguing their case on this. I cannot believe it. They were legendary lobbyists once upon a time. If William Hill or Ladbrokes came through your door, you shivered with fear and slavered to do their will. But now their approach has been that of the tobacco industry at its very worst. First, they denied that there was a problem. Then they said more research was needed—an echo of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in the debate we have just had; there is always more research needed—at the same time doing everything they could to obstruct that research by not making FOBTs available to researchers. Now, finally, their answer is to do more about problem gambling.
Of course, I welcome everything that is done about problem gambling. I applaud the work of the new Senet Group, including on gambling advertising in the windows of shops, but also more widely. I also tremendously welcome the appointment of Martin Cruddace as interim chief executive of the Association of British Bookmakers. Martin is a 21st-century man who has some possibility of helping us find a way through this difficult problem without catastrophic damage either to the betting industry or to the people of this country.
I said that the present answer of the bookmakers is to say, “We are going to fight problem gambling”. Of course I favour that very much, but I do not think it is any more likely to wash than the bookmakers’ previous defensive strategies. There is a lively academic debate about problem gambling. I will not go into it here: “Is there such a thing?”; “Is there a clear distinction between problem gambling and non-problem gambling?”; “How prevalent is it?”. I greatly applaud the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for getting this debate tonight, but the notion that one-third of those who play FOBTs are problem gamblers is not in line with the evidence.
We must do everything we can to stop the terrible affliction that genuine addictive problem gambling can do to people and their families. As far as I am concerned, it is not those who shove every penny they can get hold of into these damned machines who are the only people with a gambling problem. Anyone—anyone—who stuffs a hard-earned £100 into a slot has a gambling problem. You therefore have to tackle it across the board.
What should be done? The title of this debate refers to the growing number of FOBTs. Again, I am afraid that I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, who I much respect. The number of machines is not rising very much. It is nearly 40,000, actually—not the 9,000 he suggested—but it is rising at only about 2% a year. Indeed, I suspect, as we speak, that it has fallen because bookmakers are closing betting shops on quite a large scale now and there will be fewer machines. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I think the noble Lord will find that although the total numbers are not changing very much, they are migrating towards the poorest areas.
Lord Lipsey
Yes, but that does not relate to the point I was making that just controlling numbers is not enough. There may be a case for local controls in some areas. I will come back to that at the end of my speech, but I think that the numbers are probably falling now. However, if you really want to put money into an FOBT, you are not going to have much trouble finding a machine; there are plenty about.
It is also true that there might be fewer betting shops on our high streets if there were a crackdown on the numbers of FOBTs. Again, with regard to unintended consequences, anyone who thinks that that would mean all the great shops and chains moving back on to the high street are deluding themselves; the only reason why there are so many betting shops on the high street is that no one else wants the premises, and they are therefore available. I would rather that our high streets consisted of well maintained betting shops than ill maintained, ramshackle, empty shops that are falling down.
So if we are not going to try to control numbers, what should we try? I think that the alternative, as has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is the tool we already have: a limit on the amount that you can put into the machine at once. A hundred pounds is a very high limit, is it not? It means—in theory, at least—that the punter can lose a hell of a lot of money in no time at all. It is, incidentally, the bookmakers’ adamant refusal to take the counsel of their wiser friends and reduce that amount, a refusal that I think is motivated by sheer greed and the need to feed the maws of their shareholders, that has persuaded me that they simply do not get it or, at best, that their judgment has taken second place to the size of their bonuses. Had they voluntarily reduced the top stake by one-quarter, one-half or three-quarters when problems started to emerge, I suspect that we would not be here having this debate today.
Outside bookmaking, a consensus is emerging for reducing the maximum stake substantially; the figure of £2 seems to have emerged among campaigners at the right sort of level. Going back to sex, that would turn the porn machines into a sort of page 3—if that still exists; I get confused from day to day as to whether it does—that is, mild titillation rather than hardcore, and FOBTs into something more akin to entertainment-with-prizes machines, a bit of fun rather than a serious gambling product. In my view, it is a matter for serious further consideration whether such a limit should be imposed at the national level or decided by local decision by local government.
Lord Strasburger
My Lords, since confessions seem to be the fashion, I will admit to liking a little flutter myself. In this matter, there are many knowns and a few unknowns. We know that FOBTs are different from all other gambling machines on the high street because their maximum stake is 50 times higher, £100 as opposed to £2. This makes them suitable for addictive casino games, mainly roulette, and they turn betting shops into de facto casinos where a punter can lose £300 a minute but without the close supervision that casinos deploy.
We know that 70% of betting shop revenue now comes from FOBTs. We know that the big bookmakers target the poor and the financially vulnerable because the density of FOBTs in the most deprived areas is double that in the most well-off parts of the country. We know that the predictable income that FOBTs generate, not being dependent on the results of sporting events, is very attractive to the plc boards of the big gambling businesses. We know that betting shops employ fewer staff for FOBTs than if they had over-the-counter betting only, so the costs are reduced.
So we know that FOBTs are goldmines for the betting industry and that it will do all it can to keep them and their £100 maximum bet three times a minute, come what may. We also know that the Responsible Gambling Trust is funded by the gambling industry and its trustees and management are stuffed with betting industry figures, so the trust’s independence and impartiality are, at best, suspect.
Yet we also know that the Government rely on the Responsible Gambling Trust for its research on FOBTs. So it is hardly surprising that, despite indications given previously by the Government, the recent Responsible Gambling Trust research did not examine whether the special characteristics of FOBTs—namely very high stakes, casino games and very high-speed play—contribute to problem gambling and addiction, although we do know that research by Sydney University in 2005 found a link between high staking and problem gambling.
These omissions in the Responsible Gambling Trust’s research suit the gambling industry very nicely. Once again, action will be deferred on greatly reducing maximum stakes and game speed, and the big bookmakers can continue to profit handsomely from the poor and the addicted. We also know that fixed-odds betting terminals present a convenient route for small and large-scale money-laundering.
There are two things that we do not know. The first is very simple. Why on earth did anyone, apart from the bookmakers, think that it was a good idea to allow one category of gambling machine, freely accessible on high streets, to have a maximum stake 50 times higher than all the others? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell the House why the Government still think that huge anomaly should persist. The other unknown is why the Government appear to be complicit in protecting the big bookmakers and their super-profits from FOBTs, at the expense of the most economically vulnerable and those addicted to gambling, their families and those in their community who suffer from the consequential crime. Could my noble friend the Minister explain why that is the case?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate. If we are to have a sort of coming-out session, I have used casinos and have even had the delight of Las Vegas, where I certainly enjoyed myself. The most frightening experience I have had was taking an elderly neighbour to the local bingo hall and watching people play bingo. I found it incredibly stressful; I could not keep up while she, in her 80s, was able to point out all the numbers that I had missed. There is skill in some of these games.
Despite a two-year research programme, and after 15 years of FOBTs on high streets at £100 a spin, we are still no nearer a conclusive answer to whether they are safe to operate in high street betting shops.
My noble friend Lord Dubs has pointed out that the betting industry has argued that jobs are at risk if FOBTs are not allowed. If this is the case, why has the number of employees in betting shops been decreasing while the net takings from FOBTs have increased?
Local authorities have a statutory duty to uphold the licensing objectives, which are to ensure that gambling is fair and open, is not associated with crime and does not harm the young and vulnerable. As we have heard from noble Lords, 93 councils believe that FOBTs are in breach of all these objectives and so have joined Newham in calling for the maximum stake to be capped at £2 a spin.
Labour has always been clear that FOBTs should be kept under review. My right honourable friend Tessa Jowell, the then Secretary of State, said during the passage of the 2005 Act that FOBTs were “on probation”. They have certainly had a very long period of probation. She was concerned about unintended consequences relating to the machines, about the gambling industry becoming “overly dependent” on growth driven by the machines and about FOBTs’ role in problem gambling. At the time when four was settled on as the number of machines to be permitted in betting shops, she said that there was no certainty that these machines would remain, because we were absolutely clear that we could not know at that stage what their effect was likely to be.
In response to the cap, bookmakers have opened multiple premises in clusters to facilitate more machines. They get round the limit of four by simply having four more shops in the same area. Extending those clusters has been a very big issue for lots of local authorities. By clustering in that way, they facilitate more machines, as a fixed-margin product guarantees bookmakers a return. As a result, FOBTs have become a significant part of their business operations, which has led to betting shops proliferating on high streets and licences being moved from tertiary locations to clusters.
The Minister, in response to a recent question from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, in the Chamber referred to new regulations which,
“come into force on 6 April this year that will end unsupervised high-stake gambling on fixed-odds betting terminals. All players using FOBTs are now presented with a choice to set time and money upfront”.
The Minister assured the House that the Government would be,
“keeping this issue under review and remain focused on identifying gambling-related harm, wherever it is found, and devising effective measures to bear down on it hard”.—[Official Report, 9/2/15; col. 1021.]
Tonight, however, can the Minister explain how the Government came to decide that £50 would deal with problem gambling? I fear that if he cannot, many will see this as a bit of a sham rather than firm action. It is a fact that the limit relies on the betting industry to apply it, and customers will be able to bet above £50 on a single play with permission from betting shop staff.
We have heard a lot about the research of the Responsible Gambling Trust, which has identified that 73% of all bets were on B2 games and that roulette was the most popular type of B2 game. In effect, as we have heard, we now have casinos on every high street, but not with the same sort of controls and supervisions you would have in casinos. In London, stake sizes were higher and session lengths longer.
A link between social deprivation and use of the machines was found. In England, two-fifths of all bets were placed in venues in the most deprived areas. However, that reflected the distribution of bookies, as 38% of branches are in the most deprived areas of the country. Those with lower incomes were more likely to start to play machines in a bookmaker’s than those with higher incomes.
We share concerns that betting shops are clustering in areas with high levels of deprivation, but appreciate that not all areas are affected. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the new regulations on planning apply to new premises. They are not tackling the issue of existing premises, or the clustering I referred to. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has told us:
“This government is committed to localism and greater local decision-making in planning”.
Perhaps the Minister can explain why that does not apply to betting shops. Local authorities should have the ability to ration and manage the number and location of these shops in their area. The Labour Party would also modify the Gambling Act to give councils powers to review betting shop licences in their area and retrospectively reduce the number of machines in existing betting shops—that is, from four through to zero—in response to local concerns.
Critics of FOBTs have argued that these machines are addictive because of the immersive nature of the games, which lulls people into losing more money than they intend. We have heard what the research has shown about the periods of time for which these are being played. I support measures to mitigate the harm of these machines, such as increasing the time between plays, introducing pop-ups that warn players how long they have played, and how much they have gambled and lost, or requiring them to go to the cash desk to limit the amount they can insert into the machine. However, none of those measures will be effective without sufficient trained staff. Betting shop staff are on the front line when it comes to consumer protection, but single staffing is commonplace in betting shops, especially in these clusters. Does the Minister agree that staff would be in a better position to intervene and help problem gamblers if they were not made to work alone?
Labour will expect operators who have FOBTs to have at least two members of staff present at all times. If they fail to comply with this, we will make it a licensing condition for betting shops that have FOBTs. By demanding that betting shops with FOBTs stop single staffing and requiring them to provide adequate training for staff, we can increase employee safety and empower staff to help potential problem gamblers.
As my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, one of the key issues cited for inaction on FOBTs is a lack of evidence; we have heard that through tonight’s debate. Does the Minister agree that betting shop operators should be required to collect and provide standardised data on the use of FOBTs, to allow independent—I stress the word—researchers to analyse their impact so as to help inform all future decision-making on these machines?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting and thought-provoking debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for tabling this debate and presenting his case with such aplomb, not least because it offers the Government an opportunity to highlight existing measures in this area and to provide reassurances on what is, after all, a very important subject. Let me state categorically at the outset that the Government understand the public’s concerns and those of noble Lords around fixed-odds betting terminals. We have made it clear that we consider the future of their regulation to be unresolved.
I turn first to the submission supported by Newham Council and others. The Government understand the deep concerns held in this area of law in relation both to the perceived impact on the face of the high street of clustering—about which I will say something later—and to the claimed impact on problem gambling of the category B2 or the fixed-odds betting terminals that we are talking about. That is why, last April, we announced action in this area. I believe this was the first action announced under the Gambling Act, which, after all, came in in 2005, so there was ample opportunity for the previous Government to do things in the five-year period before the 2010 election. However, I accept that we all have concerns about this issue, so I am approaching it on that basis.
We announced a whole suite of new gambling controls, on track to come into force in April this year. I believe that my noble friend Lord Gardiner covered that in answer to a Question asked by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. The measures that we are seeking to introduce are to give more powers to local communities by requiring planning applications to be submitted to local authorities for new betting shops, and they will now be in a separate category. At the moment, they are in the same category as financial advisers and so on, so a change of use within that category would not require planning permission. After April, it will need separate planning permission unless it is within a now very limited category. I think that they share the same category as payday lenders and that they are the only two types of business that will find themselves in this new planning category. We have also brought in measures—which I will outline and expand on later—to restrict unsupervised high-stake play.
I do not claim to be able to predict what the precise impact of these measures will be—I do not think any of us can know that—but as the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, said at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 20 January:
“These measures, particularly regarding FOBTs”—
Lord Strasburger
I thank my noble friend for giving way. He says that he cannot predict the effect of these changes. Let me help him. Changing the planning law will have no effect on the existing betting shops.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I actually said that I could not predict the precise impact of these measures. That comment was meant in a global sense; I was not referring to a particular instance. However, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that helpful intervention.
As I was saying, the Secretary of State said:
“These measures, particularly regarding FOBTs, will make a difference but I think, rather than for us to jump now and say, ‘We should move even further’, I would like to see these bed in and then look at the evidence and see if there is a need for any further action at all or if what we have done is enough”.
To my mind this is a sensible approach and balances the Government’s commitment to reduce problem gambling and protect the vulnerable while at the same time protecting what is an enjoyable leisure activity for the vast majority of customers who visit bookmakers’ premises. We will review the impact of these measures—or have committed to do so—in 2016 to see how effective they have been.
It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves what powers exist at the moment. Bookmakers have a responsibility to assist gamblers who display signs of problematic behaviour. The betting industry introduced new measures under its code of conduct from 1 March 2014—just a year ago. While this is a step in the right direction, we believe that measures should be toughened and made mandatory. That is why the Gambling Commission recently announced in its response to consultation on the social responsibility provisions in its licence conditions and codes of practice proposals for a mandatory code which will come in in May this year, with the sanction ultimately of taking a licence away if a bookmaker does not fulfil those conditions. I believe that that is a further step in the right direction.
We believe that the measures we are taking are sufficient to improve player protection. These moves, combined with the measures outlined in the Gambling Commission’s response to consultation on the social responsibility provisions in its licence conditions and codes of practice, are justified on a precautionary basis.
I should like to add that what is significant here is that the level of contact between customer and betting shop operator has increased, either via human or electronic interaction. Recent research has shown that interaction of this sort can give customers pause for thought, an opportunity to take stock of where they are and to assess their situation in a dispassionate manner. This is something that we have not seen before and it is part of the reason why other countries are looking to the UK as a pioneer in reducing gambling-related harm. I am not complacent about this because one would hope that we could have no problem gamblers but, to put this in context, research demonstrates that they represent under 1% of our adult population. The figure is higher in the US, Australia and South Africa, which have comparable systems. I am not suggesting that we can be complacent but we need to keep a sense of balance.
Lord Clement-Jones
I apologise for interrupting my noble friend while he is in full flow, but does he accept the Responsible Gambling Trust figure which indicates that 37% of customers at these properties are problem gamblers?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I do not recognise that figure. However, prior to this debate, I read that researchers had said that we should not seek to extrapolate any arguments from the figures that they had looked at as they came from a fairly limited survey. I will look at the research further but I do not recognise the figure the noble Lord has given.
Lord Lipsey
Perhaps the Minister will also point out that the survey was carried out among the 10% of users of properties who have loyalty cards. By definition, you are far more likely to have a loyalty card if you are putting a lot of money into a machine than if you are putting in the odd pound or two.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. It is, indeed, somewhat self-selecting in that sense: that is absolutely clear. However, I should move on within the time allocated to me.
Although local authorities are bound by law to aim to permit gambling in so far as it is reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder, ensuring that it is fair and open and protecting children and vulnerable people, the licensing process at present gives authorities considerable scope to attach additional conditions to licences. At present, two licences are needed to open a betting shop: an operating licence from the Gambling Commission to show that the person operating the premises is a fit and proper person, and a premises licence from the local authority. Of course the local authority has to marshal the evidence, if it has a particular planning objection, but it can do that within the existing law. I think that Barking and Dagenham, for example, is looking at that process and seeking to use it. I am not sure exactly where it has got to, but I know that that local authority, at least, is looking into it. That is something that I would encourage, because there are existing powers, as well as those that we seek to introduce.
Now I shall return, as I promised I would, to the conditions that we seek to introduce in the code, via the Gambling Commission. As I have said, they will give powers to local communities, by requiring planning applications to be submitted to local authorities for new betting shops. Putting the change-of-use regulations on a different basis will make that a more powerful tool. It will require those accessing stakes over £50 to use account-based play or to load cash over the counter, putting an end to unsupervised high-stakes play, and it will require all players of FOBTs to be presented with the choice to set time and money at the machine itself. These measures are on track to start in April, and will, I think, make a real difference. The sensible thing to do now is to see how they bed in before thinking about further action. That is a fair and reasonable approach.
I shall now seek to answer some of the specific points raised in the debate. In case I miss any, I undertake that we will look at Hansard and write to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that planning was not the answer. It is not the whole answer—I accept that—but it is part of the answer. Intervention is also important, and that is a key part of the code.
In response to the useful and valid points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I say that the point is to achieve a balance. We need to protect the vulnerable—that is absolutely right—but we should not seek to stop people gambling. Like some other noble Lords, I have a very rare flutter: I went to Las Vegas and never placed a bet, so I imagine I am a bookmaker’s nightmare. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, shares that position, so we have that in common—although his contribution seemed to turn into “Fifty Shades of Betting Shops”, and some of the time I was not quite sure where we were going. I am all in favour of permissive elements, but there are limits. I shall be coming to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for tips for the Grand National when we reach that part of the year, which is very close now.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, rightly raised the issue of problem gamblers. To try to put this in context, FOBTs are in decline overall, according to our most recent figures: 4% of adults played them in 2010, and that dropped to 3.4% in 2011-12. Average stake size on a FOBT machine in a bookmaker’s was £5.13; on a B2 it was £14.08. That does not mean that this is not a serious problem, or potential problem, but we need to get it into context. Most people who use these machines do not have gambling problems. The idea that they do is not borne out by the research.
This has been a useful debate, and obviously the department will study it. In case I have not made this absolutely clear, I want to nail again the point that the Government remain very vigilant on this matter, and in reviewing evidence on the effects of fixed-odds betting terminals. We want to make sure that the betting industry is well aware of that. The Rubicon has not been crossed, nor will it ever be. Nothing is final, except that the Government will work in partnership with the Gambling Commission, which is neutral. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, about the questionable nature of the Responsible Gambling Trust’s independence, I should explain that it is the Gambling Commission that reviews the research. I know it has an industry element to it, but its research is reviewed by the Gambling Commission, which is a statutory body. We shall study this useful debate, and during 2016 we will also study closely the evidence and the research, to see how effective the reforms being introduced this spring have been.