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
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he has had with the Premier League on funding for grass-roots sport.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)
The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who is responsible for sport, and I have regular discussions with the Premier League and the Football Association. Together we work in partnership to ensure that funding for grass-roots football remains strong.
Grahame M. Morris
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but does he recognise that there is a growing crisis in grass-roots football, in terms of facilities, pitch quality and fees, which local authorities have often been increasing because of local government cuts? Will he back Labour’s call for the Premier League to use some of its new windfall to meet its 5% commitment to fund grass-roots football?
Sajid Javid
I join the hon. Gentleman in his suggestion that there should be more investment in grass-roots football, and he will know that the Government allocated more money in the last autumn statement. Together with the Premier League and Football Association money, that is £100 million of new money going into grass-roots football over the next three years. On his point about the Premier League, I should say, first, that the Premier League already does a lot—I welcome that and we should all commend it. However, with the recent increase in its finances, we can all expect it to do more.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Moving the FIFA World cup in 2022 to the winter could have significant financial consequences for the Premier League and for all levels of football in England and Europe. Will the Secretary of State be raising this issue with FIFA? Will he be discussing it with other European Sports Ministers?
Sajid Javid
A few years ago when it was first announced that the 2022 World cup would be held in Qatar, my son Suli, who was 10 at the time, said to me, “How are they going to hold this competition in such blazing heat?” If my 10-year-old son knew that, I do not know why Sepp did not. We take a close interest in this, but ultimately the decision has to be made by the relevant football authorities.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Previous TV deals with the Premier League have not resulted in comparable increases in funding for the grass roots and football family. Does the Secretary of State accept that the only way of guaranteeing future funding is for this Parliament to legislate to ensure that 5% of Premier League revenue goes to the grass-roots and football family?
Sajid Javid
I do not accept that there is a need for legislation. What there is a need for is a continued and active dialogue between Government and the Premier League to make sure that its investment in grass-roots football continues. As I said, given the recent news that the Premier League had of a windfall, we should encourage it to do more.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
2. What assessment he has made of the role of film festivals in promoting the creative industries in the UK.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)
Film festivals make a valuable contribution to promoting the film economy and enhancing the cultural life of the UK. In addition to running two festivals of its own, the BFI, as the Government’s lead agency for film, provides £1 million of lottery funding each year to support film festivals right across the UK.
Tom Greatrex
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I am sure he will be aware that one festival the BFI helps to fund is the Glasgow film festival, the UK’s third largest and best festival, which is under way in Glasgow and is finishing on Sunday with the UK premier of “Force Majeure”. He has talked about the BFI funding, but given that the BFI’s grant in aid budget will be 10% lower next year than it was last year, what is he going to do to ensure that film festivals such as Glasgow’s continue to get that vital support?
Sajid Javid
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted about the Glasgow film festival, which I believe is in its 10th year and which is going from strength to strength. He will know that it has received funding: it has been awarded £25,000 by the BFI this year, which is a good result. As well as the grant in aid funding, the BFI has access to lottery funding, which it is using wisely. That is partly reflected in the success of British film: just last year we had a record year of investment in British film and of success, and I am sure that he would join me in welcoming that.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Of course a Shropshire film festival would be very welcome indeed. Is the Secretary of State aware of a recent decision by Gapictures, which was due to film “Dracula” on location in Shropshire, to switch to another European country? Given that Shropshire has been home to many famous films, including, more recently “Atonement”, will the Secretary of State look at new ways in which the United Kingdom can keep those production companies that want to film in locations such as Shropshire, rather than have them switch to other European countries?
Mr Speaker
We assume the hon. Gentleman is not auditioning for the lead role in the said film.
Sajid Javid
If my hon. Friend had auditioned, a different decision might have been made!
There has been an increase in the number of films made in the regions of the UK. “Dracula Untold” was recently made in Northern Ireland. We have had “Outlander” in Scotland, “Testament of Youth” in Yorkshire and “Far from the Madding Crowd”, which is set in Dorset, to name but a few, so there has been great success in regional films. What my hon. Friend says about Shropshire is quite right. There are some fantastic locations and there is some fantastic talent in Shropshire, and I think the film industry should be listening.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
In a week when we have seen British success at the Oscars and London Fashion Week, and last night at the Brits, no one should be in any doubt about the importance of our film, fashion and music industries and all our creative industries. The basis of future jobs and investment in those creative industries depends on the protection of intellectual property. Will the Secretary of State ensure that, in consideration of the European digital single market, he will be absolutely vigilant to protect our creative industries, including small and medium-sized enterprises, and ensure that he rethinks the paper that the Prime Minister sent to Juncker, which would allow for changes that would pose a real threat to many independent projects? Will he insist that there is time for proper consultation before its implementation?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Lady is right about the importance of intellectual property to our creative industries. One of the reasons why we have been successful in this area for many years is that as a Government we have taken the right approach. It is right that the EU looks at the issue. It will be a good thing in principle for the creative industries throughout Europe to have a better single digital market, but we must take a well-balanced approach. The paper that the right hon. Lady refers to was a discussion paper. The Government have not decided on their final policy or approach, and there should be more consultation.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
3. For what proportion of parliamentary constituencies the 95% target for the roll-out of superfast broadband will be reached by 2017.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)
Ninety-five per cent. of the UK will have access to superfast broadband by 2017. I have placed our estimate of coverage by constituency in the House of Commons Library.
Mark Lazarowicz
I can tell the Secretary of State that thousands of people in my constituency, one of the most urban in Scotland, have no guarantee of getting superfast broadband by 2017 or any date after that. I have raised this with local government, the Scottish Government and the UK Government. I do not want to ascribe blame; I want to see some action so that the residents who have contacted me again and again, such as the ones in Western Harbour, Leith who contacted me recently, will have some guarantee that they will get superfast broadband in their houses.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of superfast broadband both to residents and to businesses. Considerable progress has been made in his constituency in the past five years. Today, 87% of homes and businesses there have access to superfast broadband. That will rise to 98% by 2017, and that is better than the national target of 95% by that time. However, I hear what he says, and he is right to mention the importance of the issue.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
The villages of Affetside and Holcombe in my constituency will not be covered by the roll-out of superfast broadband in phases 1 or 2, so when villagers ask me when they will be covered, what should I tell them?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. He should tell those villagers that the Government have an active programme to reach the most remote areas with superfast broadband. He will be interested to know that in the middle of last year we undertook a pilot, with seven projects using mostly wireless and other types of hybrid technology. We are now having a good look at the results of that pilot, and I shall be able to make a further announcement shortly.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Businesses in my constituency, from farmers in Carrington to multi-million pound exporters on Trafford Park, complain that they are still waiting for superfast broadband. They are paying 10 times the price for one fifth of the speed, with a damaging effect on their business. These are not remote rural areas; they are a stone’s throw from Manchester city centre. Can the Secretary of State explain why they are waiting so long for the basic support that their businesses need?
Sajid Javid
There has been a significant improvement in superfast broadband access over the past five years. Coverage throughout the UK has doubled from 40% to 80%. We have the best coverage among large EU nations and the highest average speeds, as well as the lowest average prices in Europe, but we can still do better. In urban areas, it is difficult, if not sometimes impossible, for the Government to provide a subsidy, as they do in non-commercial areas, but I am looking actively at what more we can do in urban areas.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
The experience of my constituents this winter is that it is too easy for BT to declare MBORC—matters beyond our reasonable control—and then to take months to repair faults, or not turn up for appointments. Will the Secretary of State examine BT’s licensing conditions with a view to tightening up the rules so that it cannot just use the MBORC cop-out?
Sajid Javid
This important issue has been raised several times, and Ofcom frequently looks at the role of organisations such as BT to ensure that the market is as competitive as possible. However, I will take a closer look at the situation in my hon. Friend’s area.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
14. I have been working with the Altrincham and Sale chamber of commerce, which tells me that it is vital that businesses club together to ensure that communication nodes go to more remote parts, even in urban areas. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that businesses co-operate to ensure that they can get the broadband they need?
Sajid Javid
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that we offer vouchers for businesses in more than 22 cities under the superconnected cities programme, of which more than 10,000 companies have taken advantage. Many of the companies have clubbed together and I encourage others to do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Villages in the borough of Kettering on the Northamptonshire-Leicestershire border—right in the middle of England—will be among the last to get broadband, at the end of 2017, yet innovative cross-border thinking involving BT exchanges on the other side of the county boundary might bring about a quicker solution. Will the Secretary of State encourage such an innovative approach?
Sajid Javid
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has taken a strong interest in this matter. I have heard him speak in the House on behalf of his constituents on a number of occasions, and once again he comes up with an excellent idea, which we shall follow up.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The Government’s own figures show that Somerset’s rate of access to superfast broadband is only 41%, which hardly meets the needs of rural businesses and residents. Connecting Devon and Somerset allows bids from other suppliers in the Dartmoor and Exmoor national parks, but I understand that, because of the reason of screening of information, only BT, as a monopoly supplier, will be able to bid for the second phase. I have written to the Competition and Markets Authority; will the Secretary of State do the same and investigate exactly what has happened?
Sajid Javid
As my hon. Friend raises a specific issue, I will have to take a closer look at it. I am glad that she has written to the Competition and Markets Authority, but if this is a competition issue, it should be dealt with by the independent regulator. However, if there is more that she thinks I can do, I shall take a closer look.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the contribution of tourism to the economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
The tourism industry was worth an estimated £127 billion, gross value added, to the UK economy in 2013. Some £56 billion of that is direct contribution. Tourism supports 3.1 million jobs in the UK.
Christopher Pincher
The economy of Staffordshire and Tamworth has a growing leisure and tourism component, but that is putting an increasing strain on our transport infrastructure. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Department for Transport and Staffordshire county council to invest in local roads so that they will be fit for our leisure economy?
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Tourism makes an important contribution to the north-east’s economy, but north-east tourism attractions and projects are missing out on European funding. Will the Minister intervene to support job creation and growth in the region?
Mrs Grant
There are considerable efforts to ensure job creation and growth in the area. The north-east is a fabulous area for tourism. Our local growth fund, the regional growth fund, the coastal communities fund and the rural development programme, which effectively involves European money, are pockets of funding that could certainly benefit the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that food tourism is now vitally important to the British economy? Will she send her congratulations to Craig Bancroft and Nigel Haworth of Northcote hotel, who for 15 years have successfully run a food festival called Obsession, which runs for 15 days with five courses with matching wines of international and national repute? If I send her the date for next year, will she put it in her diary? I may be able to get Nigel Haworth to make her his traditional Lancashire hotpot.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
5. What steps he plans to take to ensure that children learn about or experience the creative arts.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is wonderful to have a question from the hon. Lady. For one terrible moment I thought she might not be here, but I am so pleased to see that she has arrived in time to hear me answer that we believe strongly that children should have every opportunity to learn about and experience the arts. At the beginning of this year, we announced another £109 million for music and cultural education. That takes the amount we have invested in music and cultural education to £400 million in this Parliament.
Fiona Mactaggart
Perhaps the Minister would like to have a conversation with his friend the Mayor of London about the state of traffic in south London this morning.
Why has the number of children who experience the creative arts, except for film, declined every year that the hon. Gentleman has been responsible for this field? Why has the number of children studying art, drama and dance—creative subjects—at GCSE fallen so radically while he has been in charge?
Mr Vaizey
At the very last Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions of this Parliament, every one of which I have attended, I think the hon. Lady makes a slightly snippy point, particularly as the Taking Part survey shows that participation by children has increased for those aged between five and 10 and stayed at the very high level of 99.4% for those aged 11 to 15. There has been an 8% increase in those taking arts GCSE subjects since 2010 and participation in music, dance, art and design continues.
Mr Speaker
Order. I always enjoy the mellifluous tones of the hon. Gentleman. I have known him 25 years and they never pall, but we do want to get through the business.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
The new Progress 8 measure for secondary schools will provide more space for the arts in school accountability measures. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that there is the greatest incentive for schools to provide high-quality arts education, including through prioritisation by Ofsted?
Mr Vaizey
I co-chair the cultural education group with the Minister for Schools. We are having a meeting next week. I was pleased to see that Ofsted has made it clear that under its new inspections beginning later this year, an inspection must take account of whether a school offers a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum. Music will be a clear element of that.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that whatever spin he may put on it, when the Education Secretary told pupils not to study arts subjects because it would hold them back for the rest of their lives, she and his Government were systematically undermining artistic education for all children in this country? Is he not ashamed that on his watch the number of children taking part in music in schools has fallen from 55% to 36%? Does he not realise that a strong artistic and cultural education should be the universal entitlement of every single child in this country, because it is good for them, good for the economy and good for this nation?
Mr Vaizey
This week we celebrated the 50th anniversary of Jennie Lee’s first White Paper on the arts, and I am pleased that 50 years later we continue to support the arts, particularly in education. The Education Secretary did not say what the hon. Gentleman claims that she said; she said that for too long people had thought that science had held back their careers. She has praised arts education and she is giving a very important speech on cultural education next week. The hon. Gentleman is invited.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that cultural education is vital for our children and that, under this Government, we have raised the status and standing of arts GCSEs and A-levels so that they are genuinely worthwhile qualifications?
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
6. What steps he has taken to promote tourism and develop the tourism industry throughout England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
We have invested a total of £10 million in VisitEngland’s Holidays at Home are GREAT campaign, with the fourth campaign launching this spring. VisitEngland is also promoting and developing domestic tourism through its Growing Tourism Locally campaign.
Mark Menzies
My constituency enjoys a vibrant tourist economy that includes Royal Lytham & St Annes golf club, Lytham music festival and Ribby Hall village, to name but a few. What steps is the Minister taking to promote further tourism investment growth in the north-west?
Mrs Grant
The Government have recently announced £10 million of funding for tourism in the north of England, which is very good news for my hon. Friend’s constituency, the wider north-west and tourism across the north of England. We hope that the agreed project will commence this April.
Mr Speaker
I do not know why that question was not grouped with Questions 12 and 13—these people are sometimes a law unto themselves—but if the Members who tabled those questions wish to come in, they are welcome to do so.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
12. Today the civic buildings and street lamps across Rugby are festooned with dressing for the rugby world cup, which will be held later this year, celebrating Rugby’s status as the home of the game. During the tournament, visitors will be able to visit a fan zone and see where it all started back in 1823. Does the Minister agree that people coming to this, the third largest sporting event, provides a valuable economic opportunity not only to Rugby, but to venues across the UK?
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
13. May I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for recently meeting a delegation from Plymouth to discuss Mayflower 400, which of course is about commemorating the founding of the American colonies and will hopefully boost our tourist economy? What support might the Department be able to give this really historic event down in Devon in 2020?
Mrs Grant
It will be a marvellous event, and I know that my hon. Friend has been fully involved in the programme, which will be fabulous for tourism. I am pleased to announce today additional funding of £35,000 for the city’s Mayflower museum, which will help to ensure a strong legacy for the celebrations. [Interruption.] We hope to be able to offer further support for the programme in due course.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) is chuntering from a sedentary position, to no obvious benefit or purpose, but no doubt we will be enlightened later.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
What assessment has the Minister made of the much greater contribution tourism could make to the economy were VAT on tourism to be reduced, which is something that all but three countries in the EU have been able to deliver?
Mrs Grant
VAT is a matter that is constantly raised with me, but it is one for the Chancellor. He keeps all taxes under review, and I am sure that he will keep this one under review too. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that I am holding a round-table meeting on VAT with the industry in the next two weeks.
Sir Bob Russell
Mr Speaker, I was merely observing that the Mayflower commenced its journey to America from Harwich and merely stopped off at Plymouth en route.
Mr Speaker
I think that question was rhetorical, but if the Minister particularly wishes to respond she may.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
7. If he will take steps to ensure that mitigation conditions are enforced when sports pitches are redeveloped.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is vital that appropriate playing fields are preserved for local communities. We will always work to protect and improve their provision. Enforcement of mitigating conditions at a local level is a matter for the local authority.
Duncan Hames
The Minister is right; it is a matter for the local authority. In the case of Westinghouse sports ground in Chippenham, the problem has caused Sport England to send an impressively assertive solicitors letter to Wiltshire council suggesting grave concerns about its resolve to secure mitigation for the loss of sports facilities. Will the Minister give her support to Sport England in insisting that Wiltshire council does not allow a precious sports pitch to slip through its fingers?
Mrs Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I understand from Sport England that work is planned to begin replacing the cricket pavilion at Westinghouse sports ground, and that is very good news. Sport England has been in regular contact with the developer, the council and residents, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has too. It wants sporting facilities to be maintained at the site as per the section 106 agreement, and will continue to help and provide expertise. I support the stance that Sport England is taking.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is important that sporting facilities are available to everybody, particularly people with disabilities. I know that the Minister is working very hard on providing those facilities for disability sport. She may be aware that the England cerebral palsy football team will not be able to play at the next Paralympics because cerebral palsy football has been dropped off the agenda for Paralympic sport. Is she as concerned about that as I am?
Mrs Grant
Yes, I am very concerned. Although this is a decision for the International Paralympic Committee, I recently met the chief executive of the British Paralympic Association to discuss the issue, and disability sailing as well. We are a great footballing nation, and a great sailing nation too, and I understand the frustrations about this decision. I therefore intend to speak to the IPC president, Sir Philip Craven, in the next couple of weeks.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the creative industries in London to the UK economy.
Mr Vaizey
Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that these final DCMS questions are turning into an absolute joy. I can see your heart lifting every time I reach the Dispatch Box, and now I have done so to tell you that the creative industries make a fantastic contribution to London’s economy, employing half a million people.
Mary Macleod
My constituency is home to the west London creative industries hub, comprising hundreds of TV, IT and other creative industry businesses. To be successful, these businesses need to be connected. My hon. Friend and colleagues have done great work in delivering superfast broadband especially in rural areas, but will he consider some of the creative companies in west London that are still waiting to be superfast?
Mr Vaizey
On Tuesday night I spoke to the Hounslow chamber of commerce at the headquarters of iBurbia in Chiswick. The managing director there rushed up to me to say that he had just got superfast broadband by using one of our super-connected voucher schemes. He also said to me, utterly unprompted, that he thought my hon. Friend was one of the hardest-working people he had ever met. He told the entire room, full of hundreds of business people, that fact.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Obviously London is an important creative hub in terms of its contribution to the UK economy, but other cities such as Bristol can make a real contribution too. What assessment has the Minister made of programmes like Plus Tate, in which the Tate is working with other galleries such as the Arnolfini in Bristol, that enable the London institutions to help places in other cities?
Mr Vaizey
Plus Tate is a fantastic programme that belies the statistics saying that London has more money spent on the arts than the rest of the country. The money that goes to the Tate helps to support 24 contemporary art museums around the country, and the scheme is very successful. It is worth bearing that in mind.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern expressed by creative industries in London and elsewhere about the way in which the EU regulation covering temporary structures is being interpreted as that could lead to huge extra costs in the building of film sets and theatrical and musical stages? Is he aware that other European countries are not interpreting it in this way, and will he ensure that we are not gold-plating unnecessarily?
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
9. If he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of mobile phone coverage in Wrexham.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
As you know, Mr Speaker, improving mobile coverage is a priority for the Government. Thanks to the Secretary of State’s negotiations with the mobile operators, we have reached a legally binding agreement with them. Under that agreement, not spots in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will fall from 5.4% to just 1.3%.
Ian Lucas
Mobile coverage in Wrexham is not super. After five years of this Government, businesses and individuals in Wrexham town centre complain constantly about this issue. I am surprised that the Secretary of State did not reply on this, because he heard about it in Wrexham recently. Why have this Government failed?
Mr Vaizey
It is certainly true that the Secretary of State met the brilliant local campaigner in Wrexham, Andrew Atkinson, and had long discussions with him about improving mobile coverage. If the hon. Gentleman wants to support Mr Atkinson’s campaign to improve mobile coverage, he is welcome to do so.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
11. I may be wrong, but I believe I glimpsed the Minister in my constituency—on a mini-digger and endangering a cabinet that was about to be upgraded. While he was there, did he get any information about the timeliness of the roll-out of broadband in Wales, given that the Government have contributed £57 million to the project?
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
In my Ynys Môn constituency, 2G is poor, 3G is patchy and 4G is non-existent; yet my constituents pay exactly the same contract prices as people who have full coverage in cities. Does the Minister agree that there should be some sort of differential on contract prices for, or even a rebate from, companies that do not provide a full service?
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
10. What assessment he has made of the benefits of sailing for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Government are committed to seeing everyone realise their sporting potential. Sport England is investing £800,000 in the Royal Yachting Association’s sailability programme, designed to make sailing accessible for disabled people. Thanks to that investment, more than 11,000 people with disabilities were able to enjoy sailing in 2013-14.
Mr Turner
The great advantage of sailing over almost every other sport is that both disabled and non-disabled people can work together as equals. The loss of sailing from the Tokyo Paralympics would represent a giant step backwards. What more can the Minister do, working with Paralympic and sailing organisations both UK-based and elsewhere in the world, to reinstate sailing as a sport in the 2020 Paralympics.
Mrs Grant
Although that is a decision for the International Paralympic Committee, I recently met the chief executive of the British Paralympic Association to discuss this very issue. On several occasions, I have met my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is also very concerned. Britain is a great sailing nation, and I completely understand the frustration of our Paralympic sailors. I therefore intend to speak to the IPC president Sir Philip Craven in the very near future.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)
In the past month, British talent has enjoyed incredible success at the Grammys, the Baftas, the Brits and the Oscars. That is just another demonstration of the way in which this country’s creative industries lead the world. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating all our award-winning actors, film makers and musicians, no matter what school they went to.
Sajid Javid
I warmly welcome the report, which I shall study very closely. It is an important contribution to the future of the BBC, and all its suggestions, including the one the hon. Gentleman mentions, will be taken account of when the charter review process starts.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
T5. Two weeks ago, Tamworth won growth funding to regenerate its town centre and build an enterprise and creative quarter. Will my hon. Friend say what more the Government can do to help our creative industries and allow Tamworth to take full advantage of this wonderful opportunity?
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
We will work incredibly hard with my hon. Friend as the excellent local MP for Tamworth to support that creative cluster. We will also work with the local enterprise partnership and Creative England, which supports the creative industries outside London.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It has not been a good week for the Secretary of State, but it has been a good week for entertainment and sports fans. If the Government had listened to us, thousands of fans buying tickets for the rugby world cup, the Ashes and many other events would have been saved from having to pay several times the face value for tickets that were hoovered up by organised gangs of touts. Everyone accepted our argument that action was needed on secondary ticketing, except for the Secretary of State, who should have been representing those fans. Will he ensure that the measures in the Consumer Rights Bill will be implemented without delay? While he is at it, will he come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to the fans he has so badly let down?
Sajid Javid
My view on this issue has not changed. Consumers must always be put first. That means that they should be allowed to sell tickets that they no longer need, and that fans who were not able to get them the first time should be able to buy them. Those principles have not changed. However, we were not prepared to jeopardise the Bill’s safe passage through the House and accepted the amendment. The important thing is to see how it works in practice. The amendment includes a statutory review, which I hope will look at all the issues, and we will see how it actually works.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
T7. I do not know if it is the same for you, Mr Speaker, and other hon. Members, but quite often late at night or in the early hours, my spouse looks at me quite suspiciously when she notices that I have been online.
Adam Afriyie
Absolutely. I am delighted that in Old Windsor and across the constituency, 2,000 more people are now connected to superfast broadband. Will Ministers continue the roll-out and, in particular, focus on satellite technology, which can bring a better experience, even when we are doing constituency correspondence?
Sajid Javid
First, I encourage my hon. Friend’s spouse to ensure that the family filters are turned on in the Afriyie household. His point about the greater use of satellite technology throughout the UK is well made. That is something that we are actively looking at.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T2. The Music Venue Trust will launch its report on the challenges faced by small and medium venues at an event that I am hosting in Parliament on 9 March. What value does the Secretary of State place on the importance of the live music circuit to the UK’s world-dominating music industry? If he is not able to drop in on 9 March, may I send him a copy of the report, so that he can hear the concerns about the challenges facing venues?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will see whether I or the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy can drop in on 9 March. She has campaigned actively on behalf of venues in her constituency, some of which I know well. I went to The Fleece during my youth in Bristol. She is a great champion for such venues and I hope that we can work together on these issues.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
T8. Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), does the Minister agree that the decision of the International Paralympic Committee to exclude sailing from the Tokyo games in 2020 is not only an enormous setback for that important British sport, but will rob us of the next generation of inspiring sailing sportsmen, such as Fareham’s Geoff Holt?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
That is a concern and I will speak to Sir Philip Craven about the matter.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
T3. I am grateful to the Minister for his support in my Adjournment debate for Premier Christian Radio staying on Digital One. His predecessor, speaking about digital radio to the Broadcasting Bill Committee in 1996, said that“no more than two of the stations on the multiplex should be aimed at predominantly the same…audience”.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 14 May 1996.]What is the current policy on station diversity on Digital One and, in future, on Digital Two?
Mr Vaizey
In what may be my last answer in Culture, Media and Sport questions, having attended every single session since the beginning of this Parliament, may I say that I was very happy to support the right hon. Gentleman’s campaign to keep Premier Christian Radio on the multiplex? I will certainly check after questions what the current policy is on diversity on the multiplex, as that might add another string to his very important argument, if that is not too much of a mixed metaphor to end on.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The mixed ability rugby world cup will take place for the first time ever in my constituency later this year. I know that the Minister has met the event organisers, for which I am grateful, and I also thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) for his strong support for the event. Will the Minister set out what support the Government can provide to attract sponsorship for the event, to make it the great success that it deserves to be?
Mrs Grant
I have met the gentlemen from my hon. Friend’s constituency, and they gave me a fabulous black and yellow rugby shirt, which I put on. They are called the Bumbles, and they are fabulous. I will be happy to have a meeting or discussion with my hon. Friend about funding that event.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
T4. Earlier, the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy dodged his way around the figures that I cited from the Warwick report about the drastic decline in children’s experience and learning in creative subjects. Perhaps he will respond more positively to another of its recommendations, which is that every publicly funded organisation that deals with cataloguing and archives on the net should be encouraged to use the same mechanisms for the cataloguing of GLAM—galleries, libraries, museums and archives—so that the archives can be more easily accessed and searched by everyone.
Mr Vaizey
I was obviously premature in my last answer, Mr Speaker.
I have a lot of sympathy with that recommendation. Putting museum and archive content online and making it easily accessible to both teachers for their lesson plans and students for their learning is an important issue. I will have a number of meetings in the coming weeks to discuss some ideas about it.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Women have traditionally been under-represented in the classical music world. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore congratulate Milton Keynes city orchestra on organising a special concert under the baton of Sian Edwards on international women’s day to recognise the huge talent of women in classical music today?
Sajid Javid
I join my hon. Friend in warmly commending the Milton Keynes city orchestra. I have three young daughters who all learn instruments, and I know that they take huge inspiration from seeing more and more women in orchestras and in music, which I warmly encourage.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. Although it is not a universally rewarding experience being an away fan following Fulham, it is certainly the case that travelling supporters bring vibrancy, atmosphere and colour to football fixtures. Given the largesse that now exists in the Premier League, does the Minister agree that it would be a good measure for clubs to take to ensure that there is a cap on the price of standard away tickets, so that some of the benefit of the additional TV revenue comes to the fans who help make the atmosphere of the games?
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I fear that my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy was being even more premature than he thought. A couple of weeks ago, he extolled the virtues of the fantastic portable antiquities scheme, which has now brought in more than 1 million artefacts. Is he aware that there has been a 5% cut to the scheme this year, and that several finds liaison officer posts are under threat? We really need to find a more sustainable, long-term solution for funding that excellent scheme.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
T9. Will the Secretary of State welcome tomorrow’s meeting in Nottingham between “Get Creative”, from the BBC, and “What Next?”, which is organised locally? Will he also underline the strong commitment that he gave me at the last Culture, Media and Sport questions that he considers arts, culture and heritage just as important for the outer cities as for the often oversubscribed inner cities?
Sajid Javid
I wholeheartedly agree. The hon. Gentleman has teamed up with two excellent organisations, and I wish him well.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
1. What steps she is taking to tackle homophobic bullying.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jo Swinson)
Homophobic bullying is absolutely unacceptable, and we are committed to eliminating it. That is why we have announced £2 million of grant funding to support schools to address the issue more effectively. That complements the £4 million that the Department currently provides to charitable organisations to tackle all forms of bullying.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Is the Minister aware that Mr Gay World, Stuart Hatton, lives in my constituency? He recently launched a fantastic anti-bullying campaign called “So What?”. His message is simple: some of us are straight, some of us are gay, so what? With Stonewall reporting that nearly a quarter of lesbian, gay or bisexual pupils miss school because of homophobic bullying, his message is sorely needed. Labour’s shadow Ministers are backing Stuart’s campaign. Will the Minister?
Jo Swinson
I very much welcome the hon. Lady setting out her constituent’s campaign, and I will be happy to look at it as it sounds excellent. We all agree that tackling homophobic bullying must be a real priority for the reasons that she outlined in her question, and because of the impact that it has on LGBT young people, and indeed other young people, as this issue also affects those who are not LGBT.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Homophobic bullying in schools is completely unacceptable. Will the Minister ensure that Ofsted is getting the message through to head teachers and schools that they must do everything in their power to eradicate that wicked thing?
Jo Swinson
The short answer is yes, and the national professional qualification for headship contains information on how to tackle bullying, including homophobic bullying.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
2. What estimate she has made of the number of women who have been unemployed for over one year.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
6. What estimate she has made of the number of women who have been unemployed for over one year.
The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)
Female long-term unemployment has fallen by more than 90,000 on the year—the largest annual fall on record––to 237,000, demonstrating the success of the Government’s long-term economic plan.
Graeme Morrice
Under this Government there are more young women who have been out of work for over a year than there were four years ago. Does the Minister agree that that is a terrible indictment of the Government’s so-called long-term economic plan?
Mr Harper
I am pleased the hon. Gentleman recognises that we have a long-term economic plan that is also successful—two things that the Labour party does not have. The previous Government removed people who were about to become long-term unemployed from the claimant count by putting them on training programmes. We have stopped that charade and now have an honest measure. We have a record number of women in work, a record female employment rate, a record number of older women in work, a record older female employment rate, and a female participation rate that is close to the highest on record—a record of which I am very proud.
Heidi Alexander
In the last year I have dealt with a number of cases concerning older women who have previously been in work but are now struggling to secure a new position having found themselves unemployed. They often feel that discrimination plays a part in the refusals they have been given, but they simply do not have the means to challenge the companies and organisations involved, so that discrimination is left unchallenged. What should women who find themselves in that situation do?
Mr Harper
First, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), a record number of older women are in work and we have a record employment rate for older females—that is obviously good news. For those in the position that the hon. Lady sets out, we have looked at programmes to help older workers return to work. New pilots were announced in the autumn statement last year to look at barriers to work, and at our sector-based work academies and work experience programmes that are particularly tailored to the needs of older workers.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Unemployment is down by 37% in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that UK women are getting into work faster than in any other country in the G7, which shows that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working in my constituency?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady says, “What a surprise”, but my hon. Friend is holding an event to talk about getting more disabled people back into work with a number of excellent local employers. The hon. Lady should congratulate her on that, rather than being churlish about it.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I cannot do better than report what the OECD said, which was that we had a long-term economic plan and effective economic policies, and that the performance of the labour market in the United Kingdom was “remarkable”.
Mr Speaker
Order. Progress is very slow and we must speed up matters. We can be guided in that by a legendary parliamentarian, Mr Philip Davies.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, aside from the strong record he has outlined, about 80% of the growth in female employment in the past four years has come in managerial, professional and technical professions?
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
The number of young women claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than one year is up by 30%. Bankers have done very well under this Government, so why does the Minister not use a tax on bank bonuses to pay for a guaranteed job for young women?
Mr Harper
It is fascinating. Only a few weeks ago, in the debate on Labour’s job guarantee, the Secretary of State pointed out that Labour had spent the bank bonus tax 11 times with 11 different policies. If spending it for a 12th time is the best the hon. Lady can do, she needs to go back to the drawing board.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
3. What steps she is taking to deliver equal pay for men and women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
The gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level ever and has been entirely eliminated among full-time workers under the age of 40, but our goal must be to eliminate it entirely. We are tackling systemic pay inequalities through a range of measures: the Your Life initiative to get more girls into science, technology, engineering and maths; improved child care; extending flexible working; and introducing shared parental leave.
Mr Hanson
Forty four years after Labour’s Equal Pay Act 1970, sadly women earn on average 81p for every £1 that men earn. Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has a Bill providing for transparency in larger companies. Will the Government support it?
Jo Swinson
The Government’s position is not to support that particular Bill, but we are encouraging much more transparency through the Think, Act, Report initiative, to which more than 270 employers, covering 2.5 million employees, have signed up. Nearly half of them have done an equal pay audit in the last year and two thirds are publishing more information on gender equality. I agree that this is a hugely important issue on which we need to make more progress, and we are committed to doing so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Which employment sector has the greatest gender pay gap, which has the least and what is the Minister doing to get representatives of the one to talk to the other?
Jo Swinson
That is a fantastic question, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the specific statistics for different sectors. Sectoral differences are a significant part of the gender pay gap. We know that occupational segregation—the congregation of women in much lower paying sectors—is a significant driver of about one third of the pay gap, which is why the initiatives to get more girls studying STEM subjects are so important.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Minister cheer on Patricia Arquette’s Oscar acceptance speech, in which she called for equal pay in the arts, particularly in the film industry?
Chris Bryant
If so—I see that both Ministers are nodding—what will Ministers do to ensure pay equality in the British film industry?
Jo Swinson
I wholeheartedly endorse the speech by Patricia Arquette—I have already welcomed it on Twitter because I think it needed to be brought to a wider audience. In the UK arts industry, as in all industries, it is important that there be greater transparency and support for women in the workplace in terms of promotion and seniority. That is what we will continue to promote.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I am sure that like me my hon. Friend is pleased that the Work programme is helping the long-term unemployed, both men and women, back into work. Will she confirm that the number of long-term unemployed people has fallen to its lowest in five years and that the claimant count in my constituency has fallen by 42%?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has got mixed up: the previous question was about unemployment, but this one is about equal pay, so I shall take his question as rhetorical. We are grateful to him for getting his observations on the record.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
4. What assessment she has made of the effects on employed women who are victims of domestic violence of means-testing when they attempt to access a refuge.
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Nicky Morgan)
Employed people entering refuge accommodation can claim help with their housing costs through housing benefit, which is both an in-work and out-of-work benefit. When paid to claimants who are in work, it is calculated on the basis of their earnings. The Government have provided £6.5 billion in housing-related support over this spending review period so that when someone enters a refuge the support element of the provision will not be means-tested.
Andy McDonald
Does the Minister agree that the safety of women suffering domestic violence ought to be prioritised over their ability to access funds at a time of personal crisis? If so, will she support my call for means testing to include an assessment of the economic impact of abusive and controlling relationships?
Nicky Morgan
I know that the hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work with the charity My Sister’s Place, based in his constituency, and I agree that at a time of personal crisis the first thing refuges do—this will be the case for most of the refuges I have spoken to—is offer security, not ask how somebody will pay. He will have seen the ministerial letter to My Sister’s Place making it clear that where a victim of domestic violence takes up temporary accommodation, while also making arrangements to return to their home, housing benefit for both properties can be payable. Discretionary housing payment is also available.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
The Berkshire women’s refuge serves my constituency incredibly well. We all abhor domestic violence, particularly towards women, so does my right hon. Friend, like me, welcome the victim surcharge, which ensures that those who commit these acts contribute to making reparations?
Nicky Morgan
I absolutely welcome the victim surcharge, which results in important payments being made. I am sure that he will also want to welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government just before Christmas of an extra £10 million to secure refuge accommodation for the next two years.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
5. What estimate she has made of the potential benefit to working families of the extension of the childcare business grants scheme announced in the autumn statement 2014.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
Working families benefit from a thriving child care sector, with the scheme supporting up to 3,000 new child care businesses in the next financial year. I am pleased to inform the House that, from this April, we are doubling the value of the grants available to childminders and nurseries. We will also extend the scheme to existing child care businesses that have been trading for less than a year.
Bob Blackman
In my constituency, there is a huge demand from mothers with young children for safe and secure childminders from a diverse background. What further measures is my right hon. Friend able to take to ensure that those young mothers can return to work knowing that their children are safe and secure?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that childminders are a crucial part of the child care sector. We want to see more of them, which is why we have enabled the establishment of childminder agencies. To date, the childcare business grant scheme has benefited more than 4,000 childminders, including almost 30 in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The scheme has also benefited seven nurseries in Harrow, East—MiniSteps, for example.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What assessment she has made of the effects of Government policies on disabled people’s access to work.
The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)
Over 3 million working-age disabled people are now in employment. There are 141,000 more disabled people in work than a year ago, and the employment rate has risen, demonstrating that disabled people are benefiting from the Government’s long-term economic plan.
Tom Greatrex
In September last year, the Minister published statistics showing that only 206,000 of 529,400 personal independence payment applications had been cleared. When he published those statistics, he said:
“By the end of the year we expect that no-one will be waiting for an assessment for longer than 16 weeks.”
Yet when the updated figures were published in January, they did not include the number of those who had waited longer than 16 weeks. Will the Minister now ensure that those figures are published so we can see whether the anecdotal evidence we get from our constituents is correct?
Mr Harper
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I published statistics just ahead of my appearance at the Work and Pensions Select Committee. Last year, when I got this job, the average wait for a claimant was unacceptably high, at around 30 weeks. After sustained effort from my Department and our assessment providers, we had more than halved that by the end of the year. I am very pleased, and we will continue that focus.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Recent figures have shown that only 7% of disabled people on employment and support allowance gained sustained employment through the Government’s Work programme, which is worse than if there were no programme at all. In Sir Bert Massie’s report on the link between disability and poverty, he highly recommends replacing this clearly failing programme with one of locally controlled specialist support for disabled people. A Labour Government would commit to do this, so can the Minister tell us his Government’s position on this issue? If they do not believe that change is necessary, how can they justify those figures?
Mr Harper
I do not need to justify those figures. If the hon. Lady had used more up-to-date figures, she would know that performance has significantly improved and that more people are being helped into work through the Work programme, work choice and access to work. Yes, more disabled people are being helped than before. As I said in response to an earlier question, 141,000 more disabled people are in work now than last year. I think that is a record to be proud of. There is more to do, but good progress is being made.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
8. What change there has been in the number of people bringing discrimination claims since the introduction of tribunal fees.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
Although the number of people bringing discrimination claims to the employment tribunals is not collected centrally, the number of complaints of discrimination from ET claims is collected. From July to September 2014, there were 5,475 complaints of discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation, or of having suffered a detriment or unfair dismissal due to pregnancy, or complaints relating to equal pay. This compares to just over 18,000 in the quarter from April to June 2013, a fall of 71%.
Kate Green
There has been a particularly shocking fall of more than 90% in the number of sex discrimination cases, including those involving pregnancy-related discrimination. Many women on low incomes cannot apply for fee remission in order to go to an employment tribunal, not because of their own incomes, but because of their partners’ incomes or savings. Does the Minister think that that system is giving those women fair access to justice? Furthermore, is it not penalising good businesses that do not try to get away with poor, discriminatory practices, unlike others which know that there will be no danger of a challenge if they do so?
Nicky Morgan
Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is unacceptable and unlawful, and the Government have recognised the need to tackle it. In November 2013, we announced an extensive programme of research on perceived pregnancy and maternity discrimination in Great Britain. We have made a commitment to conduct a review of the introduction of the fees, and we will do so, but we think that this is a matter for the next Administration and the next Parliament.
Business of the House
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 2 March—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate entitled “Devolution in England: The Case for Local Government”, followed by a debate on “Towards the next Defence and Security Review: Part Two—NATO”. Further details will be given in the Official Report.
[The details are as follows: Devolution in England: The Case for Local Government, 1st Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, HC 503, and the Government response; Towards the next Defence and Security Review Part Two: NATO, 3rd Report from the Defence Committee, HC 358, and the Government response, HC 755.]
Tuesday 3 March—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system, followed by a debate on children’s and adolescents’ mental health and child and adolescent mental health services. Further details will be given in the Official Report. At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
[The details are as follows: Support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system, 4th Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, HC 720 of Session 2013-14; Children’s and adolescents’ mental health and CAMHS, 3rd Report from the Health Committee, HC 342, and the Government response.]
Wednesday 4 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipations and Adjustments) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill, followed by Opposition day (unallotted half-day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.
Thursday 5 March—There will be a general debate on international women’s day, followed by a general debate on Welsh affairs. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 March will include:
Monday 9 March—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Consumer Rights Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to “Commission Work Programme 2015”, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 10 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Deregulation Bill, followed by a motion to approve statutory instruments relating to counter-terrorism, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to subsidiarity and proportionality and the Commission’s relations with national Parliaments.
Wednesday 11 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party—subject to be announced—followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.
Thursday 12 March—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 13 March—The House will not be sitting.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on 5 March will be a general debate on planning and the national planning policy framework.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House.
Monday and Tuesday are estimates days, and we shall have a chance to scrutinise Government waste, but the form of the debates will allow us only to scratch the surface of those overspends. Does the Leader of the House agree that rather than three days being allocated for debate, the estimates process needs to be made much more rigorous? Will he support our plans for a yearly session of budget questions to each Department, so that Secretaries of State can be held to account directly for their spending decisions?
Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) described what seemed to be a worrying case of the blatant misuse of public resources for party-political purposes. After she had passed an e-mail from a concerned constituent to the Prime Minister, her constituent received a party-political reply from No. 10 featuring propaganda about the Conservative Party manifesto. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether party-political letters are being prepared at public expense and civil service neutrality is being undermined, or whether correspondence intended for the Prime Minister is being passed directly to the Conservative party? Will he tell us why this seems to be a developing theme with this Government, with millions of letters to small businesses on No. 10 headed paper filled with Tory propaganda, Government announcements conveniently located in marginal seats, the Prime Minister and Chancellor travelling the country on public money on their “long-term economic scam tour” and the unexplained 22% rise in the Government’s external communications bill just as the election is approaching? Will the Leader of the House also arrange for an urgent statement from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General on these disturbing developments?
Today, we have had the last set of quarterly migration figures before the election and it is clear that the Prime Minister’s pledge to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands is now in tatters. Instead of net migration’s being reduced, it is now higher than it was at the start of this Parliament and illegal immigration and exploitation are getting worse. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Home Secretary on the huge failure in her Department?
Figures released this week show that the number of people on zero-hours contracts has soared, but in this place we have had the sorry sight of the Conservative party defending the right of its MPs to earn millions of pounds on the side. Our motion yesterday was a sensible solution to the widening gap between the rules we have in this place and the standards the public expect of us. In a democracy, when we are out of step with public opinion we must change. The Government voted against banning paid directorships and consultancies, so I want to ask the Leader of the House whether his party is ready to contemplate any form of change.
I have been reading an interview this morning with the Prime Minister in woman&home magazine. In it, he praised his wife and said that behind every great man there is a great woman. Surely he meant that behind every great man there is a very surprised woman.
I am getting a bit worried, Mr Speaker. During questions yesterday, the Prime Minister boasted of how successfully he combines his job as Prime Minister with being the Member of Parliament for West Oxfordshire. That must be easy, because the constituency of West Oxfordshire does not even exist. Last week, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) knocked on the door of a local resident claiming that he was their MP, but was greeted by the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), who pointed out that he was in fact canvassing in the wrong constituency. I do not know about second jobs, but perhaps they should pay a bit more attention to their first ones. It is of course possible that they both just had a mind blank, like the leader of the Green party, who was involved in an eco-friendly car crash at the LBC studios on Tuesday. I gather that following her interview the Green party has joined the Conservative party in campaigning to be excluded from the leaders’ debates.
Although some Government members do not seem to know quite where their constituencies are, the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) appears to have left his for another planet entirely. He has been formulating the new Conservative health policy and not content with wasting £3 billion on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, he told a journal this week that the way to take the huge pressure off doctors is astrology. He claimed that it is a useful diagnostic tool, enabling us to see strengths and weaknesses via the birth chart. It is unclear whether he thinks that the Chancellor would have met his deficit reduction targets if only he had not broken that mirror.
One person losing his constituency by choice is the Leader of the House. Asked at the weekend why he was leaving Parliament, he replied, “I’ve been Foreign Secretary and I’m determined not to be Prime Minister.” If I may say so, that goes some way to explaining his time as Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Hague
As ever, I am grateful for the questions from the hon. Lady. It shows what a broad party we are that we welcome views from all parts of the galaxy, as she has just demonstrated. On the question of what is behind every great man, I have always thought that behind every great man is an astonished mother-in-law, so that is a further refinement of that phrase. I can assure her that the Prime Minister knows where his constituency is and it is of course in west Oxfordshire even though that might not be its name. It would be wise, of course, for all candidates from all parties to know the boundaries of their constituencies for the general election.
On the so-called car crash interview of the leader of the Green party, I think she has been taking lessons from the shadow Chancellor, who has given a series of disastrous interviews in which he has managed to fall out with his own window cleaner, quite apart from anything else. I have previously put the hon. Lady forward for her party leadership, but I really think she ought to consider being the shadow Chancellor in the coming general election campaign, because a shadow Cabinet member has said that if the shadow Chancellor
“carries on behaving like this he is not unassailable…He has complete contempt for colleagues. He’s not a team player.”
The hon. Lady is a team player and she could replace him. I think she would do a much better job than he has done. Indeed, Labour might not then need to bring back Lord Prescott to the front line of the campaign, which in any election campaign is a sure sign of desperation.
Mr Hague
I have enormous respect for Lord Prescott, but having to go back 10 years is a sign of desperation for Labour.
On a more serious question, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked about Government waste. I remind her that this Government have saved, thanks to the Cabinet Office Ministers, more than £10 billion a year just by making elementary things in government more efficient. They have done that year on year by making sure that contracts are not excessive and that Government Departments buy services together. This Government have rooted out waste in government.
The hon. Lady asked about the estimates days, the subjects for which are, of course, chosen by the Liaison Committee, so there is a well-established procedure. The hon. Lady has reforms in mind, but as things stand it is the role of Select Committees and questions in this House to hold Ministers to account. Although I am not closing off any sort of reform, that will be a question for the new Parliament, in which, as the hon. Lady has noted, I will conveniently not be present.
The Prime Minister dealt with the question of correspondence yesterday. The rules are exactly the same as they were under the previous Government and they are observed.
I am pleased that the long-term economic plan has entered the hon. Lady’s vocabulary, as well as that of the rest of the House and the country. I know she tried to alter one of those words, but it shows that that phrase has entered the economic vocabulary not just of the nation, but of the world. The head of the OECD stated this week:
“My main message to you today is well done. Well done so far, Chancellor. But finish the job. Britain has a long-term economic plan, but it needs to stick with it.”
The Chancellor is backed by economic commentators across the world, unlike the shadow Chancellor, who has fallen out with his own window cleaner. That is the actual choice before the country in the coming election.
The hon. Lady asked about yesterday’s debate. One of the points I made during it is that there have been many improvements to transparency and accountability in this Parliament and there will be scope for further improvements, but neither I nor the House agree with the hon. Lady’s proposals. She said that millions were being earned. I recall that one of the few Members recording more than £1 million in outside earnings in this Parliament was the brother of the Leader of the Opposition before he left the House. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not put forward his proposals for reform until his brother had left the House of Commons. Perhaps he is in favour of family businesses, after all—you never know—or perhaps we have found the limits of fratricide: it’s all right to stab your brother in the back politically, but not to cut off his earnings as well. How extremely thoughtful of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Earlier this week, during proceedings on the Serious Crime Bill, I highlighted the need for effective mandatory reporting of suspected sexual abuse in regulated settings, to afford better protection to our children and vulnerable people. Today, we shall hear in more detail about the repulsive activities of Jimmy Savile at our local hospital in Buckinghamshire, which will further reinforce the urgent need for reform. Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to giving more time for a full debate on mandatory reporting, so that we might perhaps achieve cross-party consensus that could lead to action before the general election, rather than waiting until later in the year?
Mr Hague
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State for Health will make a statement on this matter shortly, and there will be opportunities for her and other Members to ask him questions. This is an important issue, and she, as a local Member of Parliament, will take a close interest in it. I think it would be best for the House to wait to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to say before we consider what further debates on mandatory reporting might be necessary.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Later this year, the world will turn its attention to the conference of the parties in Paris in December and, before that, to the conference on sustainable development goals in September. In July, the conference on the financing of development, which is perhaps more important, will take place in Addis. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is important that we have a major debate on that conference in this Chamber in Government time, and that the Treasury should be represented at such a debate to explain to the House precisely what it will be doing to ensure the success of the sustainable development goals and of the United Nations framework convention on climate change in December?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of that whole sequence of conferences later this year. I remember agreeing, as Foreign Secretary, to give assistance and advice to France on the hosting of the Paris meeting, because we in this country have so much expertise on these issues. This is a matter for the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for International Development, so it would primarily be for them to take part in any such debates. The Treasury’s role is to help to supply the money, as is so often the case. I certainly hope that there will be debates on the matter, but I anticipate that they will now have to take place in the next Parliament. The Backbench Business Committee has a few remaining days in this Parliament, as I have announced, but it would be a matter for the Committee to decide whether we had a general debate on these or other issues.
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
My question will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend, as I have asked it several times before. In the diminishing number of days between now and Dissolution, is it still his ambition to hold a debate and a vote on the options in his White Paper “The Implications of Devolution for England”?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend’s question comes as no surprise—he has indeed asked it several times. The answer is that my ambition remains the same, but I have not achieved it yet. I am conscious of that, but such a debate and vote would of course require a measure of agreement among the parties in the House, including in the coalition, on how to phrase and frame the question. But it is not too late to have such a debate.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On Friday evening in North Antrim, we will be celebrating the life and times of Private Quigg, who in 1916 was awarded the Victoria Cross for conspicuous valour at the Somme. Yesterday, we read the wonderful news about Josh Leakey, who has just received the most recent Victoria Cross. Does the Leader of the House plan to do anything here formally to celebrate the life of this modern-day hero, and other heroes who have been awarded the VC, to enable Parliament to pay its respects to those wonderful people?
Mr Hague
That is a good point. The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to an individual of whom the whole nation will be extremely proud—the only living recipient of the Victoria Cross in Afghanistan. Everyone who saw pictures of the ceremony on their television screens this morning will be intensely proud of him. We can give consideration as to how the House should recognise people who receive those and other medals for valour and gallantry. Much has been done in this country to recognise them. The brilliant new extension of the Imperial War Museum celebrates the recipients of the Victoria Cross throughout history, for example, and I recommend that everyone should go and see that. Perhaps we can give further consideration to how we can meet the hon. Gentleman’s request.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House speak to his colleagues in government to consider how small, resource-stretched charities such as the amazing Burnham Area Rescue Boat, which is so busy all year round delivering life-saving services and famously was on television every day during the Somerset floods last year, are informed about Government schemes such as the inshore and inland lifeboat grant scheme? Such schemes would help small charities such as BARB to access the funds they need so badly.
Mr Hague
I very much congratulate the local charities that my hon. Friend is talking about on the work done during the floods, and the Government are always open to further suggestions to improve information to them. There are many sources of information for charities; Grantmakers and governmentfunding.org.uk are appropriate examples of where charities can find the necessary information. I know that if my hon. Friend has suggestions as to how that can be improved my colleagues will be grateful for them.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will know that many, many months have passed since we agreed the principle of standardised packaging of tobacco. I understand that we are waiting for the detail of the regulation to come through. Can he tell us how that will happen, whether it will be dealt with on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and when it will happen?
Mr Hague
I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that yet; otherwise I would, of course, have announced it in the business statement. Details will become clear as the days go by. I have made it clear before that regulations could be laid but that they could not be made until after a date in early March—I believe in the first week of March. We have not got to the point when those regulations can be made, and we will announce how we are to do it in due course.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Westcliff high school for boys, Westcliff high school for girls, Southend high school for boys and Southend high school for girls are four superb local grammar schools. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the funding of grammar schools, because at the moment they are perversely discriminated against in funding terms on the grounds of their very success?
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend knows, we support the expansion of all good schools, including good grammar schools. I know that the schools he mentions are superb grammar schools in his constituency. Grammar schools, with their combination of high standards and ambition on behalf of the pupils, have a very important role to play in this country, so I certainly would not rule out any debate. Such a debate would have to be pursued through the normal channels, but it would allow him to bring to the House’s attention successful schools such as the Westcliff high schools and Southend high schools in his area.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On the day when the whole House celebrates with pride and congratulates our servicemen on their valour in Afghanistan, would it not be appropriate to consider early-day motion 813?
[That this House records its sorrow at the deaths of 453 British soldiers in Afghanistan and notes the post-conflict judgements by Brigadier Ed Butler that the UK was under-prepared and under-resourced, by General Sir Peter Wall that the calculus was wrong, by Major General Andrew Mackay that the war was a series of shifting plans, unobtainable objectives, propaganda and spin, by former ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles that the UK operation was a massive act of collective self-deception by military and politicians unable to admit how badly it was going, and by General Lord Dannatt that the UK knew it was heading for two considerable size operations and really only had the organisation and manpower for one; and calls for an early inquiry into the conduct of the war in order to avoid future blunders.]
Early-day motion 813 lists the comments since the war of the generals who took part. They universally say that it was futile and an act of self-delusion in which lives were wasted. Is it not right that we consider what happened in that war and have a full inquiry as early as possible, in order to avoid other hubristic politicians sending young men to die in vain?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman often pursues this issue and we have discussed it before. These are important issues; it is always important to learn the lessons from any military conflict. I do not agree with his assessment, having been to Afghanistan many times. I have to reflect on the fact that international terrorist bases were operating in Afghanistan before the western military action which are not there today. Our national security has been improved as a result, and the lives of millions of people in Afghanistan have been improved by the action we took. We will disagree on that assessment, but no doubt it can continue to be debated over the years ahead.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
My 13-year-old constituent Lucie Low is suffering from a rare, complex illness and is currently in Medway hospital in sheer agony. The hospital is working with Great Ormond Street hospital and King’s College hospital to help find a diagnosis and support her pain relief. Will the Leader of the House allow for an urgent statement on supporting children who are suffering from rare health conditions? I met Lucie yesterday in hospital and saw the suffering she is in. Please, may I ask everyone to do everything they can to help her and her family at this difficult time?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right to stand up for the needs of his constituent and bring the attention of the House to such a case. The Government want to see all children with complex needs receive the very best care and support. I am pleased to say that since 2010 the number of doctors working in paediatrics has risen by 11%, but that does not mean that everything is perfect. I will draw the attention of my colleagues at the Department of Health to what he has said about this particular case, so that they can respond to him directly.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Given that it was not possible for me to raise in Health questions or with the chief executive of NHS England in a personal meeting the continuing concerns about the procurement of a PET scanner across Staffordshire, Cheshire and Lancashire, will the Leader of the House give assurances, amid concerns about openness and transparency, that there has been no undue influence from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) as a board member of Alliance? There are real concerns about the possibility of a monopoly service, which may mean that the contract will need to be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority. Will the Leader of the House find time for a proper, open debate about these continuing concerns?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady has raised related concerns before in the House. I am sorry that she was not able to do so in Health questions, because there will be no more Health questions before the election; we are entering a period in which some Departments will not have further questions before Dissolution. However, she is still able to ask written questions and to seek answers in every other way through correspondence with Health Ministers. I will draw their attention to the matter that she has raised. As Leader of the House, I cannot give her any assurances about what she has asked, but I know that my colleagues will want to attend to what she has raised in the House today.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May we have a debate on the spiritual, cultural and musical contribution that cathedrals make to the life of the nation? During the 300th anniversary year of the Three Choirs festival, will the Leader of the House thank all those who have contributed to the festival over 300 years and the cathedrals of Worcester, Gloucester and Hereford that have hosted the event, and particularly Hereford that is hosting it this year?
Mr Hague
I certainly congratulate the cathedrals of Hereford, Worcester and Gloucester on this 300th anniversary. Cathedrals play an important part in the life of our country. As the House may be aware, the Prime Minister has asked me to oversee the plans for VE day, just after the general election. We have not yet announced those plans, but I have it in mind that they will involve the cathedrals of the country in an important way. They are an important thing to celebrate, as my hon. Friend has made clear.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Has the Leader had a bid from the Department for Transport for a debate on road safety? Even though our roads are among the safest in the world, the latest casualty statistics show some worrying trends. There is an ongoing concern about cycle safety and the Green Paper on graduated licensing has disappeared, so there is quite an appetite for a debate on road safety before Dissolution. Might that be possible?
Mr Hague
Road safety is a very important issue that Members on both sides of the House have always taken seriously and on which broadly the United Kingdom has a strong record by international standards. We have to maintain that, and it is right to debate it if there are any doubts about it. That is a legitimate subject to put forward to the Backbench Business Committee. I cannot offer any Government time for it in the remaining days of the Parliament. The Department for Transport does have questions remaining before Dissolution—next Thursday—and I encourage him to raise the issue then.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we please have a debate on nuisance phone calls, which would allow us to consider the merits of this week’s announcement by the Government on giving more powers to the Information Commission to stop unwanted calls? The proposal has been extremely popular among and warmly welcomed by my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend raises an important issue on which, as he says, the Government made an announcement this week. The statutory instrument was laid this week and will become effective by 6 April. The measure will make it much easier for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take action on nuisance calls, including by issuing monetary penalties. We have just had questions to the Department responsible, and while I cannot necessarily offer a debate, that would be a good issue on which to pursue one in the coming weeks.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
There is much discussion in the corridors of this place about whether the House might dissolve earlier than expected ahead of the general election. Should not hon. Members know now whether that is in the minds of the Leader of the House and his colleagues, given the implications for all of us of the date when we cease to be Members of the House?
Mr Hague
Tempting though it would be to spring a great surprise on the hon. Gentleman and others, the date of Dissolution is set down in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 as 30 March, so there is no doubt at all about that date. Of course, it is possible for people to speculate about a date for Prorogation in advance of Dissolution. The Chancellor has announced that he will present his Budget on 18 March, however, and I am sure that it will be necessary for the House to debate that Budget at some considerable length, so clearly the date of Prorogation will not be very much in advance of the date of Dissolution.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Local authorities throughout the country are finalising their budgets for the coming year. Tonight, Labour-run Harrow council will consider proposals from its administration to impose a garden tax on the collection of garden waste and to increase the council tax by 1.99%, thereby avoiding a referendum, while it is closing down popular libraries, including the Bob Lawrence library in my constituency. May we have a debate in Government time so that we can consider what local authorities throughout the country are doing to decimate local services and increase taxes?
Mr Hague
The people of Harrow are fortunate to have my hon. Friend to speak up for them when their local authority is behaving in that way. Rather than cutting front-line services and hiking council tax, councils should be making sensible savings, such as through more joint working, better procurement, cutting fraud and using transparency to drive out waste. It is disappointing that Labour-run councils such as Harrow are taking the lazy option of making cuts to the front line, rather than adopting many other local authorities’ best practice of making sensible savings.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
At my recent jobs and skills fair in Edinburgh, which was attended by hundreds of my constituents, one of the main conclusions was that the job-creation powers in the Work programme are best delivered by local authorities. In the last few weeks of his distinguished political career, will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to leave a lasting legacy—a legacy for which he will be known the world over—by finding time for the House to pass my Job Creation Powers (Scotland) Bill?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating for effect, tempting though it is to leave such a lasting legacy. Of course, many more powers, including for job creation, will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament by whoever wins the general election, because of the implementation of the Smith commission proposals. It will then be important that there is decentralisation within Scotland, because there is a danger for Scotland and Wales that England will become the most decentralised part of the United Kingdom before long, which will mean that devolution is not really leading to power going down to the local level. I know that the hon. Gentleman advocates that, but I cannot, just on that basis, agree to give Government support for his Bill.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Children with Morquio disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy and tuberous sclerosis are being badly let down by NHS England, which cancelled its process of approval of the drugs for these ultra-rare conditions. I am sorry to say that these families now feel that they are being fobbed off by the Department of Health and Ministers. May we have an urgent statement to confirm that we will have what we asked for—an interim funding solution to fund these drugs, to be announced before this Parliament is dissolved?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which will be vital for the people most affected by it. As I have already pointed out, we have had the last regular Health questions of this Parliament, but Ministers will continue to respond to written questions and correspondence. I think the best thing I can do to help my hon. Friend is to refer this to the Health Ministers and tell them of his concern so that they can respond to him directly.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Following a campaign by the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, Labour colleagues and me, the Chancellor announced in his autumn statement a consultation on rip-off umbrella payroll companies. However, recent written answers show that the Government intend only to tinker around the edges and will not close the loopholes that result in workers losing hundreds of pounds per month. Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Chancellor will formally announce his plans to the House and explain why low-paid workers continue to lose out under his Government?
Mr Hague
There will be many opportunities in the coming month to debate matters with the Chancellor, who is regularly in the House. It will be Treasury questions on 10 March and then, of course, he will present the Budget on 18 March. I do not know when the Chancellor intends to present his final conclusions on that, but we will have debates on the Budget so it will be possible to debate what is or is not in the Budget statement in the course of those debates. That will be the best opportunity for the hon. Lady.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
As the Leader of the House knows, many of my constituents are concerned about the level of immigration and the strain that that places upon the NHS, school places and housing, and the effect it has on the overall wages of workers. May we have a debate on immigration to see whether we can address some of those concerns? In such a debate we can count the number of Members who accept the blindingly obvious: that no Government can control the level of immigration while we are a member of the European Union and have free movement of people.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend will be familiar with the plans that the Prime Minister has set out—the Conservative party’s plans for after the general election, to negotiate a better relationship with the EU and a reformed European Union in which it will be possible for this country to take actions that we cannot take now, particularly on welfare payments and other issues relating to immigration. This is, of course, a very important issue, which my hon. Friend has raised regularly. Part of what we are seeing at present is the impact of this country’s having a dramatically stronger economy than the rest of Europe, which is producing more migration into the UK. In that sense it is a problem of success, but it remains an important issue. Although the shadow Leader of the House raised it in earlier questions, she omitted to mention the completely open-door policy of the Labour Government, during which millions of people migrated to the United Kingdom, and we are certainly not going back to those days.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Last week I met Sam, Charlotte, Sarah and Sara, constituents of mine, who gave me their personal testimonies about the physical, emotional and sexual violence that they had suffered, perpetrated by their ex-partners. I am sure the Leader of the House will commend their bravery in coming forward to talk to their MP about that. They are also campaigning for safe spots with businesses and public agencies in Wythenshawe town centre, where people may go in future for advice and support. My parliamentary office has signed up to be one such safe spot. Is it time that the House authorities considered creating a safe spot here on the parliamentary estate?
Mr Hague
That is an interesting idea. I salute the courage of the individuals whom the hon. Gentleman met. I have had many distressing conversations internationally with victims of sexual violence—he will be aware of my campaign on that—and I am very much aware of the courage that it takes to speak out and to speak to other people about such experiences. We will have to consider with other authorities in the House whether it is possible to do what he has just proposed, but we should give consideration to that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give me some guidance on next week’s business. I have a number of private Members’ Bills that I can move on Friday. Will he indicate which ones the Government are going to support so that I know what to concentrate on? Here is the list: the Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Abolition) Bill, the Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill, the Free Movement of Persons into the United Kingdom (Derogation) Bill and—my personal favourite—the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition) Bill.
Mr Hague
I cannot indicate a sudden rush of Government support for the massive legislative programme on which my hon. Friend has embarked so indefatigably—indeed, we have all seen on the BBC how many sleepless nights he had in order to put together this massive legislative programme. As he might anticipate, his Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition) Bill could run into handling problems in the coalition Government, to put it mildly, so I do not expect the Government to perform a sharp about-turn on these issues, but he will have to wait until the day—it will be exciting—to see which Bills the Government object to.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
The work of VisitWales to promote the tourism industry in Wales would be greatly enhanced were VAT on tourism to be reduced. May we have a debate on reducing VAT on tourism, particularly given its importance for rural areas, which are very dependent on the tourism sector, including counties such as Ceredigion and Montgomeryshire, which is soon to be the Leader of the House’s home county?
Mr Hague
I certainly recommend to everybody in the country, and indeed around the world, tourism in Wales where they can see many splendid sites, some very fine countryside and great history. That is true in Ceredigion, where I know tourism is a key industry. There are opportunities coming up in the House—Treasury questions on 10 March and then the Budget debate—to raise issues about VAT. In the meantime, I know that the Welsh Government can and do provide support for tourism, and all of us can set a good example of tourism in Wales.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Looking around the Chamber, it is quite clear that not all of us come from advantaged or affluent backgrounds, and perhaps that includes you, Mr Speaker, and even the Leader of the House. In the previous Parliament, when I was shadow Minister for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and then shadow Minister for Innovation and Science, it became increasingly clear that social mobility was slowing down. I therefore very much welcome the recent figures showing that 20% more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are now going to university. May we have a debate on the growing levels of social mobility resulting from the policies of the coalition Government?
Mr Hague
I think that is an excellent idea. That increase in the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university is a significant development, and it is very different from what was forecast when tuition fees and other matters were being debated in the House. It is a very serious success. It will help long-term social mobility. I would very much welcome such a debate, although I cannot offer it, given the constraints on Government time. It is the sort of debate that my hon. Friend could put to the Backbench Business Committee.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Less than 2% of medical research funding in the UK is directed towards the eye and sight-related issues. Given that 40 people a day—about the number of Members in the Chamber today—lose their sight, and up to 2 million people in this country are living with sight loss-related issues, may we have a debate in Government time to see how we can address the issue and increase funding in the next Parliament?
Mr Hague
We might not be able to have a debate before Dissolution, but I can tell my hon. Friend that investment in eye-related research by the National Institute for Health Research has risen over the past four years, from £7.1 million a year to £15.6 million. Although that is a small proportion of total research, the amount has doubled under this Government. The institute welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including eye care, so there is every opportunity to expand that research further in the coming months and years.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has done incredible work on sexual violence in conflicts, so he absolutely understands the importance of the issue of violence against women and girls. In this country, two women a week still get killed by a partner or former partner. Will he consider providing some Government time on Thursday 12 March, when we have sixth-form girls coming to shadow their MPs from all parts of the House—also supported by Mr Speaker —so that we can inspire the next generation to say no to domestic abuse and violence?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I congratulate her very much on all she has done to highlight this issue. I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee has allocated time on the Floor of the House, not on 12 March but on 5 March, next week, for a debate to mark international women’s day. That will allow Members to raise issues celebrating the achievements of women but also about tackling violence against women. It is right that the House keeps that on the agenda, and I am determined to keep it on the international agenda. I welcome everything my hon. Friend does on this, including helping to bring people to the House to discuss these things on 12 March.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
May we have an urgent statement on the fact that doctors are charging families £80 every time they sign a cremation consent form? A resident in my constituency, Lee Dangerfield, had to pay £160 to doctors when his father sadly passed away, causing him financial hardship at what was already a difficult time. In 2010, it was estimated that doctors were topping up their salaries by an extra £15 million a year by signing these forms. Will my right hon. Friend write to the Health Secretary about this to see why these fees are necessary, given that this practice seems to be part of the day-to-day job of being a doctor in the free NHS?
Mr Hague
As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is in his place and has been listening to that question, I shall not need to write to him about it; he has taken note of it. The Government are committed to reform of the death certification system. When a patient dies, it is the statutory duty of the doctor who has attended them in their last illness to issue a medical certificate of cause of death. There is no fee payable for completing that, but there are other forms before cremation of a deceased patient. The proposed reform of the system to which the Government are committed would remove the need for cremation form fees. My right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend’s point about the urgency of tackling this.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
During this Parliament we have had the welcome practice of Government coming to the House in the event that military action is contemplated. What would happen during Dissolution in the very serious event that that might again be the case?
Mr Hague
An important convention has grown up that the Government come to the House in the event of military action. During a Dissolution there is no provision for the recall of the House. When Parliament has been dissolved, none of us are MPs after 30 March so it is not possible to recall it. In the highly unusual circumstances of military action that might then arise, of course we continue very much to have a Government who would, I am sure, in any set of circumstances handle the situation extremely responsibly. This Government are always vigilant about our national security, and that will remain the case during Dissolution. I think that in the circumstances that my hon. Friend mentions, what would happen in practice is that whoever emerged in government after the general election would need to come to Parliament as soon as possible thereafter for parliamentary debate on the issue.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
We are in the middle of Fairtrade fortnight. On Saturday, I will join Harrogate Fairtrade Campaign at St Peter’s church for its annual fair trade coffee morning. I am rather looking forward to that, having been the borough’s fair trade champion for years, and it is always a very successful event. May we have a debate about fair trade and its impact on millions of people across the developing world, and perhaps also look at what we can do to encourage more towns and boroughs to become fair trade champions?
Mr Hague
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on fair trade. It would indeed be very good if other towns followed his example and that of Harrogate in having an annual Fairtrade coffee morning and other activities. Fair trade plays a very important role in improving the lives of some of the poorest people in the world, and the UK Government are a committed partner of Fairtrade. I doubt that there will be time for a debate before the Dissolution of Parliament, but I can tell him that the UK’s commitment is demonstrated by the fact that the Department for International Development has recently extended our support for Fairtrade International to £18 million over six years.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Thanks to substantial school capital funding from the current Government, when Lancashire county council was run by the Conservatives funding was allocated for four brand-new primary schools across Pendle, which have now all been built and opened, and for a £6.2 million facelift for West Craven high school. Sadly, since Labour won back control in 2013, Pendle is once again being overlooked. May we have time for a debate in which I can highlight the need for investment in some of our other high schools, such as Park high school in Colne, which I have been calling for since I was elected?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is a great champion for Pendle on all issues. Since 2011, we have allocated £112 million for the improvement and maintenance of schools in Lancashire, and we have recently announced a further £23.8 million for the coming year, so Pendle ought to have its fair share. Lancashire county council is responsible for the maintenance of community schools in its area, and it is for the council to prioritise its local investment needs, but if it does not give proper priority to Pendle, people will know how to vote in coming elections.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
May we have a debate on the funding of school transport? There is concern among parents in Rugby, where we have choice in secondary education, including three excellent grammar schools—Lawrence Sheriff, Rugby high and Ashlawn—that the local authority is considering the withdrawal of funding for transport for pupils who do not attend their closest school. If implemented, that could lead to some young people being denied the education to which they are entitled.
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend will know, the statutory position is that the local authority must provide free home-to-school transport for pupils of compulsory school age who attend their nearest suitable school, provided that the school is beyond the statutory walking distance. Beyond that, however, local authorities have discretion about what to do. A debate would certainly allow him to explore further with Ministers his view that all pupils should get the education they deserve, regardless of their ability to pay for transport, which is a very important consideration. I encourage him to pursue such a debate through all the normal channels of Adjournment debates and the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I bring good news from Kettering. Last night, Conservative-controlled Kettering borough council, of which I have the privilege to be a member, announced that it will freeze its share of council tax for the fifth year in a row, while confirming lower car parking charges and protecting funding for front-line services and the voluntary sector. May we have a statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government about this remarkable success story? Such a statement could highlight how many other councils have managed to freeze council tax over the lifetime of this Parliament to deliver cost-effective, value-for-money local government services.
Mr Hague
The good news from Kettering never seems to end, which is very closely connected with my hon. Friend’s tenure as Member of Parliament for Kettering and, as he says, with the good work of his Conservative-controlled council. That sort of record—freezing council tax for the fifth year running, while reducing other charges and improving local services— is exactly what responsibly run local authorities have been able to achieve. It is a dramatic contrast with the doubling of council tax across the country under the previous Labour Government. It is exactly the kind of thing that could be achieved by more local authorities across the country if they followed the example of Kettering.
Jimmy Savile (NHS Investigations)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the NHS investigations into Jimmy Savile.
This morning, a further 16 investigations into the activities of Savile in the NHS were published. Those include the main report from Stoke Mandeville hospital and reports from 15 other hospitals. One report relates to Johnny Savile, the older brother of Jimmy Savile.
Although no system can ever be totally secure from a manipulative and deceitful predator such as Savile, we learned last year that there were clear failings in the security, culture and processes of many NHS organisations, allowing terrible abuse to continue unchecked over many years.
Some victims are sadly no longer with us and others continue to suffer greatly as a result of what happened. I apologised to them last June on behalf of the Government, and today I repeat that apology: what happened was horrific, caused immeasurable and often permanent damage, and betrayed vulnerable people who trusted us to keep them safe. We let them down. As one of the Stoke Mandeville victims said:
“There are so many messed up lives—although people have built up lives, you have children, you make a life, it ruins everything, your relationships with another human being—the things you are supposed to have.”
Today, we must show by our deeds as well as our words that we have learned the necessary lessons.
The new reports, like those released last year, make extremely distressing reading. In total, 177 men and women have come forward with allegations of abuse by Jimmy Savile, covering a period beginning in 1954 and lasting until just before his death in 2011. At least 72 people who gave evidence were children at the time of the abuse, the youngest only five years old. The allegations include rape, assault, indecent assault and inappropriate comments or advances.
Allegations have been made not in one or two places, but in over 41 acute hospitals—almost a quarter of all NHS acute hospitals—as well as in five mental health trusts and two children’s hospitals. Further investigations have happened at a children’s convalescent home, an ambulance service and a hospice. Three new investigations are under way at Humber NHS Foundation Trust, Mersey Care NHS Trust and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. Any further allegations that are received will, of course, be investigated as serious incidents.
In addition, the Department for Education has today published 14 reports on investigations in children’s homes and educational settings, and the review by Dame Janet Smith into Savile’s activities at the BBC is ongoing.
The investigations have been deeply harrowing for the victims, but also for the investigators. I put on the record my thanks to everyone involved, particularly Kate Lampard and those at the NHS Savile Legacy Unit, who have provided robust oversight and assurance in an incredibly difficult job.
I now turn to Stoke Mandeville—the hospital with which Savile was most closely associated. The report published today reveals some shocking abuse of 60 victims that took place over more than 20 years between 1968 and 1992. From the brave victims who have come forward, we know that Savile’s activities there included groping, molestation and rape of patients, staff and visitors. The victims were predominantly, but not exclusively, female. Twenty of them were vulnerable patients who were disabled with severe spinal injuries. One was a child as young as eight. Savile deliberately exploited those people because he understood their reliance on specialist care that they might only be able to receive at Stoke Mandeville, making it even harder for them to speak up. It was calculating behaviour of the most abhorrent kind. Victims included 26 visitors and six staff. Six victims reported being raped, one as young as 11 or 12. Most victims were too frightened to come forward, but there were nine informal complaints and one made formally. None was taken seriously.
There is no suggestion that Ministers or officials knew about those activities, but accepted governance processes were not followed in the decision to allow Savile to acquire and maintain a position of authority at the hospital. In particular, Ministers made the expedient decision to use Savile not just to raise funds to redevelop Stoke Mandeville’s national spinal injuries centre but to oversee the building and running of the centre, even though he had no relevant experience. Because of his celebrity and useful fundraising skills, the right questions—the hard questions—simply were not asked. Suspicions were not acted on, and patients and staff were ignored. People were either too dazzled or too intimidated by the nation’s favourite celebrity to confront the evil predator we now know he was. Never again must the power of money or celebrity blind us to repeated, clear signals such as those that suggested that some extremely vulnerable people were being abused.
I spoke last June about how changes to processes, policies and laws over the past 30 years have made it much less likely that a predator like Savile would be able to perpetrate these crimes today. Charity legislation is much tougher and sets out specific requirements for the auditing and examination of NHS charities’ accounts. The safeguarding system now in place is significantly improved. The Children Act 1989, the first child sex offenders register, Criminal Records Bureau checks and the Disclosure and Barring Service have all provided further protection. The Care Act 2014 will put adult safeguarding on a legal footing for the first time from 1 April, and safeguarding adults boards will ensure that local safeguarding arrangements act to help and protect adults. We have enshrined the right to speak up in staff contracts, and we are amending the NHS constitution and changing the law to make employers responsible if whistleblowers are harassed or bullied by fellow employees. We are also consulting on how best to implement the recommendations in Sir Robert Francis’s whistleblowing review.
However, proper policies and processes will not succeed if they do not go hand in hand with a change in culture whereby patients and staff alike feel able to speak out with any concerns, and can be confident that they will be listened to. It is particularly important that children and those with physical and mental illnesses are listened to, because they are the most vulnerable. Although we are proud to live in a society in which people are innocent until proven guilty, we have a collective responsibility to investigate all serious allegations properly in a way that simply did not happen time after time.
In the light of these disturbing reports, I also asked Kate Lampard to outline key themes across all the NHS investigations and to consider any further action that needs to be taken. She considered the extent to which Savile was a product of the culture of his time and concluded that although he was “a one-off”, there are important improvements that need to be made to protect patients today. Hers is a thoughtful and comprehensive report, and I am today accepting in principle 13 recommendations that she makes, including on access, volunteering, safeguarding, complaints and governance. Trusts should develop policies on visits by celebrities, and on internet and social media access across hospitals. They should review voluntary service arrangements, safeguarding resources and the consistency of employment practices, ensuring clear executive responsibility. They should consider whether policies on the impact of volunteers on a trust’s reputation are adequate.
The Department, with its arm’s length bodies, will examine the possible development of a forum for NHS voluntary service managers, the raising of awareness of safeguarding referrals among NHS employers, and to what extent NHS trust staff and volunteers should undergo refresher training in safeguarding.
I know that some trusts that produced reports last summer have started to make improvements. One trust has already encouraged staff to raise concerns, updated its whistleblowing and complaints policy and published a policy on the recruiting and management of volunteers. It is that kind of sensible, swift action that I want to see across the NHS. I have therefore asked the chief executives of Monitor and the Trust Development Authority to ensure that all trusts review their current practice against the recommendations within three months, and then to write back to me with a summary of plans and progress at each trust. Those plans will be fed into the Government’s ongoing work to tackle child sexual exploitation.
One welcome practice that Kate Lampard’s report highlights is the growth in volunteering to support the work of the NHS. Overall across the NHS we estimate there are 78,000 volunteers, including 1,500 at just one trust—King’s—in London. They do a magnificent job in improving patient care every single day throughout the NHS. We welcome that civic revolution, and today need to ensure that any safeguards put in place support its future growth by helping to protect the reputation of volunteering as well as the safety of patients. Hard cases make bad law, and it would be the ultimate tragedy if Savile’s legacy was to hold back the work of the NHS’s true heroes who give so much to their local hospital by volunteering their time.
While I agree that all volunteers working in regulated activity—typically close or unsupervised contact with patients—should have an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, I am not today accepting the recommendation that that should apply to all volunteers. As Kate Lampard acknowledges in her report, such a system may not in itself have stopped Savile. Instead, trusts should take a considered approach to checks on all volunteers, particularly using the enhanced DBS service if there is a possibility that someone will be asked at a future date to work closely with patients. They should also ensure that proper safeguarding procedures are in place locally, as well as the DBS process, because it would be wrong to rely on a national database as a substitute for local common sense and vigilance.
The report recommends that DBS checks are redone every three years. I believe the report is correct to say that trusts must ensure that their information on volunteers is up to date, but they can achieve that through asking volunteers to make use of the DBS update service that enables trusts to check DBS information regularly, and avoids volunteers having to go through the DBS process multiple times. We will be advising all trusts to do that.
Finally, I intend to take action in one area of great concern that the report highlights, namely the responsibility and accountability of staff working with vulnerable people to take appropriate action when alerted to potential abuse. As the report recognises, the Government have substantially strengthened safeguarding arrangements since these dreadful events, but it is clear that there should have been a much stronger incentive on staff and managers to pass on information so that a proper investigation took place. That is clearly unacceptable, and the Government have already said that we will consult on introducing a new requirement for the mandatory reporting of abuse of children and vulnerable adults. The outcome of such a consultation must take full account of the need to avoid unintended consequences.
Let me conclude with a tribute to the victims who have had the courage to come forward, because without them these investigations would not have been possible: it is our society’s shame that you were ignored for so long, but it is a tribute to your bravery that today we can take actions to prevent others from going through the misery you have endured. As a result, our NHS will be made safer for thousands of children and vulnerable adults as we learn the uncomfortable lessons from this terrible tragedy. I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his considered and thorough statement, and for his evident concern for the many lives that have been damaged by these vile acts and systemic failures. He was right to repeat his apology to Savile’s many victims and their families, and the whole House will support his decision to do so. I add my thanks to all those involved in compiling these reports, and particularly Kate Lampard and Ed Marsden for their “Lessons Learned” report. Through their diligent work, the full scale and horror of Savile’s sickening behaviour across the NHS has finally been laid bare. It beggars belief that abuse on this scale, known to so many people, was allowed to continue for so long. As the analysis of what happened becomes more complete and the full picture emerges, the question will grow in people’s minds: “Where is the accountability?” That is what victims are crying out for, and that is what must follow. It must be the single most important question occupying the Government in dealing with these matters, and it must continue to be a priority for the next Government and the next Parliament.
Much of what is revealed in the reports confirms what we already know about a pattern of criminal behaviour in hospitals where patients and victims were not listened to and staff felt unable or unwilling to challenge, but what changes with the Stoke Mandeville report is that it is now no longer possible to say that although the abuse was widespread, it was not known to people in senior positions. Nine verbal reports and one formal complaint were made, but none was acted upon. Why? The questions do not just extend to senior staff at the hospitals, and the Secretary of State was right to raise questions about the role of civil servants and former Ministers. To quote one of the main observations of the “Lessons Learned” report:
“As the investigations at Broadmoor and at Stoke Mandeville show, Savile’s involvement with those hospitals was supported and facilitated by Ministers or senior civil servants”.
We already knew that he was appointed by Edwina Currie to the taskforce that ran Broadmoor between 1988 and 1989, but today’s Stoke Mandeville report states:
“From 1980 Savile’s relationship with Stoke Mandeville Hospital underwent a significant change when he was appointed by Government Ministers…to fundraise for…the new National Spinal Injuries Centre”.
The “Lessons Learned” report concludes:
“In appointing Savile to these roles, and in allowing him the licence and free rein he had in exercising these roles, Ministers and/or civil servants either overrode or failed to observe accepted governance processes.”
That extremely serious finding needs to be acted upon.
I do not expect the Secretary of State today to answer these points in detail, and I welcome what he said in facing up to the findings, but does he agree that they point to the need for a more formal inquiry process involving senior people from that time—senior people in the hospitals concerned, senior people in the Department of Health and former Ministers? Knowing what we now know, we cannot simply leave this here. Victims must have accountability. That must be our shared goal across the House.
Alongside accountability, Savile’s victims need help. As the Secretary of State said, many lives have been damaged by what happened and will never recover. Nothing can be done to heal their pain, but there are things that could help them. In his last statement, he said that he would continue to explore the possibility of compensating victims using Savile’s estate to fund any claims. Will he update the House on that work? Is the value of Savile’s estate anywhere near enough to provide adequate compensation to his many victims? Has the Secretary of State made any judgment about whether public funding is needed to help compensate them? Today’s news will distress everyone directly affected. What steps are being taken to offer them counselling and other support?
Turning directly to the “Lessons Learned” report, while these appalling events come from a very different era, it would be a major mistake for the House or anybody reading the reports to think they have no relevance to today. To quote a chilling conclusion from the Lampard and Marsden report:
“The evidence we have gathered indicated that there are many elements of the Savile story that could be repeated in future.”
We know that a child cancer specialist from Addenbrooke’s was recently convicted for sexual offences against vulnerable boys as young as eight who were in his care.
Even though the world was very different in the 1970s and 1980s, it is impossible to read these reports without wondering how so many people could have known what was going on, yet felt they could not do anything about it. It must never again be the case that a member of staff should be made to feel unable to speak up for fear of “letting the hospital down”. They must feel fully supported at all times in reporting any act of abuse against anybody in the place in which they work. While we welcome the action the Secretary of State is taking to support NHS whistleblowers and strengthen their position, we cannot complacently think that this will be enough in these kinds of situations.
On Monday, the Government voted against the new legal requirement for those working in schools, hospitals and child care settings to report to the police child abuse in institutional settings. The purpose of such a requirement would be to make sure that no professional ever felt the protection of the reputation of the institution should take priority over the protection of a child or pursuing the truth. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said about this today. He said that there will now be a process of consultation on a proposed mandatory reporting duty. That is indeed a step forward, which I welcome. I understand why the Government would want to consult—because of the effect such a requirement could have on the working of an organisation. I want to push the right hon. Gentleman a little further and say that this consultation should not be open-ended, but a consultation leading to a firm commitment to legislate at the earliest opportunity—if not in this, in the next Parliament. I believe that that is the growing will of this House and I believe it will be the growing will of the next one.
On vetting and barring, the Secretary of State made some welcome proposals, and Kate Lampard has highlighted the need for a new focus on this area. There is a concern that changes to the vetting and barring scheme in this Parliament have significantly weakened its ability to protect children from convicted sex offenders. There is a concern that some offenders are being left off the list or that there is now a limit to the number of roles that offenders can be checked against, so that the potential for offenders to gain access to vulnerable people has increased.
Will the Secretary of State look again at the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, and ensure that every possible step is taken to close any possible loophole that could be exploited by a sex offender? As Kate Lampard rightly said, hospitals in the coming era are going to have to be more reliant on the work of volunteers and on fundraising. That is the context in which the NHS will operate for some considerable time and, in that context, there will be a need for a greater number of checks to ensure that those participating in the volunteering or the fundraising are appropriate people for roles in any hospital organisation. I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that the vetting and barring scheme is up to that task, so that we leave no loopholes for convicted paedophiles or sex offenders to exploit.
In conclusion, these are painful, appalling and sickening events that are a dark chapter in the history of the NHS and indeed of our country. We applaud the Secretary of State and the Government for their commitment and thoroughness in facing up to these events of our past. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of our full support in bringing accountability and redress for the victims, and in ensuring that whatever can be done across the Floor of the House is done, so that these kind of events can never take place again in our national health service.
Mr Hunt
I thank the shadow Health Secretary for his constructive comments. I think the whole House will unite to ensure that all the necessary lessons are learned. I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for the 44 very thorough reports that involved such painstaking and difficult work, and the superb job done by Kate Lampard and Ed Marsden in bringing together all those reports and thinking about the lessons that needed to be learned.
As the right hon. Gentleman observed, Kate Lampard has stated very clearly that while she does not think that there will be another instance of this kind in the future, elements of it could come about. It would be a mistake to say that this is all about stopping another Savile. We need to think more broadly about how abuse could take place in a modern context, and ensure that we learn broader lessons—which, indeed, we are learning in the context of what has happened in Rotherham, in Rochdale and elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the role of accountability, which clearly needs to be greatly improved. Let me answer, very directly, his question “Why was nothing done?” I think the report makes clear why nothing was done, and this is the tragedy. It was Savile’s importance, because of his fundraising, to institutions such as Stoke Mandeville in particular, as well as his celebrity, that made people afraid to speak out—and we should remember that, in all likelihood, many people have still not spoken out—but also made it less likely that something would be done when they did speak out, and that is what must never, ever be allowed to happen again.
The report does not directly criticise Ministers and civil servants for the abuse. It says there is no evidence that they had any knowledge of it. We must recognise, however, that the system itself was flawed, which is why the fact of the abuse never reached the ears of Ministers and others who were making decisions about Savile’s influence. What the report does say is that it was questionable whether processes should have been overridden, particularly in respect of financial propriety. The role that Savile was given in the construction of the new spinal injures centre at Stoke Mandeville was smoothed over as quickly as possible, because people thought that he would be able to bring a lot of money to the table, and that he would “walk”—that was the word used by the civil servants—if any bureaucratic obstacles were put in his way. That was wrong, and we can see that. It is vital for us to learn the lessons.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the value of the Savile estate. A total of £40 million remains under management in his charities. That money will be made available to meet claims made by Savile’s victims, and if it is not enough, the Government will meet any further claims through the NHS Litigation Authority. I can also confirm that any counselling that the victims need will be made available to them by the NHS.
I do not think that there is any disagreement in principle on the issue of mandatory reporting, but it is important for a proper consultation to take place, which is why it would not have been right to pass a law as early as last week. We all want there to be a proper, strong incentive for those who are responsible for the care of vulnerable adults and children to report any concerns that are raised with them, and to ensure that something is done if any allegations are made. However, we also want to avoid the unintended consequences that might follow if legislation were badly drafted. It is particularly important for us to protect the ability of professionals to make judgments based on their assessment of what is actually happening.
We want to avoid the risk that the processes that are followed, and the ultimate decisions that are made, will not be in the best interests of the children or vulnerable adults concerned because people are following a legalistic process rather than doing what is right on the ground. No one would want that to happen, which is why it is so important for us to get the legislation exactly right. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that following the consultation—which we will carry out as soon as possible—we will legislate if necessary.
It is also important to say that there is a role for the professional codes in this area; this is about the correct professional ethics. We changed the professional codes for doctors and nurses following the Francis report, to encourage them to speak out, and there may well be lessons that need to be learned in that regard.
On the operation of the disclosure and barring system, we will of course look closely at what the shadow Home Secretary is suggesting, but a big improvement has been made to the new DBS arrangements, compared with the old Criminal Records Bureau system, in the form of the update service. Volunteers can subscribe to that service, and we are recommending today that all trusts ask volunteers to do so as a condition of their volunteering—
Mr Speaker
Order. These are extremely important matters of the highest sensitivity, and I appreciate the solicitousness with which the Secretary of State is treating them, but we have two heavily subscribed debates to which we have to progress and, before them, a statement from the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. The Front-Bench exchanges have so far taken up half an hour, and that is too long. I should therefore be most grateful for the co-operation of the Secretary of State. If he could pithily draw his remarks to a close so that we can get on to the questioning by hon. Members from the Back Benches, that would be a great advance for the House and possibly for civilisation.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The Secretary of State has set out in the starkest terms the extent of the vile abuse perpetrated by Savile. It is also chilling to note in Kate Lampard’s excellent report that between 60% and 90% of child abuse is still going unreported. Those who perpetrate it are adept at adapting their mechanisms, and recommendation 9 in the report mentions the extent to which abusers use social media to abuse children on hospital sites. Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is going to implement recommendation 9, and if so, how that will happen?
Mr Hunt
Yes, we are; that is very important. We absolutely accept the principle that all hospitals must have explicit policies on the use of social media. We must do everything we can. It is difficult to stop people going on to Facebook, for example, but when it comes to internet access by children, there are things that we can do, and we will absolutely be implementing that recommendation.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I was Savile’s Member of Parliament and, as the Secretary of State can imagine, Leeds North East has its fair share of his victims. One such victim approached me recently in great distress. He had been abused as a child by Savile and had given his story to the police after decades, but it was not a complete story. When he was subsequently interviewed by NHS staff, they did not believe his story because it was inconsistent, owing to the fear that he had felt over the decades following the abuse. Will the Secretary of State reassure my constituent and the many others like him that they will not become victims twice?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I have great sympathy for his constituent. The information was not collated centrally. There were a number of reports about which we might have been sceptical if we had read them in isolation, but when we read them together with other reports, we see a pattern and we can conclude, as the investigation has done, that those incidents did indeed take place. That is one of the big learning points: we have to collate information that different victims provide at different times, to ensure that proper judgments can be made and that action can be taken.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It has been truly sickening to read in the report that over two decades, money, influence, celebrity and people being star-struck could allow Savile the licence serially to abuse so many people, particularly in our local Buckinghamshire hospital at Stoke Mandeville. I really welcome the apologies from the Secretary of State and from our local chief executive officer, Anne Eden, who has given a heartfelt apology and praised the courage of those who have come forward. May I press the Secretary of State further on mandatory reporting? It is exceedingly important that we start that consultation as rapidly as possible. It was obvious that the proposed clause in the Serious Crime Bill was flawed in many ways. When will he start the consultation, and when will the terms of reference be available? Will he now undertake to legislate as soon as the consultation has produced results?
Mr Hunt
I can certainly give that undertaking: we will start the consultation as soon as possible and if the conclusion is for legislation, we will legislate as soon as possible. I hope that my right hon. Friend understands that there is a great deal of complexity involved in getting this right. It is very important to talk to victims and to people who are looking at the evidence on mandatory reporting, which happens in other parts of the world, with very mixed results. Most importantly, we want to avoid the unintended consequence of a decision being taken against the interests of a child or vulnerable person because people are following a legalistic process which undermines the proper professional judgment made on the ground.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The sheer scale of this—the number of assaults, and the range of victims and locations—is just horrific, as I am sure everyone will agree. As has been said, the report states that 60% to 90% of current assaults on children are probably going unreported. Does the Health Secretary not think that better—indeed, compulsory—sexual relationships education in schools would mean that children are more likely to come forward and, importantly, that once they have gone through that education at school their parents would be more likely to believe them?
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
May I draw the House’s attention to another report published today, that concerning Rampton hospital in my constituency? Jimmy Savile was given almost unrestricted access to one of the UK’s most highly secure hospitals, which adds another layer to the matter. Rampton hospital contains some of the UK’s most dangerous patients. One of the most concerning issues in the Rampton report is that for staff his activities were described as an “open secret” but that management may not have known about them. If that finding is credible—it does not ring true with colleagues at the hospital I have spoken to—and is to be believed, would the Secretary of State give thought and resources to how we deal with whistleblowing and reporting in these most closed and secretive environments, where it seems to be the most important to have an open culture?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks wisely. There were four separate disclosures of sexually inappropriate behaviour by Savile in separate incidents, not with patients, but with other people, including a young child. My hon. Friend is right: it is not just about mandatory reporting; it is also about making sure that when that reporting is done by a member of staff, something actually happens. That is part of the reason we need to do this consultation properly, because it is about making sure that the right actions are taken by people who are able to take those actions. That clearly did not happen in this case.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On 11 different occasions, Savile attended new year’s eve parties at 10 Downing street. He was honoured, knighted and lionised by the establishment. They might not have known, but the unanswered question is: why did the intelligence and security services not warn? Why did they constantly give him clearance, allowing him not only to mix with Prime Ministers and royalty, but to prey on these defenceless innocents?
Mr Hunt
The reason, I think, is that the security services would not have known about this. What the report makes clear is that where people did speak out about concerns, nothing was done. That is what is so unacceptable and what we have to change. Savile was a national celebrity, who was treated as such by the establishment at the time, the establishment not having any idea of this evil abuse that was happening.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I am very grateful to hear the Secretary of State’s statement, and I am sure it will provide reassurance in my constituency, which is also served by Stoke Mandeville hospital, that these terrible events and the underlying issues will be properly addressed. May I urge the Secretary of State on one point that emerges from the report, which is that common sense was suspended in this period? We may consider putting in systems, be it enhancing vetting or trying to make sure that volunteers are properly screened, but none of those will ultimately make a difference unless the overall culture that is there for the promotion and protection of the patient is so well ingrained that people exercise common sense in ensuring that that protection is provided. The most worrying aspect of this report is the way in which that was totally lost over a prolonged period.
Mr Hunt
My right hon. and learned Friend is right. That is why, if we change the law on mandatory reporting in any way, we need to be careful that we do not inadvertently give licence to the suspension of common sense. It is why we decided not to accept only one recommendation—the mandatory disclosure and barring checks on all volunteers in hospitals, even if they are not in close contact with patients. We believe that common sense and vigilance at local level will be one of the key ways in which we stop this happening again.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Savile revelations never cease to amaze and shock, but are they in some respects a distraction from the bigger issues? The vast majority of abusers are not celebrities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bigger issues are the mindset that said, when concerns were raised, “Oh, it’s just Jimmy”, the fact that police were told to turn a blind eye, and suggestions that other doctors and clinicians were also active paedophiles and were complicit in the abuse in some way? Is not the bigger issue the institutional conspiracy to abuse? How will this report feed into the essential inquiry now under way with Justice Lowell Goddard?
Mr Hunt
What we are announcing today will be closely fed into the report that the Home Office is currently overseeing. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, some things in the report would not happen today. We can be confident that the culture across the NHS and social services has changed significantly in a positive way. There is much greater awareness of safeguarding issues. However, the report also said that elements of other things that it highlighted could happen today. That is why it is so important that we learn the necessary lessons.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The reports make it clear that Ministers’ appointment and use of Savile was improper and often contrary to advice from clinicians and officials. Former Minister Edwina Currie is quoted as telling the investigation last year:
“He knew how to pin people to the wall and get from them what he wanted. … he’d had a look at everything he could use to blackmail the POA … I thought it was a pretty classy piece of operation.”
Ministers Vaughan and Jenkin appointed Jimmy Savile to oversee the rebuilding of the national spinal injuries centre, contrary to advice, we are told in today’s report, from officials who thought that it would be better for those funds to be spent on centres of expertise around the country. Is it not critical that we understand the governance failures in this sorry saga, and that that insight feeds into the work of the Goddard inquiry?
Mr Hunt
Of course it is important that we learn the governance lessons, but the report is careful. It does not use the word “improper” in relation to the behaviour of Ministers or civil servants. It says that they acted reasonably. It raises some important questions, and I hope that the tone of my statement will reassure my hon. Friend that I do not seek to duck the fact that there are clearly questions about whether Ministers and civil servants behaved in the appropriate way. It is important that we learn the lessons from what went wrong.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I represent the constituency that is home to Broadmoor hospital, and I worked at Stoke Mandeville for two years in the early part of this century, so I have taken a deep personal interest in the investigation. I find it difficult to comprehend or accept that senior managers and clinicians were not aware of the allegations. I can find no mention in the Stoke Mandeville report of any clinician by name as yet. Can the Secretary of State assure me that looking to the future, named individuals will be given the responsibility to prevent this from happening, and if they fail there will be an impact on them, their career, their pension and the like?
Mr Hunt
The report clearly says that every trust must have a named director who is responsible for safeguarding. One can draw one’s own conclusions about whether senior management knew or not. The report was unable to find evidence that that was the case, but nor did it say that it was not the case. One comes away with the clear suspicion that senior management may not have wanted to hear the things that they were being told because of Savile’s importance in fund raising and possibly his celebrity status. That is what we must make sure never happens again.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
With Stoke Mandeville serving my constituents, I was reassured to hear that in the present culture these appalling circumstances are not likely to be repeated. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that it is now far more likely that we will see prosecutions within the lifetime of perpetrators rather than this horrific clean-up exercise after a perpetrator’s death?
Mr Hunt
I do believe that that is the case. I want to put it on record that Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, which includes Stoke Mandeville, has made huge progress in turning round and improving its culture. It came out of special measures last year and the staff and management are to be congratulated. His constituents can be confident that, although things are not perfect, huge progress has been made to improve standards.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I welcome the report. I support mandatory reporting and I look forward to seeing some serious progress in this respect. Staff and volunteers in all sorts of settings need the ability to report outside their organisation. Where the state is a corporate parent or a carer, or a provider of an extended home setting, it is important that young and vulnerable people can find some way of reporting outside. Is the Secretary of State willing to strengthen the role, in conjunction with other Secretaries of State, of the local authority designated officer? Already we know that people in schools and colleges can go to the LADO, but surely that is also appropriate for health and care settings, homes, prisons, the armed forces and anywhere else where there are young and vulnerable people. The benefit is that the LADO is perceived as independent and is someone outside the employer’s strict reporting guidelines. It would give a better chance for victims to be heard, action to be taken and lessons to be learned.
Mr Hunt
I am happy to look into that, but hospitals have a responsibility to go to the LADO if there is an incident affecting one of their volunteers or staff. The report makes it clear that they should exercise that responsibility with great diligence, but I am happy to look into the idea that patients should have that access as well.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
This morning a legal representative of the survivors group said that she had evidence that it had been reported to senior management that Savile had committed offences at Stoke Mandeville. Can the Secretary of State advise whether that opens up the NHS to compensation claims? Can he ensure that any damages claims fall on the Savile estate?
Mr Hunt
We have already paid compensation claims. Initially, those claims will be taken from the Savile estate and the money left in the Savile charities, but if those funds prove not to be enough we would pay from the NHS Litigation Authority. The report is not able to confirm the extent to which senior management knew or did not know about the allegations, so it is difficult to make progress on the specific points, but that does not stop people being able to make a claim and receive compensation.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I echo the Secretary of State’s praise from those involved in this meticulous investigation and report, but does he acknowledge the concern that the cases of many victims of sexual abuse in other organisations and institutions have not involved a celebrity? I have in my possession a letter from 1993 sent from a Barnardo’s project worker in Leeds to Leeds city council, which blames a constituent of mine for her own rape. Nothing was done to protect her. The abuse continued, and that offence was not reported to the police. Clearly, that would not happen now, but there are still victims whose cases are not being looked at and are not getting justice. What can be done about that?
Mr Hunt
A lot of things, and that is what this morning is all about. Mandatory reporting so that the reporting of incidents becomes the norm and not the exception is clearly an area where culture has to change. We have to find the right way to do that. Also, if we get this culture right, we should be able—this must be the ultimate objective of all this work—to stop such incidents happening in the first place. If people had acted earlier on their suspicions about Savile, a lot of victims would have been spared the torment that they subsequently had to endure. The biggest tragedy of all this is that it happened over decades and nothing was done. That is what we need to make sure never happens again.
Future of the BBC
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Culture, Media and Sport committee
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I will briefly remind the House of what is still a fairly new procedure. Mr John Whittingdale will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions, and Mr Whittingdale will respond to these in turn, as is the case for any normal statement. Members can expect to be called only once, and their interventions should be questions that are—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Brief. The hon. Gentleman challenges me, but questions should be brief. Front Benchers may briefly take part in questioning, and we all look forward to that.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to the House the Committee’s report “Future of the BBC”. Our major inquiry began well over a year ago, and I express my thanks to my colleagues on the Committee, our Clerks and our specialist adviser, Mr Ray Gallagher.
As is well known, the BBC charter expires at the end of 2016. The renewal process provides an opportunity to examine all aspects of the BBC—scale, scope, governance and funding. Since the previous charter renewal, huge changes have taken place to the way in which people watch television. At the time of that renewal, most households had access to only four channels, but since then we have had analogue switch-off, meaning that everyone has access to 40 or more digital channels. Many people also access catch-up television through the iPlayer or some of the new streaming services. The whole media landscape therefore looks very different from how it did 10 years before.
The Secretary of State has said that it will be for the next Government to consider the future of the BBC and charter renewal—I understand his reasons—but the Committee points out that at the time of the previous review, an independent panel led by Lord Burns conducted a long public consultation before reaching conclusions. We think that this matter is so important that a similar process should take place this time, and there is no reason why that could not be initiated as soon as possible. Either way, I hope that our report will set the agenda for the forthcoming debate.
There is no question but that the BBC produces many outstanding programmes. Many of our witnesses told us that it is the finest broadcaster in the world. Its reach is 96%, it has an unrivalled reputation for accuracy and impartiality, and it is hugely respected, but any organisation that gets £4 billion of public money should be subject to close scrutiny. There have also been significant failures in recent times: the episodes of executive pay-offs, pensions and severance payments; the loss of £100 million on the digital media initiative; the disastrous acquisition and then sale of Lonely Planet; and, of course, the editorial failures regarding programmes about Jimmy Savile and then Lord McAlpine.
When one looks at the BBC, one must first ask what it is there to do. There are six stated public purposes, which are pretty broad and uncontroversial, although we thought that they could be expanded to take in training and the development of skills, and the need for collaboration and partnership.
When we looked at the scale of the BBC—what the BBC does—we were unconvinced by the argument that it should continue to try to provide something for everyone. Instead, we say that its principal focus should be on its public service remit and that it should not be afraid to do less when the market is clearly providing a lot of existing content. The BBC has already embarked on some radical thinking, which we welcome. For instance, it has decided to make BBC Three a purely online service, which we generally support. BBC Three has cost something like £1 billion during the decade in which it has been in existence, yet it has not been especially successful at reaching its target audience, so it is right to consider other means of doing so. However, we do not support establishing a BBC One+1 service in its place, especially given that people can already see programmes that they have missed through means such as catch-up services on the iPlayer.
We welcome moves to remove the in-house production guarantee and to open up all BBC commissioning to competition. We also support allowing a separate BBC production house to compete for commissions from other broadcasters. However, if the BBC production unit is to remain within the BBC, there must be full transparency and no cross-subsidy so that there is fair competition with the independent production sector. We think that the time has come for the charter review to consider the terms of trade. There have been huge changes since those terms were originally put in place, given a large number of acquisitions of independent production companies by American studios, so they need to be looked at again.
We want more partnership and collaboration with the private sector, and we specifically want more support for local media. They play a vital role in supporting local democracy and ensuring that electors are aware of what happens in council chambers and local courts, but because of economic conditions, a lot of that activity is no longer happening. We think that the BBC could play a role in supporting that, perhaps by using some licence fee payers’ money for local media and by extending the independent production quota to cover local news.
The two key aspects, however, are governance and funding. On governance, almost every single witness from whom we heard was highly critical of the BBC Trust model. Not only is there an in-built conflict between the two roles of acting as a regulator and arbitrator of complaints, as well as providing the highest level of oversight and management of the BBC, but there is confusion about the trust’s responsibilities. There have been public arguments between the director-general and the chairman of the trust, as well as the management failures to which I referred.
The Committee is clear that the trust should be abolished and replaced by a unitary board with a non-executive chairman and a majority of non-executive directors. Responsibility for all aspects of the BBC’s operation would lie with that board, as is the case for many big organisations. We accept that there would need to be external scrutiny, but we are determined that we should not recreate the BBC Trust with a different name. We suggest that there could be a smaller public service broadcasting commission to scrutinise the overall strategic plan of the BBC and assess performance, as well as to determine public funding and perhaps withhold it, in the event of failure.
The National Audit Office should be given unfettered access. The Comptroller and Auditor General complained about the difficulties that he still faces and we see no reason why the NAO should not have statutory access. We also believe that Ofcom should have responsibility for all content regulation.
Funding was always going to be the most controversial aspect of the inquiry. The licence fee is simple and universal, and it arguably maintains arm’s length independence from the Government, but it is regressive, compulsory and expensive to collect, so we considered various alternatives. In the short term, we found that there is no realistic alternative to some form of licence fee or household tax, although we support a number of changes. The arrangements should immediately be amended to cover catch-up services as well as live broadcasting.
We also see the case for decriminalisation of failure to pay the licence. The penalties that are in place are anachronistic and disproportionate, but we think that decriminalisation may create a risk of much greater evasion, so we see the case for a move towards a household levy, perhaps similar to the German model, which will be simpler to collect and much harder to avoid.
In the longer term, we think that, as viewing habits change, the licence fee becomes harder to sustain and justify, and that we should at least consider introducing an element of subscription to give viewers the choice of whether they wish to subscribe to all the BBC’s services. There would still need to be public finance for the core services—radio, news, public service programming—but the more premium content would be available as a matter of choice for the viewer through a subscription model. That would need conditional-access technology in the home and it certainly cannot be put in place immediately, but that is the direction in which we believe the Government should look as we begin the process of the charter renewal.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their assistance and contribution. We had some fierce arguments in the Committee and we did not always obtain agreement on every point, but I hope the report will stand as a working document to allow the extremely important debate on the role of the BBC in our country. That debate is starting and will continue, I have no doubt, until charter renewal at the end of 2016.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we in Britain do broadcasting and the creative industries more generally extremely well, and that politicians tamper with our successful mixed economy, with the BBC at its centre, at their peril? Will he therefore join me in urging all the political parties to make clear in their manifestos their intentions towards the BBC, so that the British public, who value the BBC and its public service ethos, can make an informed choice when they cast their votes on 7 May?
Mr Whittingdale
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the part he played in preparing the report, which was considerable. I agree with him about the importance of the creative industries, on which the Select Committee has concentrated. I do not entirely agree with his second point, because it is important that there should be a genuine debate and a public consultation. We recommended an independent review panel, and all that would be pre-empted if the political parties set out their conclusions in their manifestos, which are to be published in four or five weeks’ time.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
As chair of the all- party BBC group, I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Committee, particularly on their ideas for preserving a universal funding mechanism at a time when the licence fee is becoming technologically more difficult to justify, because it is that universal funding mechanism that has provided the basis for all the good things about the BBC that he and his Committee rightly praised. If universal funding is preserved, as I hope it will be, has he considered the importance of the BBC working more in partnership in future, especially with local newspaper groups, in order to preserve other aspects of the media culture such as local news, which are more fragile than they used to be?
Mr Whittingdale
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. We made it clear that we see a greater role for partnership arrangements between the BBC and private sector organisations, and I welcome the fact that the director-general has already indicated that that is a direction in which he wants to move. As I suggested earlier, I also agree with my right hon. Friend about the need to find ways of supporting local media, which are under tremendous pressure, and the BBC has a very important role to play in that.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I was slightly concerned by what the hon. Gentleman said about a household levy to replace the licence fee. Whatever the difficulties associated with the licence fee, there are many people who do not have a television licence or, for various reasons, do not want to watch the BBC. If we go down the household levy route, there is a real danger that we will be creating a BBC poll tax.
Mr Whittingdale
The household levy, which would be a short-term measure to deal with the problem of evasion, is just a small change to the way of collecting the licence fee. The licence fee is essentially a household levy, but there is quite a high evasion rate which could increase following decriminalisation. The one area where the hon. Gentleman is correct is that there are some people who say that they never watch the BBC, never listen to BBC radio and never go online to access BBC services, so they do not pay the licence fee. Since 96% of the population have BBC television and a lot more have BBC radio, the number we are talking about is very, very small. There is arguably a case for saying that the public service content that the BBC provides is good for society and for the nation and it is right that everybody should contribute towards that.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his chairmanship of our Committee and the publication of the report. I am delighted to see that it recognises the inexorable move towards subscription television. I believe that people should pay for what they want to watch, rather than for what they do not watch, but may I express my reservations about some kind of household levy? I am uneasy about creating new taxes, which are easier to create than to abolish. Does my hon. Friend concede that there is some danger that that in itself could endanger the independence of the BBC and make it more dependent on politicians?
Mr Whittingdale
I do not want to overstate the household levy because it is essentially the licence fee by a different name. The reason that it is attached to a household is in order to make it easier to collect than the existing rather draconian process, which suffers from an evasion rate that could increase with decriminalisation. On the setting of the level, the report makes it clear that we see a role for the new public service broadcasting commission in assessing the amount needed to provide the services that the BBC is there to produce, and I do not think there is a greater danger of political interference or Government involvement than there is already under the process of setting the licence fee.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
This is the first time, sadly, that I have voted against a report in my 10 years on the Committee, and that was only because I disagree strongly with the proposed replacement for the BBC Trust. The preference of the Chair and the majority in the report is for an Ofbeeb, less involved up front, more of an after-the-fact regulator, but does the Chair agree that another possible model could be a strong ex ante regulator, as proposed by Lord Burns and reflected in my amendments printed at the back of the report? In the words of David Liddiment, a founding member of the trust, the BBC is simply too big and important a beast for light-touch regulation.
Mr Whittingdale
I share the hon. Gentleman’s sadness that he was unable to support us. It was interesting that three of my colleagues felt unable to support the final conclusions in our report, but I think it fair to say that each of them did so for entirely different reasons—it was not necessarily a meeting of minds. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, there is going to be a lot of argument about the different models, and we saw considerable attraction in the original proposals made by Lord Burns. Most—I suspect all—of us thought it a pity that the previous Government did not adopt the Burns model, rather than create the rather unsatisfactory BBC Trust. The BBC Trust has failed and we do not want to create a body that is basically another BBC Trust. His idea of the ex ante regulator is in danger of falling into that trap; personally I think there needs to be a very clear responsibility for the oversight and running of the BBC, and a single unitary board is the best way of achieving that.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend as an outstanding Chairman of a Select Committee and a perfect illustration of why the two-term rule for Select Committee Chairmen should be scrapped immediately. He will be aware that I was in a minority of one in calling for the licence fee to be replaced by subscription. Given the number of channels that are now available, those of us who believe in freedom of choice must surely believe that people who want to watch the BBC should be able to do so and pay for it, and those who do not want to watch the BBC should not have to pay for it and should be able to exercise that choice too. Has not the time come for that? If the licence fee represents such wonderful value for money, as the BBC tells us, surely it has nothing to fear from moving to a subscription model, because presumably everyone will be queuing round the corner to buy their subscription.
Mr Whittingdale
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has always acted as my Thatcherite conscience on the Committee, and I have a lot of sympathy with what he has just said. However, I will make two observations. First, we are not yet able to move to a subscription model because that would require big changes, such as the installation of conditional access in every household. Secondly, I think that there will always be some content that should be provided and publicly financed, because there are certain things that might not be viable on a subscription basis but are nevertheless important for the public good. I therefore think that there will always be an element of public finance, but I can certainly see the attraction of moving in the direction of having a growing proportion of content paid for by subscription.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
The BBC is different, and that is why it should be funded differently, as I think most people accept. It has always stuck me that there are actually more negatives than positives to going down the subscription route, compared with the present licence fee arrangements. Did the Committee find that? What problems did it identify with moving to a subscription system?
Mr Whittingdale
We took evidence from many people, and certainly a number of our witnesses were not in favour of a subscription model. I think that their argument can best be summed up in the phrase “paying more and getting less”. That is the BBC’s argument, but I am not convinced. I agree that the BBC produces outstanding programmes that are extremely popular. Indeed, I tend to sympathise with the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the vast majority of people would choose to go on paying in order to receive them. I do not think there would be a massive drop, but it is an important principle that, where possible, people should be able to choose whether to pay.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
We disagree with the long-term future of the licence fee and whether non-payment of the licence fee should be decriminalised. Does the Chair of the Committee accept that any moves to decriminalise non-payment before 2017 would be contrary to the agreement reached with the BBC in 2010, when it accepted the licence fee freeze in return for guaranteed funding? Given that the Committee found clear evidence that decriminalisation would lead to more evasion and therefore less money for the BBC, surely that contradicts the agreement reached in 2010.
Mr Whittingdale
As my hon. Friend knows, the Committee has concerns about the consequences of decriminalisation, which is why we said that other measures would be needed to try to prevent an increase in evasion. The matter is now subject to consultation. It should certainly be part of the charter renewal process, and I think it probably will be. It will probably be for the next Government to decide whether to wait until the end of 2016 before decriminalising.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the report recognise the unique character of the BBC, which has made a priceless contribution to Welsh culture and language and given us the most trusted news service because of its duty of balance, which must greatly irritate the Daily Mail and the Daily Express? Can we take it that the report is not influenced by the scurrilous accusation made against the hon. Gentleman in a tabloid newspaper when he was first appointed to work for Margaret Thatcher, in which he was described as “Maggie’s Toy Boy”?
Mr Whittingdale
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is correct; it was a very long time ago and I had rather hoped that people had forgotten that particular headline. I did not mention this in my statement, but of course we recognise the BBC’s important role not only in providing BBC Wales and Welsh programming, but in supporting S4C, which was a creation of the Conservative Government. That is very important. The BBC’s reputation for accurate news reporting is absolutely essential, and no member of the Committee would ever want to see that put in jeopardy.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that one advantage of decriminalisation is that it would be welcomed by many magistrates and their staff, because it would stop their work loads being clogged up with cases that are often uncontested and result in non-appearances, which wastes time and money? On the other hand, in relation to the household levy, does he recognise the concern among local authorities about one idea that was posited, which is that it might be collected using their resources, perhaps along with the council tax bill? Does he agree that it would be unfair to force hard-working local authorities that have kept council tax down to become the vehicle for passing on a levy over which they have no control?
Mr Whittingdale
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for both points. The collection mechanism currently costs about £100 million. If we moved to a different system, perhaps by attaching it to council tax, we could probably provide an incentive to councils to take on that responsibility and still save money. His point about magistrates courts is entirely right, as there are about 150,000 convictions every year for failure to have a licence, and that clogs up the courts. It is one of the many reasons why there is a strong case for decriminalisation.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I find myself in the invidious position of agreeing with something the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, which was that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) should be able to stand to be Chair of the Committee again—everything else he said was barmy. He actually argued that we should be looking at a voluntary subscription model. I am sure that would work well, because everyone likes paying taxes. The BBC would not exist in its current form under his proposal. We visited several European cities and looked at their models. Despite what has been said by those on the Government Benches, the public service broadcasters in Europe that have moved to a hypothecated tax system, such as the household levy, actually saw the amount of revenue they received increase. Does the Chair of the Committee agree that the model that we have suggested would strike a balance and give some time for a review of what might be better for taking the BBC into the next part of the 21st century?
Mr Whittingdale
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has just illustrated that—I think this is true of all Select Committees—although there might be strong disagreements within the Committee, they are conducted on a very friendly basis. I entirely agree that we were impressed by the model that has been adopted by Germany. Rather to Germany’s surprise, it has led to an increase in revenue, because the previous system had an even higher level of evasion than it had realised.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I worked at the BBC for nine years. In 2007 I moved from news production to the strategy side and tasked myself with asking whether the licence fee was sustainable in the digital age. I think the report gives me the answer—it is not. I found that the biggest roadblock to any kind of reform is the BBC itself, because there is a culture of dependency and entitlement to the licence fee that simply will not go away.
Mr Whittingdale
I have some sympathy with those comments. We found it slightly odd that the BBC officials who appeared before the Committee said that they had an open mind about the governance structure and the scope and scale, but that one thing they were absolutely certain about was that the licence fee had to stay. There is resistance, and perhaps that is reflected in the comments we have already heard from the BBC. My hon. Friend draws on his experience of working at the BBC, so I thank him for his support for what we have said.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I commend my hon. Friend for being an exemplary Select Committee Chair and for his superb report? The report confirms the power of BBC news. It states:
“Last year 82% of UK adults consumed BBC News… across television, radio and online.”
Given the power of the BBC’s news coverage, is it not even more important that the trust, or whatever the successor body is, enforces the BBC’s own guidelines on fair news coverage, particularly in relation to the BBC’s 2005 Wilson report, which found that the BBC needed to do far more to represent accurately the range of opinions on this country’s membership of the European Union and that the BBC’s news coverage was far too pro-European?
Mr Whittingdale
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he allows me to talk about another very important point made in the report. At the moment, complaints about accuracy and impartiality are dealt with by the BBC Trust, and I think that there is dissatisfaction with the fact that the BBC is judging itself. We have made it clear that we think that should change and that, with the abolition of the trust, responsibility for all content regulation, including complaints about accuracy and impartiality, should go to Ofcom. It already carried out that function for Channel 4, and we see no reason why it could not also do so for the BBC.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) about a diversity of views, does my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee agree that too much of our news coverage has an entirely metropolitan focus? Will he elaborate further on what the report said about how we can encourage more resourcing for, and better coverage of, views from rural parts of Britain?
Mr Whittingdale
We did look at the slightly London-centric nature of the BBC, and we welcomed the move to MediaCityUK in Salford and the provision of resources. We also expressed the hope that more would be done particularly in relation to the other nations. Northern Ireland made a quite strong case to us that it was poorly treated by the BBC. The question of covering rural issues—like my hon. Friend, I represent a rural constituency—is more challenging. I shall certainly continue to put it to the BBC, because sometimes—my hon. Friend is absolutely correct—these areas do not get the prominence they deserve.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
At the risk of ruining the hon. Gentleman’s reputation as Thatcher’s gimp—I mean toy boy—may I enormously commend him for the work he has done as Committee Chair for the past 10 years? Everyone in the House, whether they have disagreed with him or agreed with him, is grateful to him for that work. He has been an exemplary Chair of the Committee. I put that on record on behalf of my hon. Friends.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that changes in technology mean that there are significant new challenges for the BBC, which does of course remain one of the most loved and respected organisations in this country and around the world. That is why we believe that the licence fee will, at least for the short term, remain the best means of funding the BBC for the foreseeable future, and that it would be a mistake to undermine it without putting in place a viable alternative.
May I take the hon. Gentleman up on one point? The report says:
“We challenge the claim that the BBC needs to provide ‘something for everyone’.”
I do not want the BBC to be subject to a market failure argument only, because surely if everyone is paying for it, including my constituents, everyone should get something from it.
Mr Whittingdale
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his extremely kind remarks. I have to say that I am blushing throughout most of this session.
The hon. Gentleman’s point goes to the heart of the debate. I think the argument about providing something for everyone becomes weaker, given the huge increase in choice available elsewhere through the market. When we now have such a large number of channels for specific genres, the BBC should at least say to itself, “Is there really any need for us still to be in this area when there is already so much provision?” That does not necessarily mean that it should retreat into a ghetto—some have expressed that fear—but that it should take account of the huge proliferation of choice and concentrate its resources on the areas that have been poorly served by the market.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
It is perhaps inevitable, on a subject such as this, that my initial exhortation to brevity has been completely and utterly ignored. I have allowed the statement to run over time because I recognised that the feeling of the House was that there were many subjects to be dealt with—and the Chairman of the Committee has dealt with them more than adequately.
Backbench Business
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Equitable Life
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Government on providing a scheme to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal; welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in full; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred; further notes that most victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses; and calls on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation during the lifetime of the next Parliament as the economy and public finances continue to recover.
In the run-up to the 2010 general election, the Conservative party discouraged candidates from signing any pledges, with one or two notable exceptions, the most notable being that of seeking justice for Equitable Life policyholders. Having done some research, I was very proud and pleased to sign that pledge. After I was successfully elected, I was immediately elevated to become co-chairman of the all-party group on Equitable Life policyholders. I am pleased to be able to report that we now have more than 200 members. That demonstrates what an important issue this is for people in this House and beyond.
It is important that we look at what is different about Equitable Life policyholders compared with those in other such schemes. With the advent of private pensions and the encouragement of individuals to save for their future retirement, Equitable Life developed an almost Ponzi-like scheme whereby its representatives went out and sold policies for which they promised bonuses and pensions that were beyond belief, and people were convinced to sign up for them. When that was reported to the regulator and the Treasury, they took no action whatsoever. This was all very well while money was coming into the pot, but eventually the amount coming in would be less than that going out, and therefore the scheme would collapse. The scheme therefore became too big to fail, because had it failed, the Government of the day, of whichever party, would have had to pick up the full cost of compensation to the policyholders.
The whole scandal was covered up during the scheme’s entire period of 20 years. A position was reached of a cosy relationship between the company, the regulator and the Government whereby they would not unveil the situation. The Equitable Members Action Group had to drag the Government through the courts. Eventually, in 2004, we had the publication of the Penrose report, which made recommendations about the position of Equitable Life. That was not good enough, because it did not do anything to compensate the people who had suffered. Then the parliamentary ombudsman made clear recommendations that the policyholders needed to be moved from the position where they had suffered a relative loss back to the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred. That was very important. Equally, the ombudsman accepted that it would be appropriate to consider the potential impact on the public purse of any payment of compensation.
I am delighted that almost the first legislative step by the coalition Government was to put in place a scheme to compensate the individuals who had suffered a relative loss. We had argued in this Chamber for justice for those policyholders. There are various types of policyholders who have received different types of compensation. The first—
Bob Blackman
May I specify the types first, and then I will take interventions?
The first set of policyholders were those who took out their policies and had an annuity in place pre-1 September 1992. They were specifically excluded from the compensation scheme. I will come on to what happened to them subsequently. Secondly, there were the with-profits annuitants, who were given compensation of 100% of their relative loss—quite right too. Then there were the normal policyholders, who received an element of compensation. Unfortunately, when the legislation was set up, the public finances were in a scandalous state, and there was little money to allocate. I am delighted that the Treasury nevertheless chose to allocate sufficient funding to provide some £1.5 billion in compensation. There was £620 million to compensate the 37,000 with-profits annuitants, but, with the contingency fund of £100 million that was put in place, plus the costs of administering the scheme, that left only some £775 million to be spread between the 945,000 other policyholders, who therefore got only 22.4% of the compensation that they were due. As a result, those individuals have not been put back into the position that they should have been in had they not suffered the relative loss.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good and most important speech. I agree that the coalition Government deserve considerable credit for having tackled this early on in their term in office. Since, sadly, I cannot be here for the Minister’s speech, will my hon. Friend pursue the issue of the speed at which these payments are being made? Many of my constituents have had to wait a considerable length of time. I would be most grateful for his and the Minister’s reassurance that everything is being done to make these payments as rapidly as possible.
Bob Blackman
It is fair to say that the all-party group and EMAG have been on the backs of the Treasury Ministers responsible. The current Minister is in her place. Her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), was very helpful in making sure that the scheme was speeded up and that people got the compensation due to them. Most importantly, he decided that he would not close the scheme, which could have been done under the legislation, until we had traced every one of the policyholders due for compensation.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I commend my hon. Friend on all his work on this issue over several years? Is not the crucial point in the motion that, with the public finances improving, the compensation already paid should not be considered the last word on the matter, and there should be more room to give proper compensation to people who need it? As I am sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), may I ask whether my hon. Friend understands the frustration of many people that the Government seem to have plenty of money to spray on things such as overseas aid and aid to India, which might be better spent on such compensation to people in this country?
Bob Blackman
The clear issue is that when the assessment was made of the amount of compensation due to policyholders—this point is crucial—it was decided that £4.3 billion should be paid in compensation. Clearly, £1.5 billion has been allocated, although it has not all been spent, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) mentioned, meaning that a compensation bill of £2.8 billion is still outstanding.
The Prime Minister quite rightly said at the Conservative party conference that as the economy recovers and we fix this country’s problems, tax rates will come down, but I would say that there is a still a bill to be paid to the people who saved for their retirement. Therefore, as the economy recovers and the public purse allows, we should compensate policyholders who have suffered a relative loss, as we committed to do at the last general election.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the co-sponsors of the motion on bringing this matter before the House? I am a past and, I think, a continuing policyholder of Equitable Life; given yesterday’s debate, I suppose that is a matter of deep interest to the world. I am concerned that the amount of compensation to be paid to individual policyholders is relatively small. Does my hon. Gentleman agree that there is now a duty on the Government to get rid of these fairly small claims as quickly as possible? Many of my affected constituents are in their 70s and 80s, and they need satisfaction as soon as possible.
Bob Blackman
I completely concur with my hon. and learned Friend.
I should say that the Chancellor made a key and very brave move to compensate the pre-1992 trapped annuitants with a one-off payment of £5,000, which was doubled to £10,000 for those on pension credit. That was very welcome, but we are talking about the most vulnerable people trapped by the scheme, and my view is that they should receive total compensation. The estimate for total compensation for that element alone is £115 million, which I consider a drop in the ocean compared with the total pension bill due.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the motion before the House? As we are rapidly approaching that time in the political cycle called the Budget, I suggest that this is a golden opportunity for our Treasury team and the coalition Government to show that they have a big heart and meet the demands we are all making on behalf of our oldest and most vulnerable constituents?
Bob Blackman
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is listening, but she will clearly not announce the Budget measures today. After this debate, however, I will seek a clear commitment from the political parties about what they will do if elected to government on 7 May. Although it would be welcome if the Chancellor stood up at the Dispatch Box and agreed a full compensation package, the key issue is that if he cannot do so in this Budget, Members and people outside the House will want to know what the political parties would do to compensate those who have suffered.
Ian Paisley
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting this matter on to the Floor of the House. He is in danger of being canonised by the many thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are watching this debate closely because of how unfairly they have been affected. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench are listening to the points that Members have raised.
There have been announcements this week about the bonuses to be paid to bankers in banks controlled by the public purse, and some bankers have taken the personal decision to refuse bonuses if they so wish. At least they have the choice. The people who have suffered under Equitable Life have not got a choice. I hope that Treasury Ministers are listening, and recognise that if they want the future support of Opposition Members, they should address this issue before the end of this term.
Bob Blackman
I will call the hon. Gentleman my honourable Friend because he has been stalwart in defending the rights of the people of Northern Ireland who have suffered in this scheme.
The key point is that, according to the published figures, the Treasury had a surplus of £8.8 billion in January, which was remarkable given that we were expecting £6.5 billion. Some proportion of the additional £2 billion surplus could be put towards compensation for policyholders who have suffered.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
My hon. Friend rightly mentions the surplus in January. We are coming to the end of the financial year, and many Departments may have an underspend in their allocated budgets. Would it not be a good idea to divert some of that underspend to the victims of Equitable Life?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. The Chancellor will be listening to such rumours, and will no doubt want to hoover up that money to dispense for appropriate good causes, of which this is clearly one.
Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people have been pushed into an extremely difficult position, and that some of them are extremely close to poverty as a result of the amount they have lost? In many cases, they are not at an age at which there is anything they can do to replace the funds they have lost. They face a very uncertain future, as they have for many years, but there is absolutely nothing they can do to make a difference.
Bob Blackman
I do not normally agree with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), but he has said:
“They were not like the people who put their savings into outfits offering dubious and extraordinary returns, such as those who decided to chance their savings with the Icelandic banks. The Equitable policyholders are in their current position through absolutely no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 781.]
He went on to say that those at fault were Equitable Life, the Government and the regulator.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on keeping this very important issue live. He must be aware that there will never be a right time in the Government finances to put this matter right. The Treasury may have made a small budgetary surplus over and above what it expected in January, but the fact is that the Treasury debt is still huge. It is as simple as that.
The only way round this problem is to say that there will never be a financially right time, only a morally right time. That time is now, given the long lag, which has been characterised by denials and evasions. They also occurred in the contaminated blood scandal, which was perhaps even worse. The only way to deal with this is to pay the £115 million that the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned, and to have a clear statement about future year-by-year reductions in the outstanding £2.8 billion, which the Equitable Life policyholders have wholly earned and wholly deserve. They should be awarded the whole amount, because that is the only way in which this dreadful ill can be rectified.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is a great shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) was almost the sole individual on the Labour Benches during the Labour Government who promoted a compensation scheme. I commend him for his efforts to get his Government to introduce one. I wish that other Labour Members had promoted such schemes.
Bob Blackman
I will make a couple of points and then give way for the final time.
We are clear about what we want the Government to do. Irrespective of which political party wins the general election, we want full compensation for the pre-1992 trapped annuitants. As I have said, it would cost £115 million to compensate those individuals. Those are the most vulnerable individuals because they retired a long time ago and many of them are very frail. It would cost a relatively small amount of public money to give them proper compensation. I am afraid that the longer we delay, the fewer of them will be around, because they are dying off almost daily.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said, we should commit to a graduated full compensation package so that the policy holders are compensated as the public finances continue to recover. Individuals who took out pension policies some time ago are not necessarily reaching retirement age. Topping up their pensions over four or five years would therefore enable them to retire in the way that they expected.
Paul Flynn
May I state that I have a close financial interest in this matter? I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was discussed at great length by the Public Administration Committee in the last Parliament. Does he have a formula, which is what we were looking for, that suggests who is responsible for losses made? Can we have a scheme that is consistent for all pension schemes that get in trouble, such as the Allied Steel and Wire scheme, which has still not been resolved? If he has such a formula, perhaps it could be agreed to between the parties now, so that what is national responsibility, personal responsibility and company responsibility is accepted and we have a resilient formula that can be used for Equitable Life, Allied Steel and Wire and all those that go broke in the future.
Bob Blackman
I note the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The key point is that the Equitable Life policy holders have been through the courts and through the parliamentary ombudsman, and the matter has been found in their favour. Maladministration clearly took place and a key decision was taken to put those policy holders back into the position that they would have been in had that maladministration not taken place. Clearly, other pension schemes are in trouble. There are a lot of pension schemes in trouble because the previous Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, raided private pension funds and thought that that was a golden opportunity. We must take that into account. That is not the case with Equitable Life policy holders, which makes this a different matter. We have to be careful about broadening out this subject to other pension schemes.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that expectations have been raised and promises have been made? All that these people did was to invest in what they thought was a trusted company. They have done nothing wrong and they cannot for the life of them understand why it is taking so long to settle the matter.
Bob Blackman
These people have battled and struggled through the courts and through a long process to get justice. There are many of us, certainly on the Government Benches but also on the Opposition Benches, who say that all these people did was invest for the future and trust what they were told. They took a risk to a certain extent that the market would be appropriate, but they did not expect the level of maladministration that took place or the way in which they would be treated.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
My hon. Friend has made an eloquent case. He referred to the great disappointment that is felt by so many people who believe that they deserve compensation for what happened. He has not mentioned this, but does he agree that there is also considerable anger among people who feel let down? Is it not somewhat ironic and very uncomfortable that the Government who have started to do something about it are taking so much of the blame?
Bob Blackman
I have commended the Government for the action that they have taken to set up the scheme. At the time of the legislation, we tabled a cross-party amendment to ensure that the trapped pre-1992 annuitants would be compensated, but the Government resisted it. I am delighted that the Government saw sense after the lobbying that took place and provided a degree of compensation. The Government should be commended for ensuring that there is a compensation scheme. However, we have an independent assessment of the total amount of compensation that is due—it was not done by EMAG or by the Government, but is independent—and £2.8 billion is still due.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. There is a unanimous feeling in the House that justice needs to be done for these people. We know how much is outstanding and there is a big difference between what people are due under the existing compensation scheme and what they are actually due. Surely what we need is not a five-year plan to pay the money back, but a one-off payment that is made as soon as possible. Many of these people will die before they get their just reward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has taken a lot of interventions and I have allowed him a lot more time than is normally the case in this sort of debate. I also appreciate that there will be further interventions and I am not suggesting that he concludes his speech immediately. However, I make a plea for very short interventions, because people who say that they are not going to make a speech, but that they would like to intervene, take up the time of people who sit here all afternoon with patience and politeness, waiting to make a speech. I will not be tolerant of long interventions, but I am tolerant of the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous in taking so many interventions.
Bob Blackman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to draw my remarks to a close after that last intervention.
The issue before us is one of justice and fairness. Everyone believes in ensuring that the policyholders receive proper compensation for the injustice that they have suffered. These are people who did the right thing: they invested for their future. They expected a reasonable return on their investment and to be protected by the regulator and the Treasury. The fact is that they were badly let down.
This is the opportunity for all three major political parties and the smaller parties to give a commitment on what they would do if they were elected as the Government on 7 May for the 945,000 people out there who are still waiting for 77.6% of the compensation that they are due and for the trapped pre-1992 annuitants who deserve full compensation, which at £115 million would be a drop in the ocean, and who are the frailest in our society. If parties give them that commitment, they will give them their votes; if parties deny them that commitment, they may withdraw their votes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Given the interest in this debate and the short time available, I shall impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of eight minutes. That is quite a long time limit and I make a further plea for short interventions, if there must be any.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to have secured the debate with my co-chair of the all-party group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
I am sad that after so many years of debating this issue, we are once again back in the Chamber talking about the continuing losses suffered by hundreds of thousands of Equitable Life policyholders. As has been said, they invested in the world’s oldest life assurance company in the belief that they would be able to have a comfortable old age. Instead, after a lifetime of saving, many of them find themselves destitute, and they are certainly much poorer through no fault of their own. How have we arrived at that point, 15 years after Equitable Life closed its doors to new investors and five years after the current Government promised to ensure that losses incurred by Equitable policyholders would be compensated? If Members permit me, I will go back over some of the history of this sorry tale, to give the House and the public some answers.
My first involvement in the Equitable saga was to speak in an Adjournment debate that I secured in Westminster Hall on 24 June 2009. In that debate, I spoke about the serious issues facing all our constituents since the crash of Equitable Life, following its inability to meet its obligations and the promises that it had made to investors over the decades.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I may have been present at that debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his role in leading the campaign with other hon. Members. Like me and other Members, he will have had the experience of trying to update constituents on the issue but getting back a reply saying, “Unfortunately, my father”—or wife, or husband—“has now died”. That illustrates how important it is to take action now. Although I would like to hear pledges for after the election, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, we also need action now, ideally in the Budget. After an election, it takes time for things to happen. People need payment and good compensation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We must have short interventions. Long interventions are simply not fair, because everybody must have a chance to speak on behalf of their constituents. Members must be polite to each other and make short interventions.
Fabian Hamilton
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).
Equitable Life was established in 1762 and started selling pensions as early as 1913, but it was not until 1957 that the society started selling its now infamous guaranteed annuity rate pensions, which promised a clear and unambiguous return on capital invested. That carried on until 1988, when it realised that its rates were so good and so far ahead of the rest of the market that they were totally unsustainable. In December 2000, Equitable Life was forced to close to new business, but by that time it had more than 1.5 million members.
In July 2008, as the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned, the parliamentary ombudsman published her first report on Equitable, entitled “Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure”. On 11 December that year, the Public Administration Committee produced a report entitled “Justice delayed”, in which it stated:
“Over the last eight years many of those members and their families have suffered great anxiety as policy values were cut and pension payments reduced. Many are no longer alive, and will be unable to benefit personally from any compensation. We share both a deep sense of frustration and continuing outrage that the situation has remained unresolved for so long.”
That is already seven years ago.
On 5 May 2009, Ann Abraham, the parliamentary ombudsman, published a second report, “Injustice unremedied: the Government’s response on Equitable Life”, in which she stated:
“I was deeply disappointed that the Government chose to reject many of the findings that I had made, when I was acting independently on behalf of Parliament and after a detailed and exhaustive investigation.”
There was certainly no shortage of reports, just a shortage of justice for those who, through no fault of their own, had suffered huge losses in their life savings, which they had accrued over many years of hard work.
How could Equitable Life have maintained a rate of return and a guaranteed annuity rate way beyond any competitor in the market? Ann Abraham addressed that question in her initial report of 2008, which took four years to complete. Her answers went to the heart of the anger expressed by investors through the Equitable Members Action Group. At the core of the problem was the fact that Equitable Life simply could not meet the obligations that it had made, because it had no provision for guarantees against low interest rates on policies issued before 1988. It therefore declared bonuses out of all proportion to its profits and assets.
Following a ruling of the House of Lords in 2000, the society stopped taking new business in December of that year, which effectively spelled the end for Equitable. More than 1 million policyholders then found that they faced cuts in their bonuses and annuities, which caused a huge loss of the income on which many small investors had totally depended. After all, the average investment for the 500,000 individual policyholders was just £45,000, which, according to EMAG, would have yielded no more than £300 a month even at its height.
In its December 2008 report, one of the Public Administration Committee’s many recommendations stated:
“We…strongly support the Ombudsman’s recommendation for the creation of a compensation scheme to pay for the loss that has been suffered by Equitable Life’s members as a result of maladministration.”
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the co-chair of the all-party group, for his wonderful speech and for all the work that he has done. One of the people who lost out was Leonard Stuckey, in my constituency, who has run the EMAG group in Edinburgh South. Does my hon. Friend think that 22.4p in the pound is the right level of compensation, given what the parliamentary report that he has just mentioned said?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend. There are hundreds of thousands of people like his constituent. We all have constituents who have suffered losses, for whom 22.4p in the pound is a start but, as many Members have said, simply not enough. I will say something about that in my remaining time.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is making a powerful speech. This is an issue of basic justice, but given the parliamentary cycle, it is inevitably also a political issue. I support my hon. Friend’s suggestion that all political parties put on record before the election their position on compensation, so that those caught up in the scandal know what impact their votes might have on this sorry saga.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I agree. With the election coming up, we need to put a clear choice to the electors and to the hundreds of thousands of pensioners and policyholders who have suffered through the collapse of Equitable to ensure that they know where we all stand as political parties and as individuals. I am not the only Labour Member who has stood up for the rights of Equitable members—I believe that more than 40 Labour Members are members of EMAG, and many more believe that justice should be served.
The Public Administration Committee’s report of 2008 went on to state:
“Where regulators have been shown to fail so thoroughly, compensation should be a duty, not a matter of choice.”
Unfortunately, despite pleas from many Labour Members, the then Labour Government failed to introduce any ex gratia compensation scheme and refused to follow the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendations. Reacting to the Government’s lack of response to the ombudsman’s report, the then Conservative Opposition stated their determination to introduce the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill early in the new Parliament following the 2010 general election. That Bill offered 100% compensation to all with-profits annuitants who had taken out their annuities after 1 September 1992, and 22.4% compensation to every other policyholder. Many right hon. and hon. Members of all parties felt that that was inherently unfair, as that date was somewhat arbitrary and, as has been mentioned, the relatively small group of with-profits annuitants from before that date was the oldest and most vulnerable group. Many of them would not even live to enjoy the compensation or the £5,000 ex gratia payment to that group that the Chancellor announced recently.
I tabled an amendment to the Bill, which read:
“Payments authorised by the Treasury under this section to with-profits annuitants shall be made without regard to the date on which such policies were taken out.”
The debate on the amendment took just over two hours and was lost, by 76 votes in favour to 301 against, but it set out strongly the case for the pre-1992 with-profits annuitants.
The Bill received Royal Assent early in 2011, and the compensation scheme was set in motion. At first it was slow, but it began to pick up over subsequent years. As of 31 January this year, more than £1 billion has been paid to 896,367 policyholders, although more than 142,000 policyholders still have to be paid but cannot be traced. Some 37,764 post-1992 with-profits annuitants, or their estates, have been issued payments by the scheme, and those initial and subsequent payments total £271.4 million.
In conclusion, I must give credit to this Government for having introduced a compensation scheme from which the majority of Equitable policyholders have received 22.4p in the pound—a lot better than nothing. However, when we examine the compensation paid to Icesave investors, for example, following the collapse of the Icelandic banks in 2008, for which every investor received up to £50,000 of their losses in full, the Equitable scheme looks rather less generous.
Equitable policyholders have been patient. They understand that the recession meant austerity and that there was a huge shortage of money available for many parts of government and the state. What they cannot understand, however, is why, as the economy grows, they are denied any further payments against their very real losses. I have heard, as have all Members of the House, heartbreaking stories from individuals, some of whom have lost everything including their homes, all because of Equitable’s failure and the company’s “catastrophic” regulation.
As I have said in previous speeches on Equitable Life in the House, this is fundamentally a moral issue. When the Government are supposed to protect the life savings of individuals who have been encouraged to provide for themselves—as was the case with Equitable—they have a duty to ensure that losses incurred, such as those at Equitable, are adequately compensated. In my view that obligation should come above pet projects such as High Speed 2 and Trident renewal, or else the whole fabric of trust in the state will be damaged—I believe that that is exactly that has happened in this case. We have a moral duty and should not be afraid to carry it out.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. I was pleased to support his application for a debate in Back-Bench time because of the importance of this issue to a large number of my constituents who, as Equitable Life policyholders, have suffered loss. They remain gravely concerned that, although in many cases they have been partially compensated for their loss, they have not been fully compensated or compensated at a level that they believe to be just. It is important to restate, as many hon. Members have done, that these are responsible individuals who invested and saved in good faith and with a reasonable expectation of a fair return. They have not in any sense behaved irresponsibly, and did not seek to make investment decisions that had an expectation of an element of risk. They found themselves suffering significant losses, many of which have resulted in hardship, through no fault of their own.
I wish to raise two points in addition to the excellent points raised by my hon. Friend and others. First is the issue of accountability. Regulatory failure was identified in the ombudsman’s report, and that single fact informs us all in this debate that there was maladministration. How is that regulatory failure to be dealt with, and how will future regulatory failure be prevented, if those who are responsible for that failure—ultimately in this case, the Government of the day—can evade liability for that failure? This is, of course, a matter of justice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said, but it is also a matter of good governance and accountability, because when institutions for which the Government are responsible fail, the Government must accept responsibility.
The Government were, of course, obliged to step in when bailing out other financial institutions, because a risk to the economy would have arisen had they not done so. Nevertheless, for individual policyholders of Equitable Life there seems to be an unfairness, because while those who may have been depositors or shareholders in banks will receive compensation and redress, those who have saved in good faith but relied on the effective regulation of the vehicle in which they were investing are not receiving full compensation, and that cannot be right.
My second point is about reasonable expectation. It is not as if these policyholders have been told that they do not have a case; it is not as if we are coming to the House to plead, once again, on the issue of principle. The issue of principle has been addressed and settled. The ombudsman has said that there was maladministration, and the Government have accepted the issue of principle because of the level of compensation they provided.
We have the ombudsman’s report and the Conservative party manifesto that pledged compensation. I recognise that this Government set up the compensation scheme, and that they had to address the fiscal environment responsibly. Nevertheless, it remains a continuing source of concern that such a small proportion of many of my constituents’ losses have been addressed, and that they have complete uncertainty about whether there will be further compensation in future. Nobody turns around to my constituents and says, “We will not do this any more”, and they are left with the uncomfortable sense that it would be very convenient if they simply went away or, in many cases, actually died. Thousands of policyholders have died in the wait for compensation, and we have no finality to the situation. Given the reasonable expectation that was set up, the manifesto promise and the ombudsman’s report, it is entirely reasonable to ask on behalf of our constituents whether we can have a timetabled scheme to say, “We will bring closure to this matter.”
I am happy to stand up and say that that closure may not be for 100% of the losses accrued. Many of my constituents might disagree with that, but we must have regard to the fact that there is a continuing deficit and will be for the next three years, and that there are other spending priorities. Nevertheless, it seems that compensation of only 22%, and the ongoing uncertainty of whether there will be any further compensation at all, is deeply unsatisfactory.
Mrs Gillan
Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituent who e-mailed me and stated:
“If we were to receive this money it would not be lost. I am sure it would soon find its way into the economy at large and would not languish in savings accounts because we’ve done the saving already!”?
Nick Herbert
My right hon. Friend’s constituent makes a good point and it is true that the compensation that the banks have had to pay, for example in relation to mis-selling payment protection insurance, has had a beneficial effect on the economy by putting cash into people’s hands, but that is by the bye. As many have said, this is a matter of justice, but also of accountability and good governance. We cannot allow a situation where the regulation of an institution such as Equitable Life fails and no one will step up to the plate and say, “We accept responsibility for that failure” even though thousands of people have been hurt by it. That is the long and short of the story. The Government have a duty. They had to balance the interests of taxpayers fairly, but there is a strong feeling in the House, and among many of my constituents, that more must be done.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
It is a somewhat novel, perhaps unique, experience for me to be speaking in support of a motion that begins:
“this House congratulates the Government”.
However, credit where credit is due. Many of us raised this issue consistently with the previous Administration, who refused point blank to take any responsibility for the regulatory failures that led to the disastrous situation at Equitable Life, despite the fact that their own report by Lord Penrose pointed clearly to the regulatory failures in this case. This Government have grasped the nettle and introduced a scheme that has given some relief to many thousands of policyholders who have lost out.
Interestingly, in the last update on the scheme issued by the Treasury, it appears that some 160,000 policyholders have not come forward to submit a claim. A large number of people have still not taken advantage of the help that is offered at the moment, and we should continue to urge them to come forward. It took the report from the ombudsman to get the ball rolling on compensation, and I suppose the reason we are still debating it today was her conclusion that
“the diversion of scarce public resources is a relevant consideration which should be taken into account and weighed in the balance along with other relevant considerations”.
Despite what the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, there is a huge difference between the amount sought by the action group, which is about £5 billion, and the amount originally proposed by the Government, which was as little as £500 million. EMAG’s website quotes two vastly different figures, and the Government came down in the middle with a figure of £1.5 billion. I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said—we need to deal with the issue of compensation—but first we have to negotiate the sums involved.
The action group has consistently campaigned for full compensation. Its members thought it unfair that “affordability constraints”, as the Government put it, meant they did not get the full compensation to which they were entitled and that they only received 25% of the full amount. Its paper calls it a double injustice that Equitable pensioners should not only bear the cost of the Treasury’s inability to regulate Equitable Life in the 1990s, but be denied the full compensation owed to them because the Government’s inability to regulate the banking sector
“blew a hole in Government finances”.
There is some justice to that.
As the action group points out, policyholders have received compensation amounting to only 22.4% of their losses, and it argues that people’s pension savings, carefully accumulated over decades, should be safeguarded in exactly the same way as funds deposited in banks and building societies, but that is a dangerous argument to make, because funds protected in banks and building societies are subject to a maximum, so it is not complete protection.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I am sure that like all right hon. and hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman and I have constituents affected by this matter, and what they fear most is uncertainty. Mr and Mrs O’Meagher, who are 80 and live in my constituency, have to travel to London so that Mrs O’Meagher can give music lessons in order to top up their income, but they cannot continue to do that, and with their losses from Equitable Life, they see their life in terrible trouble.
Mr Weir
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I agree that this matter needs to be tackled—I shall say something about that shortly. In a follow- up report, the ombudsman was unable to conclude that the Government’s proposals complied with her recommendations for the establishment of a compensation scheme. Even the ombudsman says that more needs to be done.
Like most Members, I had many Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency, and I have had a considerable postbag on the issue from the outset. Many of the policyholders were elderly, and sadly some have died as the saga has ground on, but there remains a great sense of injustice among those still living. Equitable Life was touted as a long-established steady company —when I was a practising solicitor, it was seen as a gold-standard company. No one realised the problem lurking below the surface.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Many solicitors told their clients that they themselves had their pensions with Equitable Life and recommended it.
Mr Weir
I never had my pension with Equitable Life, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Many solicitors, accountants and other professionals invested in Equitable Life. It was popular with financial advisers because it was seen as a safe, steady company, but it turned out not to be, and people lost a lot of money because it was not properly regulated.
The Government need to consider future pension provision. Increasingly, we are being urged to invest in pension provision to augment our state pensions, and with the recent revelations that less than half of new pensioners will receive the whole new single-tier pension when it is introduced next year, that is more relevant than ever. The new rules granting much greater freedom for pension holders to access their pensions savings will greatly alter the pensions landscape and the attitude of savers towards pensions, but it might also make it more difficult for company investment strategies. It is imperative in this new environment that there is confidence in the stability and worth of pensions investment—it is not the same as putting money in a bank or building society, where the rate of interest is known, pitiful though it might be at present; it depends on fluctuations in the market and the type of investment made. Admittedly, there is no guaranteed return—there is always an element of risk—but for most people it is a major investment, so the risk should be as small as possible.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The public need confidence that the pension industry will be regulated properly, and in this case it obviously was not—the Government Actuary’s Department failed. Now that the public finances are in a better state, I think the Government should pay up in full, as recommended by the ombudsman, otherwise people will not have confidence in the future.
Mr Weir
I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says. We have to grasp the nettle because it is becoming ever more important that we have confidence in our pension provision. If we fail to give people that assurance, we risk them not having the confidence to invest in pensions, or taking their money out at the earliest opportunity, leading to even greater pressure on the public finances. Equitable Life remains a running sore, and so long as that is the case it risks damaging the whole industry and the attempts to encourage future pension savings. It was not simply a bad investment; the regulator failed to do its job, and that led to substantial losses.
We accepted that people were due compensation on the basis that the amount offered would be determined by the state of the public finances, but, as I said, there remains a gulf between the various amounts suggested. Before we come to any agreement, therefore, we must be clear about the amount involved, but it would be unwise to make it a party political issue just because there is an election around the corner—voters base their decision on many issues, including, in some cases, Equitable Life—but if the public finances are improving, of which some of us are less convinced than others, it is right that Equitable Life policyholders be considered anew. I urge the Minister to consider greater compensation.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I congratulate hon. Members on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. Since my entry to the House in 1997, this matter has come up repeatedly. I look forward to the day when we no longer have to debate Equitable Life. In 2004, I was one of the more than 100 Members who wrote to the parliamentary ombudsman urging her take up the case, following earlier failed attempts. We finally got a report and we finally got action, but unfortunately it took a long time, and in the meantime many constituents in their 70s and 80s have seen their prospects of a comfortable retirement disappear with this sorry saga.
In 2010, I argued that we needed to get a compensation scheme up and running to get money out as quickly as possible and that the question of how much was an argument for another day. I thought that if we got hung up on an argument about how many billions, it would probably delay the whole process again. As it was, the Government acted quickly in 2010: the scheme started operating in 2011, £1.5 billion having been allocated, and by the end of January 896,367 people had received some compensation. Given the complexity of these issues and the difficulties of tracing people, on the whole I think the Government have done a good job delivering those funds.
Nevertheless, 22.4% will have been a disappointment to many constituents. I do not want to get into an argument about the appropriate level of compensation, but like many Members I think the Government should contribute more as the public finances improve.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The last Government’s lack of action was described as “shabby”, and it would be a tragedy if this Government, having taken that brave decision in 2010, were to be regarded as shabby too, but unfortunately 22% sounds a bit shabby.
Mr Syms
I agree. For many of us, it is a start rather than the finish.
The constituents I see in my surgeries have a quiet dignity about them but still feel aggrieved and think that the Government ought to move some more. My main plea today is for the Treasury to consider the issue. The public finances are still a challenge and will be a challenge for the next Government, but I think that as things improve, the Government should be able to provide further funds.
Mr Syms
I will in a moment; I just want to make a few more points.
The reality is that most of those affected do not have the ability to earn money or to improve their particular circumstances. They made decisions predicated on certain estimates, and they have been badly let down. I am glad that the coalition Government have moved as they have. We have a good story to tell so far, but it could be an even better story if they listened to the concerns of Members on both sides of the House and made further movement.
The fact remains that £1.5 billion has been allocated, and we have heard that £1 billion has already been paid out to 896,367 policyholders, but that 140,000 have been untraced. On the assumption that many will inevitably remain untraced, it must leave a balance in the fund of £500 million. At what point, then, does the scheme conclude that it will not trace some of these people? At that point, will some of the £500 million be available for further distribution to the 896,000 or so who have already received some money? We can argue about whether there should be more money, but if £1.5 billion has been allocated and not all of it has been sent out, that provides quite a strong argument for making a decision at some point to allocate more of the money available in the Treasury to help these people. I hope that the Government will address that issue first.
The second issue is whether we could top up the £1.5 billion in due course to provide a much more satisfactory conclusion. Like many colleagues, I have retired constituents in my constituency—Poole—who are prudent and sensible people. Most of them made provision for their retirement in the best way they could. They did not go on gambling cruises and they did not go to Las Vegas: because they were responsible, they decided to invest. This provides a very strong case for a Government who believe in the ethics of people acting responsibly to stand by those people when they have been let down.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) who opened the debate on securing time for it this afternoon. As we have heard, this is an issue of justice and accountability; and it is also one of confidence in the financial markets, confidence in the regulatory system and confidence that political promises and commitments will be honoured. It is particularly on the issue of confidence that I wish to focus.
Let me start by declaring a personal interest. For a few months in 2000, I paid into an Equitable Life pension scheme offered by my then employer. Shortly after I joined the scheme, Equitable Life closed to new business and the company collapsed. I was lucky in that I lost, I guess, only a few hundred pounds, whereas many of my colleagues, like many of our constituents, lost considerably more. In the organisation for which I worked—this was typical for many policyholders—salaries were pretty modest, so it was people on modest incomes who had set money aside, in some cases for many years, to provide for their retirement who were left significantly out of pocket as a result. In fact, the organisation I worked for was a charity. Equitable Life had made a particular effort to take a substantial share of the charities’ pensions market. That is why, as a result of the important shares and securities market, a number of former and retired charity workers are now paying the price.
From my own experience at that time, I view it as important to remember that in taking firm and clear action now, we send a very clear signal about the importance of tight and effective regulation. When I joined the scheme in 2000, I remember seeing advertisements all over the London underground, encouraging people to take out Equitable Life policies. It could only have been a matter of weeks before the schemes collapsed, and it is quite beyond belief that regulators and, indeed, the company’s managers, were not aware at that time that they were advertising on the basis of an utterly false premise. I can only assume that this was a desperate attempt to bring money in as rapidly and to as great an extent as possible to shore up what was well known to be a collapsing business at that time.
However, that was not known to customers at the time. I did not know it, as a relatively financially literate and savvy customer, so it is crucial now publicly to recognise that regulation was seriously deficient. One signal we want to send strongly from this afternoon’s debate is that we will not tolerate that kind of lax regulation again.
My second point about confidence and why it matters so much as we act now in response to the failure at the time is that after the collapse of Equitable Life, the organisation for which I was working—in fact, I was the chief executive—attempted to set up a new group personal pension scheme for our employees. A substantial proportion of those employees refused to have anything to do with this. They could not see the point of investing in another pension scheme when they had been so badly let down the first time. We are talking about people largely in their 30s who were absolutely turned off providing for their own retirement. I suspect that the damage to confidence in the financial markets at that time was much more widespread, going beyond just the immediate impact on the policyholders who lost out.
Thirdly, we need to be honest and open today about where we are going in the future as regards compensation for these policyholders who have suffered so disgracefully. All Members have constituents who feel that they were very much misled by what they understood to have been a commitment to follow through the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendation that they should be placed in the position that they would have been in had Equitable Life not failed. They feel that what they have received in compensation falls a long way short of that. I have to say that this mismatch between the promises these people felt they had secured and the situation in which they find themselves today is contributing considerably to a loss of confidence in our regulatory system and in our political response to regulatory failure. That is important, and senior politicians need to do all they can to put it right.
I know that many colleagues want to contribute. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate this afternoon. I hope that a strong message will go out to my constituents and other policyholders across the country of the deep seriousness with which this House treats this matter. I know that our debate is being watched very closely by thousands of policyholders in all constituencies across the country.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I apologise for being a few minutes late at the beginning of the debate. It is a pleasure to co-sponsor it with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). I would like to compliment the latter on being as active during the last Government as he has been during this Government to fight the Equitable Life pensions corner. I pay tribute to him for that.
Many have spoken today, and this issue has been going on throughout the term of this Parliament and for many years before that. I am keen not to repeat what others have said. Let me make it clear what we are asking for through this debate, which is for
“the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation during the lifetime of the next Parliament as the economy and public finances continue to recover.”
That wording was deliberate. We recognised, as we always recognised on the all-party parliamentary group, that we inherited a catastrophic economic situation so that providing the full amount of money would cause real problems. I believe that we have been reasonable and sensible all the way through. We understand the challenges faced by the Government, and the motion, as I have clarified, recognises that. We are fully aware of the challenges with our own economy and the global economy, so we are not asking for everything appropriate to be paid immediately. Rather, we advocate achieving doing that over the next few years as the economy recovers, which is fair and reasonable.
Ann Abraham was the parliamentary ombudsman all those years ago, producing the final report in 2008. She said:
“The central story of this report is that this robust system of regulation was not, in respect of the Society, implemented appropriately—that is, consistently, fairly, and with proper regard to the interests of those directly affected”.
All of us who are present today, as well as the 200 or so members of the all-party parliamentary group, recognise that the ombudsman herself saw that the regulatory framework had failed, and we understand the financial challenges. However, the reason we are here, and the reason the all-party parliamentary group, with the support of EMAG, has not stopped lobbying and campaigning throughout the current Parliament—I was privileged to become its secretary literally within weeks of being elected in 2010—is that this is a matter of not just probity, but honour. The regulator failed, and this was Government regulation.
Mr Mark Williams
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a matter of honour, but it is also a matter of urgency. He is making his case in a very modest way. May I invite him to endorse what was said earlier about the urgent need to settle individual claims—I think that the figure we heard was £115 million—and to address the issue of elderly people whose cases may well not be settled before they die unless we act now?
Stephen Lloyd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A number of people are now reaching an age when something needs to be done extremely quickly. A constituent of mine, Billy Murphy, a variety artist for 70 years, had been lobbying me patiently, and I had been supporting him, until he sadly passed away in January. He had been making contributions for many years, and he was a very good example of the people to whom my hon. Friend and many others have referred: decent, hard-working people who were prudent and put money aside. Those people have lost out, not because of their own inadequacy —not because they took a punt, or played the stock market—but because they invested in a well-established and respected pensions company that was regulated by the Government. It was regulated by the Government: that is the whole point, and that is why we as a nation, whichever Government are in power, have a real responsibility to do what is right.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I am a former Equitable Life policyholder myself. I had a company pension policy. I distinctly remember questioning the person who sold me the policy about how Equitable Life was regulated, and being told that there was no chance of its failing because it was acting well within the regulations that existed at the time.
Stephen Lloyd
That is a very important point. The whole system—from the perspectives of finance, prudence and proper rule of contract law—fell apart under Equitable Life. It completely collapsed. When something like that happens in a country like the United Kingdom, the duty of the Government, irrespective of some of the broader issues, is to provide proper compensation, because otherwise the whole fabric becomes extremely vulnerable.
I find it bewildering that none of the senior managers of the old Equitable Life—and none of the people who were in charge of the marketing side or the investment side—went to jail. If I, as a Member of Parliament, find that bewildering, I can imagine the profound frustration that so many of our constituents must feel, given that they were doing the right thing. This was a company that was regulated, regulated within an inch of its life—that was the whole point of the sector—yet, through no fault of their own, it collapsed, and, a few years later, the parliamentary ombudsman said that there had been a systemic failure of regulation. All those senior managers and executives, whom we all knew, must have been aware of what was happening.
I greatly appreciated what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). When she bought an Equitable Life pension which she kept for a few years, all the marketing suggested that the company was rock solid and the purchase almost a steal. She was told “You really must invest in this.” Those people must have known what was happening, and I fail to understand why they were not penalised.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
My hon. Friend is putting his case very articulately. When Mr Ralph Williams, along with a large group of my constituents, came to see me about this whole matter, one of the points that they made most strongly was that they were nearly all elderly. According to a parliamentary answer that I received on 10 February, only £990 million of the £1.5 billion total has been paid out. The Government are profiting from people who are dying at this very moment. Is it not only fair for everyone, including the annuitants, to be paid whatever the Government have agreed, in full, now?
Stephen Lloyd
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful intervention, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to it. People are dying: there are no two ways about it, because of the age profile.
Another constituent of mine, David Stevens—a distinguished teacher for many years in Eastbourne, a former mayor and, as it happens, a Conservative councillor, who is also a very decent chap—lost out hugely in the Equitable Life debacle. He lost just under 80% of the worth of the pension in which he had invested for all those years.
This issue is about real people. That is why we are here, and why the all-party parliamentary group receives so much cross-party support. It is not just that we all know many constituents who are suffering and have experienced a profound loss despite having done the right thing, and despite being led to believe that the industry was heavily regulated. As I stressed at the beginning of my speech, I have believed—as others do—that this is a point of honour ever since I was elected in 2010, which is why I joined the all-party parliamentary group.
In a civilised country like the United Kingdom, people are often rightly encouraged to save and be prudent so that they are less of a burden on the general taxpayer. Hundreds of thousands of people did that on the basis of an absolute assurance that this was a properly regulated industry, and then lost out through no fault of their own. I have always believed that senior figures in the Treasury must have known that Equitable Life was wobbly, but many people have received 80% less than they should have received, and that is unacceptable.
I was delighted to speak today. I hope that both the Government and the Opposition will provide some succour.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Unfortunately, I must reduce the speaking time limit to six minutes. If Members really must intervene, by all means let them do so, but I ask them to try not to use too much time. We need to move on to the next debate sooner rather than later.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I shall confine myself to the reduced speaking time, Mr Deputy Speaker, and in doing so, I shall pay only short tributes to those who have secured this timely and necessary debate. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) has followed this issue—as I have followed similar issues—through several Parliaments, and that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has, in a very determined and concentrated fashion, made it a priority since his election on the basis of a very strong campaign on the subject.
Several aspects of this issue must make us uncomfortable. We can all respond, in a way, to the emotive interjection of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who called for immediate full payment and said that there was no alternative. That makes us all feel very good. However, I wonder what impact the debate will have on the many pension holders who are wondering whether we can improve on the present situation. We must not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made clear, give false hope. We are dealing with recalcitrance in the machinery of government and although we are entirely rightly approaching this on an all-party basis, which it is important for us to maintain, it is clear that for some reason, although there is a will to do this among Ministers it is held up because the machinery of government initially does not want to admit guilt, and at a later stage has to constrain things and uses the grounds of the public purse to do so. That will happen whatever state the public purse is in: other priorities will rank higher and there will be other things we need to do. We will be told we must look to the future and, above all, we must not create precedents. I say to the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who was a Minister, that they will find that the roadblocks put up by the machinery of government are almost insuperable. However, I believe that there is a way through in this case.
Many Members have referred to the Penrose committee and to the ombudsman’s report. There was a very clear statement, the like of which I do not think I have seen in my time in the House, about a total and comprehensive failure of regulation. There are no ifs, no buts and no extenuating circumstances, just an admission of failure and of incompetence on the part of Government that should be put right. I believe that it can be put right and think that there is a measure for doing so.
The great thing about this debate is that there is no doubt about the figures. I cannot see anybody disputing the figures, not even the Treasury. The total is £4.3 billion and the Government have pledged £1.5 billion. Without damaging the present deficit, £115 million would enable us to deal with the most chronic, the most aged and the least well-off of the pension holders. They could be dealt with straight from the contingency of about £100 million that is committed in the Government deficit, as is the total £1.5 billion. That is all in the deficit—it has to be for the Government to commit it. In my day, a commitment to spend counted as expenditure in the year it was committed, not in the year it was paid out. That might have changed, but it is a commitment and it will have been taken into account in the Budget this year. In my opinion, the whole amount could have been taken into the year in which it was committed and future Government projections will certainly all have it in.
Without any effect on the Government deficit, we could pay off the clearly identified with £115 million straight away and we could look at the as yet unspent £500 million. That would make a big start, although it would not go all the way. I share the emotion expressed by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds and could speak about it with the same intensity as he did, but the fact is that £500 million is there. There is £115 million to deal with the worst cases. Let us get that paid out. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East—this seems very much to be his idea—that we should have it in the party manifestos. There might not be great hope of that, but why not try? I will certainly support it with my party and I am sure that he will with his. I am not sure what success we will have, but we should support that.
Beyond that, we are dealing with a further £2.3 billion. I do not think that we should consider a time period of any more than three years. We must be precise, so that unlike with the contaminated blood scandal, when the Government could sit back and say that having caused those people’s deaths they would die sooner or later, this does not become a terminal problem. We cannot wait that long. That money should be timetabled, committed and spent within three years of the new Government taking office. That is a proposal on which I think we can unite. We could bring most policy holders into it and it is doable.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Members who secured the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), I have signed the pledge. This is not a phrase that often falls from my lips, but that was the right thing to do under those circumstances and it is right for Governments to keep their pledges. I know that there are constraints in Government and having served as a member of this Government I am conscious of the economic pressures, and I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) about the fact that periodically civil servants come to Ministers with rather convenient escape clauses, but the job of Ministers is sometimes not to accept such escape clauses.
I am speaking on the basis that this is a Government who are committed to markets and to stability and confidence in our markets. I believe in that. The financial services sector and insurance sector are a critical part of our markets. I speak as secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on wholesale financial markets and services. For the markets to work efficiently, there must be proper and secure regulation and when there is a failure in regulation there must be genuine certainty of recompense to those who have done no wrong, because otherwise honest and sensible investment is deterred. That is the risk if we do not do justice to the Equitable Life policyholders. What message would that send? We all say that it is right to invest prudently and wisely for one’s future and any such message would be against the philosophy of my Government and, I hope, against the philosophy of any responsible Government. In the long-term, it is in the interests of good economics and good financial planning that we do justice to the Equitable Life policyholders.
The motion is sensibly and moderately phrased. We are not saying that everything can be done at once, but that in the course of the Parliament this ought to be done. It might be that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Coventry North West is part of that. I will not be tied to an exact time frame, but it is particularly important that the oldest—the pre-1992 people—are given priority. It is also important to recognise that although the Government are picking up something that did not happen on their watch, part of being in government is that one has to deal with the consequences of what one inherits and has to do so fairly. Happily, thanks to the policies of this Government, the economy is improving. It is not unreasonable against that background to expect those people who have made a sacrifice, in that their fair recompense has been delayed, to share some of the fruits of that economic recovery.
Mr Robinson
I know that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to interject any sort of difference between party or Government, but what he said was not right. The lack of regulation and the failure of the policies happened under a Conservative Government’s watch. We must get away from mentioning Governments, as this affects all parties and all Governments over the period of the failure.
Robert Neill
I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but he misunderstands what I was saying. Regardless of party, there is an obligation on Government, and I must say that the 13 years for which there was a Government of which he was a distinguished member cannot be entirely ignored. We all must pick up what we inherit from our predecessors, of whatever party, and we must put them right. That is the key and that is why I agree that having done the history we need to move on and find a sensible way forward.
Stephen Lloyd
One of our profound frustrations was that the ombudsman made the ruling under the previous Government, which was sitting on a heck of a lot more money than this Government.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. This should all have been sorted out before the Government came on to the scene. The question of who was to blame and why ultimately requires almost a Crichel Down sort of approach—we must all accept responsibility for what happens under regulators who were not politicians. We must accept that it was done and must now resolve it. Had it been resolved sooner, there might have been more money around to deal with the issue. However, given where we are now and that the economy is improving, we can certainly do justice to people through a sensible series of staged payments, starting with those who are in the greatest need and who are most vulnerable. It is reasonable to ensure in the course of the Parliament that proper justice is done.
Let me give a sense of the impact on individuals. I have one constituent who makes the point that having invested sensibly his income has effectively been cut by some £20,000 a year. To a pensioner, that is an awful lot of money and they have had to downsize from their long-established family home. Another constituent has an acknowledged loss of £61,000 and is some £47,000 adrift with the payments out. That is not fair for somebody who has worked hard and is now in no position to supplement their income for the future.
Another very elderly gentleman had to wait some 18 months—because, frankly, of ineptitude and lost correspondence—to even receive acknowledgement of his entitlement. He should not have to come to his Member of Parliament to escalate these matters. That is something that any sensible and well-run compensation scheme should deal with as a matter of course. I am sure we all hope eventually to overcome the difficulties for our constituents, but they should not be happening in the first place.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am sorry to reiterate the point I made in an earlier intervention, but one member of the group of people who came to see me was elderly and, if he dies, his widow will get only 50% of the 22% he is entitled to, which is already pretty measly. Is it not incumbent on the Government to make payments now, in full, so that at least people can have that small amount of money to pass on to their dependants?
Robert Neill
On that basis, it is particularly important that we deal with the pre-1992 people, who are generally the oldest, but it is also important to have a proper, staged programme in place to deal with everyone.
When I was a lawyer, I accepted, as I think anyone would, that it was not possible to deliver for a client everything in their legitimate claim, because money might not be available or there might be delays. A settlement would be reached and a sensible discount accepted as a resolution, but I do not think that anybody would regard 22% as being a fair settlement of a claim. The Minister is an honourable woman and she must tell us today that she recognises that we are obliged, as a matter of honour, to give the people affected a sum much closer to that of their undisputed loss. As has been said, the quantum is not in dispute—it is a proven fact. We now need to say that, because of the improvement in the economy, we can do better than we were originally able to, for whatever reason. That is the honourable and legitimate thing to do, and it would also restore faith in an important element of our financial sector.
I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry North West and I hope there is enough that we can all agree on. The wording of the motion itself gives the Government the flexibility, provided there is good will—I am sure there is—to achieve its aims in a fair way for the people who have lost out through no fault of their own.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I will be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on giving us the opportunity to debate this issue and on the motion, which sums up the situation very well.
I want to make two points. First, I am sure others have received a similarly, or possibly identically, worded letter to that which I have received from one of my constituents, which states:
“Victims of the Equitable scandal are…incensed that savers with Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Icesave, RBS, HBOS and others have been bailed out 100% while they have been left with…compensation of less than 25% of their losses.”
When I first read that statement, I was not entirely sure that it was comparing like with like, but the more I thought about it, the more obvious it became that, ultimately, the comparison is completely valid, because there was a failure to regulate all those organisations and Equitable Life properly. The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) has said—this was the first thought that occurred to me—that there were macroeconomic reasons for having to bail out those organisations at the time. Even so, the comparison of the two problems that both resulted from the failure of regulation is valid.
Secondly, it has been said repeatedly that the ombudsman pointed out unequivocally that there had been maladministration. We need to think carefully about that and the implications for the whole ombudsman system if we do not accept its consequences as well as its judgment. An ombudsman system that finds maladministration and then says how it can be dealt with cannot be properly respected by the Government or anybody else unless the consequences of its findings—in this case, the costs involved—are addressed in full. It is important, for all the reasons that have already been given, that the people affected are properly compensated, but it is also important, if we are going to have a proper ombudsman system, to accept not only its findings with regard to maladministration, but the consequences of those findings.
I am perfectly content with the motion, which concludes by calling on the Government
“to make a commitment to provide full compensation during the lifetime of the next Parliament as the economy and public finances continue to recover.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), the hon. Member for Harrow East and others have put together, almost during the course of this debate, a package that might work. It involves using more effectively the money that is already available now and then having a programme of meeting the full costs over the course of the next Parliament. I think that that strategy provides a solution and I hope the Minister will accept that when she responds to the debate.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and on his speech. He, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), came up with a practical solution when they talked about the £115 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) has said, it would be nice if we could get some credit.
There could not be a more perfect Minister to respond to this debate than the Economic Secretary, because before she became a Minister she was a wonderful advocate on behalf of those of her constituents who have suffered as a result of the issue under discussion. I hope she is well placed to persuade her boss, the Chancellor, so that, in two weeks’ time all the hon. Members present can take some credit, not least for the settlement of the £115 million. Every Member present has constituents who are among the 945,000 Equitable Life policyholders who have suffered huge losses.
I have raised the issue many times with the Treasury and I always receive the same response, which essentially states that the Treasury has decided to pay out £1.5 billion of its £4.3 billion obligation and that the Government understand the policyholders’ disappointment, but that tough decisions need to be made due to the pressures on the public finances.
We all understand that taxpayers’ money needs to be managed and spent carefully and with the greatest consideration. However, paying out the full amount of the obligation to the Equitable Life victims is not merely about spending the outstanding £2.8 billion of our scarce resources. It is about regaining and rebuilding the public trust in the ability of our Government to create a safe environment and regulation in financial services. This is about the reputation of the British Government and financial services generally.
The problem is not going to disappear, regardless of which Members of Parliament survive the cull on 7 May. Equitable Life victims will continue campaigning and the Members who are returned here will continue to put pressure on the Government of the day to meet their obligation. The Equitable Life victims were, as we have heard, absolutely doing the right thing, working hard and paying into pension funds for their retirement. That sense of responsibility and work ethic is exactly what this Government support.
By paying only 22% of the obligation, the Government are ignoring the recommendation of the parliamentary ombudsman, as many Members have said—it is the same recommendation that was previously accepted by the Government in full. The British Government’s ignoring the parliamentary ombudsman sets a poor example for ombudsman cases across the country. If the Government do not respect an ombudsman recommendation, why would anyone do so? It sets a precedent for undermining the work of ombudsmen generally throughout the United Kingdom. The need for austerity does not need to be explained to any one of us. However, compensation for victims of the Equitable Life scandal is not something that can be subjected to cuts. My constituents have already lost enough time and nerve trying to fight this injustice and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to honour the outstanding debt.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on what they have done so far. It certainly was not their fault that we were left with these terrible financial difficulties, but it is not right that the role of the auditors and external consultants should go unmentioned. They should be held to account for this scandal. Ernst and Young was providing audit services to Equitable Life. The company’s bosses now say that they regard this to be a closed case, as the individuals responsible have now retired. However, it is very far from being a closed case and a happy retirement for our constituents who are waiting for the remaining 78% of their money to be paid out. I reiterate that this is not just about spending taxpayer’s money. It is about the credibility and respectability of this Government and of UK financial services, and about the trust in our ombudsmen system.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on their work on this important issue and on securing the debate today. They outlined articulately the time line of the issues surrounding Equitable Life, and I do not intend to repeat any of that. More than 1 million people throughout the country have been affected by the issue, which dates back to the early 1990s. No Government between then and now have adequately dealt with the problems; they have been problems for successive Governments. However, the people who are affected do not care which party is in government; they simply want to be compensated and to feel supported by the Government of the day in getting the compensation and help that they deserve.
On Friday, I met two of my constituents who have been impacted by the maladministration of Equitable Life in quite different ways. The first was a gentleman who had cautiously saved for many years with Equitable Life. His hope, when he took out the policy, was to fund an early retirement at the age of 60. He is now approaching that age, but his hope has been dashed by the failure of Equitable Life. He managed to withdraw some of his money when the problems started to occur, but he has still suffered the loss of tens of thousands of pounds and he has been given to understand that he is entitled to no further compensation. The second was a lady in her 80s who had saved for decades but has been left with just a small fraction of her money in retirement.
These are not gullible people. The policyholders who got caught up in the Equitable Life disaster were hard-working taxpayers who played by the rules, worked hard and prudently and responsibly saved for their retirement. The lady I just mentioned had worked for a company that had to comply with financial services legislation, which only serves to fuel her incredulity at what has been allowed to happen. She retired 20 years ago, hoping that the policy she had taken out would fulfil its promise, but she was misled and mis-sold a policy that she had received with good industry-approved advice. She believed that she held a legitimate and lucrative policy. She, and many others like her, put their faith in the pensions system and planned for their retirement sensibly, only to find that the rug had been pulled from beneath their feet when they retired. These are not wealthy people; they are people who are being hit by the cost of living crisis that my other constituents are facing. They have lost life-changing sums of money and their standard of living has been devastated in many cases. Their own personal long-term economic plans have been shredded, through absolutely no fault of their own.
Some hon. Members have referred to the fact that locating the people who are eligible for compensation has been slow and inadequate. I believe that about 151,000 people still need to be found by the Government. What does the Minister plan to do to widen public knowledge of this issue in the near future? What publicity campaigns are planned to reach the most unreachable people, many of whom are pensioners without internet access? They would probably use the more traditional forms of media used for publicity campaigns. Also, I found it difficult when preparing for this debate to get figures telling me how many of my constituents might be affected. Will the Minister explain to the House why no figures are obtainable showing the regional breakdown of those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life’s payment scheme?
Time is against many of the policyholders. We have heard that many have sadly died. The Lib Dem manifesto promised to set up a
“transparent and fair payment scheme”
and the Conservative manifesto had a similar promise, but many policyholders feel that the current scheme does not fulfil those promises. Those affected by the maladministration of Equitable Life have been left in great financial difficulty despite planning and saving carefully for their retirement. This has had a serious impact on their quality of life. In my experience, those affected are just as angry with the Government as with Equitable Life. They are angry with successive Governments for not taking full responsibility for the failures identified at the time and for not adequately compensating those affected. One elderly constituent said to me, “They are waiting for us to die.” That is the appalling impression that that lady has been given, and I am sure that she is not alone.
I acknowledge that the present Government have made considerable progress towards compensating those who have suffered losses, but that comes nowhere near to fulfilling the promises of a fair payment scheme that appeared in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos. That is not just my view; I suspect that it is the view of the vast majority of the 1 million people who have been affected. I ask the Government not to leave this matter any longer and to address it in the upcoming Budget. I ask them to ensure that people are compensated so that they no longer feel that the Government are letting them down.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my neighbour the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). I am proud to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, which has shown how powerfully we can campaign when we do so collectively and collaboratively on a cross-party basis. I congratulate the co-chairs and officers for leading us in that endeavour.
I start by welcoming the progress that has been made. I remember the early meetings that took place towards the end of the last Parliament and the frustration that, at that stage, there was no compensation at all. We finally got the announcement of compensation, and I welcome the fact that payments surpassing £1 billion have now been made to 896,367 policyholders. That clearly represents great progress, but the clear message from the House today is that it is not enough. This debate itself shows that this is not the end of the matter, however convenient it might be for the Treasury—either side of the election—were that to be the case.
I strongly support the motion today and I shall carry on campaigning on behalf of my constituents as part of the group. About 40 of my constituents have raised this matter with me over the past few years, and many have told me of the hardship that they have experienced. Virtually none of them are wealthy people. They are people whose modest and very well planned retirement incomes have been drastically affected, and that has had a huge impact on their quality of life at a time when they should not have to face that and can do nothing about it. I pay tribute to all of them, and to the way in which they have campaigned as members of the Equitable Members Action Group. They include Ray and Marjorie Dunn, who have worked closely with me and played an important role in bringing people together. It has been a pleasure to work with them and all my constituents.
Stephen Lloyd
Would my hon. Friend also acknowledge the outstanding work that the members of the Equitable Members Action Group have done for us in Parliament? They have kept us informed and provided a secretary, and they have ensured that we pulled together on their behalf.
Greg Mulholland
My hon. Friend makes an important point. EMAG has done a wonderful job. Working together, inside and outside the House, has been an exemplary way of getting positive change.
One thing has not been raised in this debate so far and I am pleased to raise it strongly, as a member of the Public Administration Committee in this Parliament. One contributor today said it was disgraceful that neither the previous Government nor this Government had fully abided by the clear view or the will of the ombudsman, because they thought, “What’s the point?” I urge right hon. and hon. Members to look at the Public Administration Committee’s reports in this Parliament, because we are calling for a radical overhaul, part of which should be that Governments are bound by such decisions so we would never have this nonsense.
We have an absurd situation, because we are talking about the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, with the responsibility to Parliament. The Public Administration Committee has a view, as the Select Committee that oversees the ombudsman, and it wants a radical overhaul, The ombudsman’s office wants a radical overhaul, as does the ombudsman herself and the public, but we cannot have one because Parliament cannot reform its own ombudsman—only the Government can do so because it requires primary legislation. That is absurd and we need to find a way to enable Parliament to introduce legislation for matters that are parliamentary and not to do with the Government. I urge the Government in the Parliament—whoever is in government—to listen finally to that, to let go and allow Parliament to reform its own ombudsman in a way that is so clearly needed.
I am glad that this Government have come up with more than Sir John Chadwick proposed, which we all strongly said was not enough. I am also pleased with the campaign launched in October 2013 to find the 400,000 lost victims of the Equitable Life scandal. There are now approximately 142,000 policyholders who are due a payment but the scheme has not yet been able to trace or validate their address, so I hope that work will continue. This is taking too long, given that these people are in their retirement, need this money now and simply cannot wait. Tragically, some of them have died, and some will die without having had the chance to get that money they are clearly owed as a result of the maladministration and lack of regulation.
What is particularly galling is that there has been a double failure of regulation: the failure to regulate the banks properly led to the catastrophic collapse in the banking sector, which then led to vast amounts of money going to bail out those banks, and that is one reason there is not the money in the pot to compensate these people. That is a bitter pill to swallow, which is why there is no justification for not backing today’s motion and not coming forward, finally, after all these years, with the solution that is clearly the right and moral one.
Let me give an example to illustrate that point. After the giving of £620 million to 37,000 annuitants, 945,000 Equitable Life policyholders have shared the remaining £775 million, which of course is the 22% of their losses. Yet when we look at how much money has gone into the banking sector—we still have publicly owned banks—we see that there is a discrepancy that simply does not sit right and must be addressed.
We must finally draw this matter to a close. We must finally see a fair and final resolution. I share the passion of right hon. and hon. Members in not wanting to have to debate that; we must not be debating this issue at the end of the next Parliament. I hope we shall see some progress in the Budget. It is realistic to say that it will be some and not all—the latter would not be realistic—but it absolutely must be in the next Parliament. Let us now have a cross-party convention, let us take this out of the electioneering and have a genuine, firm policy commitment that the next Government will honour this pledge, as should have been done. It is an obligation on the British state, an obligation on this House and an obligation on this Government and the next one. It is an obligation that must finally be honoured.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I wish to acknowledge, again, as has been done throughout this good debate, the extent of the hardship and anxiety that all too many people have endured as a result of the failure of Equitable Life. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) who have led the all-party group, spoken in the debate and championed the cause of the victims of the Equitable Life collapse over the years, and to others like them. Like the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), I also want to pay tribute to EMAG for its tireless campaigning on behalf of so many people who have lost so much. Its campaign has won real sympathy and support in Parliament and among the wider public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) rightly pointed out that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) seemed to be a little unsure of the history of this case. The problems at Equitable Life occurred between 1990 and 2001, so almost all occurred under the regulatory arrangements in place before the creation of the Financial Services Authority. The previous Government, of whom I was a member, issued an apology in January 2009 to policyholders, on behalf of the public bodies and the successive Governments responsible for the regulation of Equitable Life between 1990 and 2001 and for the maladministration that took place.
The consistent argument of EMAG has always been that the losses incurred by Equitable Life members are due to maladministration, as opposed to the bad investments and rash actions undertaken by Equitable Life. As we have heard in the debate, EMAG felt vindicated by the ombudsman’s reports. The previous Government did not agree with that view—with the view of the ombudsman. Members of the current Government stated clearly during the election campaign —we have heard about the pledges that were widely signed by Government Members—that they did agree. In government, however, they have not delivered.
The previous Government recognised that many policy- holders were disproportionately affected by the events at Equitable Life, and on that basis announced a commitment to a payments scheme to help. The ombudsman proposed a scheme entailing a case-by-case review, looking at 30 million investment decisions by 1.5 million people over 20 years. The ombudsman thought that would take two and a half years, but others thought it would be more. The previous Government asked Sir John Chadwick to advise on a simpler scheme. His report in July 2010, after the general election, referred to
“the obvious impracticability—if not impossibility—of determining these questions on an individual basis”.
The new Government, elected in 2010, explicitly accepted the ombudsman’s recommendation. Indeed, today’s motion, which I shall address in a moment, congratulates the Government on accepting the ombudsman’s recommendation in full. However, that announcement having been made by the new Government, the ombudsman then wrote to every Member of the House in July 2010, saying:
“In the light of the new Government’s commitment to implement”
my
“recommendation in full, the approach embodied in the Chadwick report has thus been overtaken by events and cannot provide a basis for the implementation of the recommendation.”
She said that her proposal and Chadwick were irreconcilable, but Chadwick, as we have heard in this debate—the hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned this—was in fact what was done. During the election campaign in 2010, the then Opposition spokesman went around the country promising that, if elected, the Conservatives would deliver on the ombudsman’s recommendation. During the campaign, EMAG asked candidates to sign a pledge. The hon. Member for Harrow East was telling us that Conservative candidates were encouraged to sign this pledge. It said:
“I pledge to the voters of this constituency that if I am elected to Parliament at the next general election, I will support and vote for proper compensation for victims of the Equitable Life scandal and I will support and vote to set up a swift, simple, transparent and fair payment scheme—independent of government—as recommended by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.”
More than 90% of Conservative Members signed that pledge: the Prime Minister did, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did. Every Liberal Democrat MP signed it, including the Deputy Prime Minister, and Equitable Life members and EMAG expected that once the coalition took office it would be delivered, but it was not. Not surprisingly, EMAG felt and still feels utterly let down by so many who signed that pledge in 2010 and did not deliver.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East referred to his amendment in the House in November 2010. I was just looking through the list of the 76 Members who voted for it, which includes the hon. Members for Harrow East and for Eastbourne, and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East, but it was mostly Labour Members who voted for it. Hardly any of the 287 Conservative Members who signed that pledge voted for my hon. Friend’s amendment.
The Government formally accepted the ombudsman’s recommendation, but described Sir John Chadwick’s recommendation as one of the building blocks for a solution. That infuriated the ombudsman who argued that as the Government had accepted her recommendation, Sir John’s report was no longer relevant. It is worth looking again at what the ombudsman recommended. She wrote:
“My second—and central—recommendation is that the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme, with a view to assessing the individual cases of those who have been affected by the events covered in this report and providing appropriate compensation. The aim of such a scheme should be to put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”
No one would claim to the House that that is what has been done. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) made the point—the ombudsman’s recommendation has not been delivered—so I am a little puzzled, if I can cavil, as to why the motion invites us to welcome the Government’s acceptance of the ombudsman’s findings in full, given that they certainly have not been implemented.
Legislation was enacted in 2011 for a scheme. It is not an easy thing to fashion a scheme that is both fair to members and protects the public purse. The Government came up with a scheme that was reasonable, although it fell far short of what was hoped for. I am sure that other Members who have spoken have seen the film on the EMAG website, “Time for the Treasury to Settle its Debts”, which features quotes from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos—commitments referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) and by the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) earlier in the debate. The Government therefore formally accepted the ombudsman’s recommendations, but instead implemented Sir John Chadwick’s recommendation.
We all hoped that the new scheme would administer payments effectively and efficiently. The Public Accounts Committee has been critical of the administration of the scheme, referring to a series of administrative failures, including delays in making payments to policy holders and poor customer service. Then in the March 2013 Budget the Chancellor announced some welcome limited compensation for those who bought their with-profits annuity before 1992.
Many people have suffered, in some cases a great deal, as a result of the failure of Equitable Life. The hardship suffered is not in doubt. We support the steps that Ministers have taken to provide some compensation, but it falls very far short of what Equitable Life members thought they were being promised by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members during the election campaign.
The Minister who will reply to the debate today signed that pledge. She made a commitment to her constituents to support and vote for the full compensation that the ombudsman called for. It is for her to explain to the House and to all those who have lost so much why that pledge has not been delivered.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Members for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) on securing the debate. Their tireless work on this important issue is greatly appreciated by our constituents. Prior to my ministerial appointment, I was a member of the all-party group on Equitable Life policyholders and a number of my constituents have been badly affected, so I am deeply sympathetic to policyholders’ losses in this sorry tale. I shall explain what the Government have done to resolve the long-standing issue of Equitable Life and set the record straight on some of the history.
This situation has been a key priority for the Government. While Equitable remained solvent and continued to pay premiums to its members, its problems caused a great many of its policyholders to suffer significant emotional and financial distress. When we came to office, we made a commitment to implement the ombudsman’s recommendation that the Government should make fair and swift payments to Equitable Life policyholders in recognition of the part that the Government played in Equitable’s problems. Those payments were swift, in that within six months of taking office, we introduced the Bill that became the Equitable Life (Payments) Act 2010, and payments started to be made to policyholders in June 2011, which was within six months of Royal Assent. They were also fair because the scheme’s rules are based on the Government’s full acceptance of the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings of maladministration and, importantly, on the assumption that all policyholders would have decided to invest elsewhere had the maladministration regarding regulatory returns not occurred. Of course, that is a conservative assumption.
The ombudsman did not quantify the relative loss, which is the difference between the amount received by Equitable Life policyholders and what they would have received if they had invested in the same way in a similar company, but this Government assessed the total as £4.1 billion. That was significantly more than the final figure of £340 million that was arrived at under Sir John Chadwick’s methodology, which was based on the previous Government’s limited acceptance of the ombudsman’s findings. In the 2010 spending review, after taking account of the need to be fair to all taxpayers, we announced that up to £1.5 billion would be made available for payment to eligible policyholders.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend going to address the part of the motion that calls on the Government to pay full compensation in the next Parliament? The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) did not deal with that point, but our constituents want it to be addressed.
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, I am.
In line with representations received, out of that £1.5 billion, we covered the relative losses of the with-profits or trapped annuitants in full. Those annuitants were unable to move their funds elsewhere or to mitigate the impact of their losses by seeking employment. They were also generally the oldest policyholders. The remaining available funding, on the advice of the independent commission, was distributed pro rata to other policyholders, representing 22.4% of their relative loss. I know that that was deeply disappointing to many. These difficult decisions were taken in the light of the position of the public finances and in the interests of overall fairness to all taxpayers.
The motion notes that
“the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred”.
However, the ombudsman went on to say that the impact on the public purse should also be taken into account when considering payment. She also stated that she was acutely conscious of the potential scale of what was recommended. She has subsequently written to the all-party group to say that the Government’s decisions on affordability and eligibility cannot be said to be incompatible with her report.
I congratulate all Members who contributed to the debate. It is clear that they have been assiduous in representing their constituents and have done an excellent job. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) talked about Ernst and Young as the auditors of Equitable, so he might be interested to note that in 2010, for its part in Equitable Life, it was fined £500,000, plus costs of £2.4 million, and received a reprimand by the accountants’ joint disciplinary scheme.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) asked for a regional breakdown of amounts paid. No breakdown by region has yet been compiled, although we could produce a basic one if that would be particularly helpful. However, I assure her that regionality does not influence the scheme’s operation in any way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, as well as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, talked about the situation for the pre-1992 annuitants and the fact that they are elderly and financially vulnerable. The first regulatory return from Equitable Life that would have been different had there been no maladministration was that of 1991. This was available on request from Equitable Life from mid-1992 and could not, therefore, have been expected to influence investor decisions before late 1992. Therefore no relative loss was suffered by this group. However, as hon. Members have recognised, the Government agreed that this group of pre-1992 annuitants, although they are not affected by maladministration, have suffered significantly from a loss of income that they would have expected. For this reason the Government made an exceptional ex gratia payment of £5,000 to this group, with a further £5,000 to those on pension credit, in December 2013.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East and the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) raised the question of compensation for the Icelandic bank savers in Icesave and why Equitable Life savers are being treated differently. The ex gratia payments to UK depositors in Icelandic banks were made as a result of a decision by the previous Government to guarantee all qualifying retail deposits specifically to protect the financial stability of the UK. The financial compensation scheme was simply the agent for these payments and we expect to recover all those sums from the Icelandic banks and are continuing to do so.
Specifically in the case of failed banks and why they receive compensation, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is funded by a levy on financial services firms, so again those compensations do not come from the public purse.
In answer to the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Airdrie and Shotts who asked when the scheme stops tracing people, all policyholders are either written to at their last known address or put through electronic tracing methods, such as looking them up against the electoral roll. Attempts are made through the Department for Work and Pensions to trace those owed more than £250. I should tell hon. Members that about 50% of the remaining policyholders are due less than £100.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) asked whether we could re-allocate the remaining £500 million. That remaining £500 million is to make ongoing payments to annuitants for the duration of their annuity. Finally, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and for Southend West asked what we had done to ensure that people were not put off the idea of saving for their retirement. As hon. Members know, the Government have undertaken a fundamental reform of the regulatory system, and put in place the Financial Services Act 2012 to establish a new system of specialised and focused financial services regulators. They abolished the FSA and set up new regulators within the Bank of England and the independent conduct of business regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority. These reforms are designed to ensure that the conduct of firms, and with it the interests of consumers and participants in our financial markets, are at the heart of the regulatory system and are given the priority that they deserve.
The recent news on the improvements that this economy has made since 2010 is to be welcomed and shows that this Government’s long-term economic plan is working, but we have a long way to go to restore the public finances, and the public purse remains very constrained. It is right that we have taken action on the Equitable issue, but we must balance this with the need to continue to address the difficult position of the public finances and the impact on fairness to all taxpayers. That is why this Government have no plans to change the funding available to the payment scheme. Our focus is rather to complete the small number of remaining payments. We have continued to make excellent progress with the scheme itself. Only this week I was pleased to report that over £1 billion has been paid to nearly 900,000 eligible policyholders.
In conclusion, I genuinely have deep sympathy with those who carefully saved for retirement and are not receiving the income they expected. Resolving the Equitable Life issue, and doing so swiftly and in a way that was fair to all taxpayers, has been a priority for the Government.
Bob Blackman
I congratulate the 12 Back-Bench Members from across the House who made speeches in the debate and the huge number who intervened. The will of the House is quite clear: this is a debt of honour, and it is no fault of the individual savers whose life savings have been either lost or severely depleted. We have heard many examples from Members. I could produce a mailbag full of examples of individuals from across the country who invested for their retirement but are now unable to supplement their income, through no fault of their own. They did the right thing by saving for their retirement, but through regulatory failure, a failure by Equitable Life and a conspiracy with the then Government, their savings were taken away from them.
This is a debt of honour, so I must stress the point that we should honour it over the course of the next Parliament. I completely accept my hon. Friend the Minister’s point that the economy was in tatters in 2010 and that a series of difficult decisions had to be made. I congratulate the Government on coming forward with a large sum of public money to compensate those individuals who are due. However, a debt of £2.8 billion is still owed to those people who saved for their retirement. That should be funded over the course of the next Parliament.
However, given the remarks from the Minister and the shadow Minister, I fear that there are currently no plans to provide that compensation. That means the battle will go on. The fight will continue until such time as the Equitable Life policyholders receive the compensation they are due. Therefore, if it comes to it, we will press the motion to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on providing a scheme to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal; welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in full; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred; further notes that most victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses; and calls on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation during the lifetime of the next Parliament as the economy and public finances continue to recover.
Epilepsy
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered epilepsy.
I would like to start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allowing my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who has done so much to support and advocate on behalf of people with epilepsy, and me the opportunity to have this debate. It is a great honour to be able to open this debate in the presence of so many fellow members of the all-party group on epilepsy, who over the past five years have worked together to ensure that we raise epilepsy issues with all the relevant Departments. However, I personally feel that I might not have done enough. There is still so much more to do to ensure that epilepsy has its rightful place in health and social care and that it is seen as a chronic condition that needs greater attention, greater support and—this is very close to my heart—much less stigmatisation.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and sorry to interrupt quite so early in her speech. I strongly support her and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) in securing this debate. Like my right hon. Friend, I am blessed by having a national epilepsy centre in my constituency, but I still have constituents who worry about stigma. In particular, Rachel Dawes and Susan Gayler feel that even now, despite having a national centre of excellence locally, the issue of stigma is important? Does my hon. Friend agree?
Laura Sandys
I most certainly do. Addressing stigma is at the heart of the treatment, care and, frankly, funding for epilepsy. Too often it is swept under the carpet. For example, statistically there should be many more Members of Parliament who have declared themselves as having epilepsy. That is because of the stigma and the overall environment for people like me—I am a sufferer, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—so no doubt there are more Members of Parliament who have epilepsy.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Part of the training for first-aiders is how to deal with epilepsy. Does my hon. Friend agree that if first aid were part of the school curriculum, more people would be able to deal with such situations?
Laura Sandys
I know that first aid in schools is an issue that the hon. Gentleman is very passionate about. I absolutely do agree. This condition impacts one in every 100 people; it is a very large-scale chronic condition. When a child falls to the floor in school, they need people who are confident to deal with them—who know what the issues are, can calm the rest of the classroom, and understand that this can be managed and supported. If people in authority do not know how to respond—we have examples among the police, those in schools, and even nurses—they feed the stigma, feed the problem, and feed the anxiety around people with this condition.
I feel that we have not done enough to push for greater change and greater focus, and to ensure that Government and the charities have greater ambition for people with epilepsy. However, I think we have done a reasonable amount, and I hope that over time we will do much more in this place and outside.
Stigma is one of the problems. Epilepsy is not trendy; it is not a fashionable condition. It is not information that people volunteer when they make a job application. I can assure Members that one does not talk about it as a set-piece at social events when describing an illness during the week. People with epilepsy frequently try to disguise it; we can see it in their eyes. I have always been very clear about it, because I believe that we should take away the stigma. We cannot normalise it, because it is not a normal condition, but we can make it something that needs to be addressed in equality with other chronic conditions.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady think it shocking that in this day and age a very large public body like Transport for London—London Underground —could sack a young woman for the fact that she has epilepsy? Does she agree that we cannot allow this to happen?
Laura Sandys
I very much welcome that intervention. I was going to mention that case, which is extraordinary for two reasons. First, why would the young woman lose her job? She already had the job and was succeeding in it, so why was the sudden revelation of her epilepsy a reason for losing it? Secondly, her manager said that it had absolutely no impact on her ability to perform her role.
This is, in many ways, a 19th-century attitude. It is the expectation that when one tells somebody that one is epileptic, they expect one to be dropping to the floor foaming at the mouth. Many in this Chamber may not know that until the 1970s I, as an epileptic, would not have been allowed to marry—although I am sure that many did because they did not declare that they had epilepsy. That is the sort of stigma that we were dealing with not so long ago. It is a Dickensian, 19th-century perspective. I believe, fundamentally, that that lies a little at the heart of why, for a chronic condition that impacts one in 100 people—more than many other conditions—epilepsy does not get the right level of attention. This is an important task for us here in the Chamber and for the all-party group on epilepsy, and for me to continue outside this place. Many other conditions have overcome embarrassment and stigmatisation. It is absolutely crucial that we start to address this through our public services, our schools and education system, and our hospitals and GPs.
It is important that those of us with epilepsy are much more vocal. I hope that the Serjeant at Arms will not come and arrest me, but my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and I have actually broken the rules of the House. We did not exactly sneak up Big Ben, but we broke the very clear rules saying that anyone with epilepsy is not allowed to go and look at it. We thought, “You try and catch us!” We broke the rules of the House, and went up to the top. We have used that as a platform for saying that we should both contest it when epilepsy is not supported effectively enough, and challenge people who do not understand epilepsy enough and are fearful of those who have it. We think it took 150 years for somebody with epilepsy to go up Big Ben, and we are trying to identify other rules that we can break, so if hon. Members hear that my hon. Friend and I have got into trouble, they will know what it is all about.
Epilepsy has a very wide range of symptoms. I am very lucky to have very mild epilepsy. It is controlled and I am on medication, so there is no issue and I am very unlikely to have a seizure. However, it is incumbent on people such as me to be a voice for people who are suffering, and who may have a seizure every 10 to 15 minutes. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, like Young Epilepsy and Epilepsy Research, very much focuses on people with chronic epilepsy. Such people do not necessarily have a voice, and it is for us to make their voice heard.
The issue that has arisen in relation to the lady from London Underground is not the only example. Several people have e-mailed their Member of Parliament and asked me to raise their concerns. A young woman with a masters degree cannot find a job because employers say that she has declared she has epilepsy and they are concerned that she may become a problem for the company. That has now happened 12 times, but it must not continue. We must ensure that employers, the police and hospitals—even in a hospital, someone having a seizure has been accused of being drunk and disorderly—understand people with epilepsy and recognise their condition for what it is.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on leading the charge in getting this debate? She will be very sadly missed in this place, where she has made a tremendous contribution. Does she agree that it is very important to understand more about the condition of epilepsy? Another area in which I take a great interest is autism, and it is estimated that 46% of children with autism also have seizures. Does she agree that we do not yet know enough about the relationship between epilepsy and other conditions, such as autism, to enable us to succeed on behalf of such people?
Laura Sandys
Absolutely. I totally agree. In many instances, people with epilepsy also have other chronic conditions, which are no doubt contributory factors. The level of support for research on epilepsy is significantly lower than for other conditions. Again, it is seen as a secondary or tertiary priority when it comes to research funds. It is absolutely crucial to understand the interrelationship between epilepsy and autism, as well as between epilepsy and school achievement and all sorts of not only chronic conditions but life-restricting—as well as life-enhancing—problems. I believe that we need a lot more research, but this comes down to people being clear that epilepsy matters.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
On that point, I have had correspondence with a hospital in my constituency called the Walton neuro centre. It says that neuropsychological care is very important, especially for younger people who, if they have access early enough, have the propensity to go on and achieve their full potential. Does the hon. Lady agree that Ministers should consider what more they can do on access to such neuropsychological assessment and care, and in supporting the work of the Walton neuro centre?
Laura Sandys
Absolutely. There are some wonderful, excellent centres in constituencies around the country, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but there are too few of them and there is not enough immediate referral to tertiary care once a GP identifies that epilepsy might be at the heart of a problem. We need to ensure that there is a greater understanding at the core of our health sector so that there is more referral. To be frank, we need more specialists. There is a major problem in the referral process. Epilepsy Action says that 138,000 people have been misdiagnosed. Some people are diagnosed with epilepsy who do not have it and others do not have the right medication. It is crucial to address the huge problem with referrals to tertiary care.
Following diagnosis, the cost-effective and life-enhancing pathway is to ensure that the ongoing care fits the bill. There are straightforward National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines that lay out a clear pathway. There must be access to an epilepsy nurse. It would be fantastic if more GPs had epilepsy as a specialism. There must be a wrap-around package that allows people to live their lives and take control of their chronic condition. We must ensure that we have the right level of support at every single level. I am talking about people who are still potentially going to work and living their life.
We have a serious problem with SUDEP, or sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. That is an outrage. About 1,000 people every year die in their sleep. Many of them are younger people who are just moving from youth to adult services and there is not the wrap-around care that is needed. We all know from our casework that in every instance and with any condition, moving from youth services to adult care is a problem. We are seeing serious problems with those who have night-time seizures. To be frank, although people say that that is a problem, there are examples of countries in Europe that are doing better. It is crucial that we meet those targets and ensure that we do not fall behind the standards of other European countries.
I see that Mr Deputy Speaker is looking for me to wrap up. I would like to commend three sets of people, but also to challenge them. People with epilepsy live with a difficult and unpredictable condition. I take my hat off to them and to the people who care for them. However, I want them to come out and talk about epilepsy. I ask them to please ensure that their voice is heard, because if it is not, we will not get the care that we need. The charities are important, but they need to work together more. Their voices must be unified to ensure that they are heard. I call on the Government to address the Cinderella status of epilepsy. We should be doing so much better. We have criteria and there are examples, globally, of countries that are doing better. We must give people with epilepsy a lifeline to ensure that they can live a full life, and we must put the right level of investment into research to address chronic epilepsy in the long term.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am bringing in an eight-minute limit. I call Kate Hoey.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will certainly keep to that time limit.
I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on making it happen. As Members will know, I had an Adjournment debate on the subject on 29 January 2013, just after the report “A Critical Time for Epilepsy in England” had come out.
The hon. Member for South Thanet covered a wide range of points, all of which I agree with her about, particularly the stigma of epilepsy. That is a crucial point, but I will not go over all of what she said. I want to use this opportunity to ask the Minister various questions. He kindly responded in detail to the Adjournment debate, when we had slightly longer than half an hour, and I thought it would be helpful to follow up on a number of the issues that were covered.
I want to ask the Minister about the progress that has been made on urgent referrals, about which I and a number of other Members have been concerned. As I understand it, referrals are in theory currently meant to take two weeks, but I have had constituents who have had to wait well over two months. I want to check what the Minister is doing to urge commissioning groups and others to speed that up, because it really makes a difference if someone is seen as quickly as possible.
Part of the problem in looking at epilepsy is the lack of understanding throughout the country. Many people do not say that they have epilepsy of one form or another, but it is amazing how many times, when it comes up in a conversation, people say, “Oh yes, my cousin”—or uncle or whoever—“has epilepsy”. There is always somebody, because the numbers are very large. Will the Minister say something about that?
As I mentioned in the previous debate, a significant number of people with epilepsy have avoidable seizures. If the correct treatment is given at an early stage, that consequence can be avoided, which prevents benefit dependency, the loss of employment or people having to give up education due to a lack of support.
Will the Minister confirm what progress his Department has made on some of the other issues that were raised in my Adjournment debate and previous debates, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) when introducing her ten-minute rule Bill, which I am sure she will want to mention? There is a stigma to epilepsy, but we have to promote the positive fact that so many people with epilepsy live perfectly normal lives which we would all be proud of and happy with. Will the Minister make a commitment that the disabled freedom pass and disabled railcard will continue to be available to those with epilepsy? Will he reassure anyone who is watching that that important support will definitely be kept?
Epilepsy constitutes a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and as such, employers are required to make reasonable adjustments so that employees suffering from epilepsy can stay in work. Epileptic episodes are often triggered by work, particularly when an individual is working long hours or is otherwise under stress. However, people suffering from epilepsy are perfectly able to function at the highest levels, and in many cases can successfully medicate to reduce or entirely eliminate the occurrence of attacks. Almost three quarters of people suffering from epilepsy can be free of seizures once they find the most appropriate medication. Women of child-bearing age are restricted in the drugs that they can take, and people who first suffer from epilepsy in early adulthood often take a long time to adjust to the condition and make changes to their lifestyle.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the case of London Underground worker Karen Guyott, which was mentioned earlier. She is 29 years old, and she was diagnosed with epilepsy about five years ago. She has now been dismissed due to her epilepsy. Karen was one of a number of London transport staff suffering with epilepsy—I think that 16 are London Underground operational staff, and there are a further 11 working for Transport for London.
London Underground’s original response to Karen’s diagnosis was to attempt to dismiss her right away using its capability procedure. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers successfully fended off that attempt, and instead got London Underground to make reasonable adjustments. Now, as I said, she has been dismissed, and I think the Minister should look into that and review it.
Karen’s attendance record was exemplary, and in January this year during an episode, one of her colleagues moved her from a place of safety and left her outside a locked station supervisor’s office that was close to an escalator. Karen became disorientated and wandered towards the escalator, but her colleague realised the danger and moved her into the office. As a result of that incident, instead of providing training for Karen’s colleagues, London Underground argues that Karen’s condition is too risky for it to manage, and it is clear that it is no longer willing to accommodate her. Karen is a prominent trade union activist, but if London Underground is using epilepsy as an excuse because she is a trade union activist and it does not like her or some of the things she says, that is even more shocking.
London Underground agreed to undertake a further risk assessment that amounts to an additional requirement on Karen to which other employees without epilepsy are not subject. Since then Karen has been dismissed, but London Underground insisted that she could not work at any station that had a public highway attached to it or any escalators or stairs. Everything she did required a “zero-risk” policy—the risk had to be eliminated —and such an approach is out of step with London Underground’s usual policy.
London Underground’s equality and inclusion procedure states that employees who develop conditions during their working life must be transferred to a suitable position. As a huge public sector employer that has signed up to all legislation on equality and equal rights, London Underground should have made more effort to keep Karen employed, because with a modest amount of training that support can be provided. Given the risks that London Underground deals with regularly, a member of staff temporarily struggling to manage a relatively newly diagnosed but easily treatable condition would seem to be at the lower end of those risks.
A recent employment appeal tribunal, Dyer v. London Ambulance NHS Trust, stated that the duty to make reasonable adjustments must always be carefully considered, and that only in the rarest of cases could no reasonable adjustments be made. That affirms that even when it comes to epilepsy, the duty to make reasonable adjustments could extend to redeployment with the additional support of the Access to Work programme. A lot more must be done and London Underground must be put on report.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and I hope that she obtains justice for her constituent. It is also an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). As I said earlier, she will be a great loss to the House, and I am personally sorry that she is leaving this place because I think she has added a great dimension to it, particularly on the subject of epilepsy.
I declare an interest because the Epilepsy Society is based in my constituency and I am proud to be a vice-president. It has been working with and for people affected by epilepsy for 123 years. Although the detail of its aims and objectives have altered over the years, fundamentally it remains true to the vision set out by the group of philanthropists and neurologists who established it in 1892—to cure, treat and prevent epilepsy. It is unique.
At the Epilepsy Society’s Chalfont centre, groundbreaking epilepsy research laboratories are co-located with England’s only dedicated epilepsy assessment and treatment centre. Led by medical director Professor Ley Sander and head of genetics Professor Sanjay Sisodiya, some of the world’s pre-eminent epilepsy researchers and clinicians undertake research and clinical practice at the Chalfont centre. The Epilepsy Society’s researchers have been central to new scientific discoveries, in particular research that demonstrates the breadth of genetic influences in epilepsy. The society also brings together state-of-the-art diagnostic tools for epilepsy in one place, including the UK’s only dedicated epilepsy MRI scanner and a specialised epilepsy therapeutic drug monitoring service that is provided to hospitals across the UK and Europe.
The Epilepsy Society is also part of a unique three-way partnership with the NHS and with academia—the national hospital for neurology and neurosurgery at University college London—that has the benefit of translating research into clinical practice, providing access to funding, attracting top researchers and clinicians and providing the flexibility to innovate. The partnership has been recognised by the World Health Organisation.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has taught me something today—I did not know that my constituency was adjacent to such a fantastic centre. Will she confirm that it is a national centre serving a population wider than just our constituencies?
Mrs Gillan
That is absolutely right—it is a national centre.
Under our new chair, Helen Pernelet, and the new chief executive, Angela Geer, the Epilepsy Society has an ambitious new vision to leverage its medical research strength to revolutionise how epilepsy is diagnosed and treated. Of course, there are issues facing the society’s specialised medical and research facilities, but sadly, with only eight minutes in which to speak, I might not get through them all. For the Minister, there are co-commissioning concerns. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the responsibility and budget for specialised services were brought together in NHS England as the sole national commissioner of specialised services, but since May 2014, it has U-turned on national commissioning. Instead, the new proposals for co-commissioning would see responsibility for the vast majority of specialised services shared with local clinical commissioning groups.
The Epilepsy Society is opposed to the co-commissioning of specialised epilepsy services for several reasons. NHS England asserts that national service specifications will continue to apply to co-commissioned specialised services, but it is uncertain how that will be achieved, given that CCGs are independent bodies. If CCGs are allowed to reinvest savings from specialised commissioning in other areas of their budget, it might create an incentive to underspend on specialised services, raising questions about the level of investment. There is also evidence that CCGs are not in a position to engage with specialised commissioning in areas such as neurology. For example, the Minister will know that the Neurological Alliance’s recent report, “The Invisible Patients”, found that only 26% of CCGs had assessed the prevalence of neurological conditions locally and that only 14% had assessed the cost of neurological services.
I also wish to highlight the Epilepsy Society’s opposition in principle to the introduction of a marginal rate in specialised commissioning and its concern about the lack of clarity in neuroscience specification. There is an ongoing lack of clarity over the division of responsibility between NHS England and CCGs for commissioning neurological services, and there is continued confusion about precisely which services fall under the scope of specialised commissioning arising from inconsistent statements in the manual for prescribed specialised services and the neurosciences service specification. I hope that the Minister can respond to the society’s calling on NHS England to clarify this important service specification to ensure nationally applied standards for specialised epilepsy services.
I encourage the Minister to improve access to the Government’s flagship 100,000 Genomes Project. It is an exciting development that the Epilepsy Society strongly supports, but the project’s focus is largely on cancer and rare diseases, making it unlikely that more than a handful of epilepsy genomes will be sequenced as part of the groundbreaking initiative, despite the huge potential that genome sequencing has for transforming epilepsy. I would like to see the Government continue to invest in genetics research and its translation into clinical practice and to ensure that it benefits patients with epilepsy, but I would particularly like to see the genome project embrace epilepsy.
The need to reform the current system for accessing effective medicines will become ever more important in the context of increasing the availability of personalised medicines. I have been working locally with Daiichi Sankyo on patient access to novel oral anticoagulants, and there is a gap that the Department of Health needs to address across the board.
In my remaining minutes, I would like to draw attention to the issue of laser ablation surgery. I have recently dealt with a distressing case of a constituent who sadly lost a family member to epilepsy. The constituent expressed great distress that a surgical treatment known as laser ablation therapy had not been made available to her and her child as a treatment option. Laser ablation is a relatively new surgical technique that burns away accurately targeted tissue with a surgical laser. The technique is much less invasive than traditional brain surgery, and enables surgeons to operate deeper in the brain. It is also much more accurate and carries fewer risks of complication. Laser ablation can be a good choice for patients who have few other treatment options either because medication does not control their seizures or because the lesions in their brain that cause their epilepsy are deep and hard to reach using open brain surgery.
A significant minority of epilepsy patients—approximately 12,500 in the UK—would benefit from surgical treatment, including laser-guided surgery. In around 60% of these cases, surgery can be curative. Evidence shows that it also contributes to reducing premature mortality in epilepsy. Sadly, despite these benefits, only around 300 patients a year are currently given this treatment. I think that the Department of Health should urgently review the number of patients with access to neuro-surgery each year, particularly surgery that uses the new and less invasive techniques such as laser ablation.
Finally, I mentioned the connection with autism, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet responded during her opening speech. It is obvious that although we have made great strides on epilepsy since the days when epileptics were not allowed to marry, we still have a long way to go. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the questions raised on both sides of the House about the future of epilepsy in the hands of the NHS.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing this debate and on continuing to raise awareness of epilepsy. Although we are on opposite sides of the Chamber, I am sad that she is leaving this place after May, as the work she has undertaken on behalf of people with epilepsy is much respected both within and outside this House.
Epilepsy is a life-threatening, neurological condition that can strike anybody at any age without warning. However, being a woman with epilepsy is not the same as being a man with epilepsy. Epilepsy and its treatment can affect sexual development, menstrual cycles, contraception, fertility and reproduction. That is why I am taking the opportunity today to talk about the urgent need to improve the support and advice available to women of child-bearing age who have epilepsy. In particular, I would like to highlight the importance of enabling women to make informed choices about their drug treatments.
Approximately 139,000 women of child-bearing age have epilepsy, and around 2,400 babies are born each year to mothers taking these anti-epileptic drugs yet women with epilepsy remain uninformed about their choices and medication. They lack the specialised care and support they need, and they are at increased risk of maternal death. Given the repeated concerns raised over decades about sodium valproate and its links to the development of birth defects and foetal anti-convulsant syndrome, commonly known as FACS, this is nothing short of a scandal.
The use of anti-epileptic drugs can present women with various problems before conception and during pregnancy. National guidelines indicate that women of child-bearing age with epilepsy should be made aware of the impact their medication could have on their unborn baby. While GPs should be highlighting these risks, the provision of this specialised care and information is variable at best and non-existent at worst—and this despite the fact that in 2012 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended a new indicator to encourage GPs to tell girls and women of child-bearing age about the risks posed by anti-epileptic drugs. Sodium valproate was specifically named as a drug that should be discussed. Is the Minister concerned that this information is not widely distributed, and what steps will the Department of Health take to ensure this is remedied as a matter of urgency?
Sodium valproate is considered to be one of the most effective drugs for controlling epileptic seizures, but it has been found to increase the risk of babies being born with cleft palates and spina bifida. It is also associated with a very high risk of major malformations and neuro-developmental impairment. Despite that, a survey found that 25% of mothers were unaware of the risks, which is unacceptable and unjustifiable. If we know that the medication can cause so much harm—it is also prescribed for women who do not have epilepsy, to treat other conditions—why are women not being widely warned of its potential dangers? I accept that it is important to control epileptic seizures during pregnancy, but given that anti-epilepsy drugs increase the risk of foetal malformations, delayed development and foetal and maternal death, women with epilepsy are in an impossible position. They must either continue to take the drugs or risk seizures, both of which pose an increased risk to the mother and the foetus. Pregnant women who abandon their medication are at an increased risk of developing uncontrolled seizures, which can be fatal. About four women with epilepsy die during pregnancy each year, but those deaths could possibly be avoided if the right support were provided.
I am sure that we will talk a great deal about numbers and statistics this afternoon, but let me put into context the way in which epilepsy affects people. I know a woman who, at the age of 15, began to have night seizures in her sleep. She was diagnosed with epilepsy and was prescribed sodium valproate. Eleven years later she married, and she and her husband decided that they wanted children. In 2007, having done some research and understanding the risk that sodium valproate would pose to her baby, she changed her drug. There followed, from 2008, a terrifying five years of daytime seizures she had never had to deal with before. Her previous seizures had always taken place while she was asleep, and she had been seizure-free for 12 years.
The woman was now afraid to go out. She was afraid to get on a bus, and she was afraid to go to work. She was a teacher of primary school children, and she was terrified of having a seizure in front of them, because they would not know what to do. But the bitterest pill of all was finding that, either because of the increased seizures or because of the new drugs, she was no longer ovulating. She had to choose between taking a drug that would stop the seizures but might pose a risk to the baby, and taking a different drug, having the seizures and risking her fertility. That is a very difficult position for women to be in, and they need advice.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
I take this issue extremely seriously. There has been an EU-wide review of the risks involved. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issued new guidance in January, and the British National Formulary has also been updated. The Department is considering the introduction of a “red flag” system to notify GPs of the risks posed to women of child-bearing age, and I personally am very keen to introduce such a system.
Teresa Pearce
I know that the Minister has met some of the mothers involved, and I am very grateful for that.
Women such as the one I have just mentioned are in desperate need of specialised guidance and support from their GPs, but there is no such support at present. GPs should be providing pre-conception counselling and tailored advice, but they do not appear to be taking that responsibility seriously. In 2012, a survey by Epilepsy Action revealed that 26% of women who had been pregnant in the last five years, or were planning to become pregnant, had never received counselling. That puts women and unborn babies at risk.
Pre-conception counselling should be fully embedded in the care pathway of all women with epilepsy and child-bearing potential, and there should be a specialist care pathway for all women with epilepsy to ensure that their pregnancies are flagged as potentially high risk. Every such woman should receive regular input from an epilepsy specialist and an obstetrician, and any breakthrough or worsening of seizures should be investigated as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister tell me what funding, training and planning are needed to implement those steps?
The co-operation of GPs and health care professionals is crucial to ensuring that any strategy actually works. I welcomed the stronger guidance that was released in January by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. It states that sodium valproate should not be prescribed to female children, female adolescents, women of child-bearing potential or pregnant women unless other treatments are ineffective or not tolerated. As the Minister said, the guidance followed a Europe-wide review. What steps will the Department take to ensure that it is fully implemented? Every woman taking an anticonvulsant has the right to an informed choice, but we know that information on the effects of sodium valproate on pregnancy was withheld from female patients in 1972. Following the European review in 2014, why has providing information to female patients not been made a mandatory action?
At this moment, the picture is bleak. A recent report entitled “Saving Mothers’ Lives” highlighted the failure to reduce maternal deaths from epilepsy over the past two years. If women with epilepsy were provided with support and health care tailored to their specific condition, it is likely that the number of maternal deaths would be reduced. The science is available to ensure that women with epilepsy can have successful pregnancies with the right support, but that must be universally available to all women with epilepsy since simple measures can decrease the risks associated with epilepsy in pregnancy. I have worked closely with women whose children have suffered from FACS and families who have been affected by the lack of information.
In particular, I have worked with Janet Williams and Emma Murphy, who run IN-FACT, the Independent Foetal Anti-Convulsant Trust, and I respect and admire them for their relentless commitment and dedication to raising awareness of this issue. I first met them just after I entered the House in 2010, when families were devastated following the withdrawal of legal aid for a class action against the manufacturers of the drug. After six years of preparation, that trial did not go ahead. I tabled an early-day motion, signed by 82 MPs, urging the Legal Services Commission to reconsider, but it did not. Last year, I wrote to the Department of Health to ask whether compensation would be available. I received a response from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is responsible for life sciences. He said:
“Compensation for people who believe they have been adversely affected by a particular drug is a matter for the judicial system”.
I also received one from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is responsible for care and support, who said:
“it would be inappropriate for ministers to intervene in or comment on matters which must remain for the judicial system.”
The fact is that these families have sought justice and done everything they can, but they have been denied support and denied justice. Will the Government act?
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I ask the Government to take a close interest in the case of my constituent Jessica Monks, which I shall relate from the perspective of her parents. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for creating the opportunity for me to do so and for giving me the opportunity to inform myself about this important issue. I have been astonished by what I have learned.
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce). As she will learn, I too will talk about issues of consent towards the end of my speech. It was shocking to hear what she set out about consent.
Jessica Monks was not just a cheerful but a positively joyful young woman. Her life and her untimely death are a case study in what can go badly wrong and what ought to be done. Jessica was born on 7 February 1996 and lived in Medmenham in my constituency. She suffered from epilepsy and was under the care of the neurology department of the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford. I understand that she was learning to live very well with her condition.
Jessica died by suicide on Saturday 24 January 2015 as a result of a psychotic episode related to the epilepsy medication she was taking. She had been taking Zonisamide since about November 2013, but her seizures had not stopped. Her neurologist told her parents to keep an eye on her moods and to make an appointment with him immediately if her moods changed in any way.
Over Christmas 2014, Jessica, usually a joyful young woman, became noticeably low and withdrawn, very unlike her usual buoyant self. As requested, Mr and Mrs Monks attempted to make an appointment for Jessica to see her neurologist about her changing moods in early January, but despite several phone calls they did not receive a response. Her parents were concerned about her deteriorating mood so they made an appointment with her GP, who saw her on 8 January. The GP agreed that her mood had deteriorated but, crucially, felt that it was important to speak to her neurologist before prescribing any medication to help her mood improve.
On Friday 9 January, Jessica was admitted to Wexham Park hospital after taking an overdose of Zonisamide, oxcarbazepine and paracetamol. She was seen by a junior psychiatric nurse, and I am surprised that it was a nurse. I am sure that they do a wonderful job, but I would have thought that in such circumstances a consultant would have been appropriate. However, the nurse deemed her fit for discharge. Following a further attempted suicide on Monday 12 January, Jessica’s parents made another appointment to see her GP who again recommended that Jessica be prescribed an antidepressant but felt unable to do so until she had spoken to her neurologist. The GP did arrange an urgent psychiatric appointment for Jessica and, thankfully, the psychiatrist phoned that evening to make an appointment and offer out-of-hours support.
At the psychiatric appointment on 22 January, Jessica was diagnosed as suffering from a psychotic episode and was instructed to stop taking the anti-depressants immediately. The psychiatrist was concerned that the drug Jessica was taking was causing this psychotic side effect—which is, by the way, well known—and said she would speak to the neurologist that evening to discuss whether Jessica should cease taking the epilepsy drug Zonisamide.
On Saturday 24 January, Jessica died when she stepped in front of an oncoming train.
Norman Lamb
My hon. Friend is talking about a tragic case and I cannot begin to imagine what the family have been through. I am very happy to meet him to discuss further what lessons can be learned.
Steve Baker
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Mr and Mrs Monks feel that there was a significant breakdown in the care of their daughter, and I certainly agree with them. The speed and severity with which her mental health deteriorated due to her epilepsy medication were not considered a priority—they were not adequately prioritised—and they feel they have been badly let down by the medical professionals they saw in the days leading up to Jessica’s death.
Jessica’s death was apparently avoidable. We need to know why it was not avoided. There are a number of questions to be answered by the NHS and the investigation is ongoing, as, indeed, is the coroner’s inquest. I contacted the coroner before raising this case and they were content for me to do so. I will not run through all the questions, some of which are apparent, but I should like to ask in particular why was the consultant neurologist not more available? Why, when it is well known, as the Library brief explains, that some of this medication can cause these side effects, was more immediate, perhaps telephone, support not available in the event of an episode?
Mrs Gillan
Among other things, I sit on the Public Administration Committee and we are responsible for the health ombudsman. Will my hon. Friend make sure that the details of this case are passed to the Committee and to the ombudsman, because we are looking into how complaints are dealt with and how we can learn for the future from such tragic experiences?
Steve Baker
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I have already passed the details to the Minister. I am aware of the inquest and the NHS investigation, but I will certainly take her advice and give those other bodies the opportunity to investigate.
That brings me on to the specific issue of consent. I have spoken to Mr and Mrs Monks today and they say that at no point was it explained to them that this medication could have these side effects. Jessica was 17 when she started taking it, and I feel that that possibility really should have been explained to her parents. They should have had the opportunity to take very strong action. Of course, they did take very strong action—they took the strongest action they could—and it seems to me, without wishing to pass judgment, that the key problem was that they could not get hold of the neurologist.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am puzzled that the instructions that came with the medication did not include a warning that if someone had those sorts of side effects, they should cease taking it.
Steve Baker
I am a layman, but one of the things I have learned today is that one cannot simply cease taking medication for epilepsy, so specialist advice is required.
Steve Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging that. Put simply, it seems that the epilepsy medication, which was necessary, caused psychotic side effects, which were exacerbated by anti-depressants that were prescribed with the best intentions. Jessica therefore spiralled into the situation that tragically led to her death.
I would like to finish with a few words from Jessica’s parents, who have written to me:
“The sudden and tragic death of our otherwise healthy and happy teenage daughter has caused devastation throughout our family and local community. We strongly feel that this situation could have been avoided if we were given the correct advice and prompt treatment and are committed to ensuring the same mistake does not happen to another epilepsy patient.”
Susan and Steven Monks have been robbed of their daughter and of all the future opportunities, hopes and dreams for which she stood. They deserve to know why and what will be done about it.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker). I am sure I speak on behalf of all hon. Members in asking him to pass on the sympathy of the House to his constituents, whose case he has so ably put forward.
I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on epilepsy, and for fulfilling her final task of securing this debate before leaving the House. She will be sadly missed; we shall also miss her enthusiasm and her commitment to epilepsy and to her constituents, for whom she has been an assiduous MP.
Laura Sandys
I am absolutely thrilled that the all-party group’s chairmanship has been handed to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who I know will put a huge amount of passion and energy into continuing the fight and ensuring that the voice of those with epilepsy is very much heard.
Valerie Vaz
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope to be as good as her, but I am not sure that I will be.
This is a timely debate, in that it comes between two important dates. The World Health Organisation adopted a resolution on 2 February this year, and world epilepsy day is on 26 March, when we are all urged to “colour it purple”. It is just an accident that I happen to be wearing purple today. This debate is taking place 12 days after 14 February, and most people probably know that St Valentine is the patron saint of epilepsy. The WHO launched a campaign on 9 February to improve the epilepsy treatment gap and it urged member states to look into the matter. It set out a number of clauses, and I shall mention just a few of them. Member states were urged: to ensure public awareness of and education about epilepsy; to integrate epilepsy management; and to introduce and implement national health care plans of action for epilepsy management. There are many more clauses and I urge hon. Members to look at them. A number of excellent reports have been published recently and I will touch on those in a moment.
I want to deal with three different stages of services: those for young people; the transition from young person to adult; and adult services. Here are some background facts. The brain is the most complex organ in the body with more than 100 billion neurones passing messages around it. The vast majority of the brain’s activities are subconscious. Epilepsy is a life-threatening neurological condition that can affect anybody at any age without warning. There are 40 different types of epilepsy and at least 40 different types of seizure, and 87 people are diagnosed with the condition every day. Epilepsy now accounts for more deaths than cervical cancer and is among the top 10 causes of amenable deaths.
I want to turn first to young people. The report “Improving epilepsy care for children and young people”, published by Young Epilepsy, University college London and Whittington Health highlighted unacceptable levels of misdiagnosis, inadequate communication, a variation in care and a fragmentation of services. There are 112,000 children and young people who have epilepsy, which is one in every 200. The report made seven recommendations. They include creating an individual plan for every child and young person—as one parent has said, a one-size-fits-all approach is wrong; designing a year-of-care tariff for epilepsies; and creating an audit and annual review of relevant outcomes for each child and young person. Dr Amit Bali, who was involved in producing the report, has said that only small steps have been taken in areas that require big leaps forward.
I was at the launch of Epilepsy12 at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health a few years ago. A number of charities were also involved in that, including Epilepsy Action and Young Epilepsy. Epilepsy12’s report revealed variations in the level of care and available resources such as the specialist nurses and clinics that are needed to provide care across the United Kingdom. Amazingly, it also found that some services were not even meeting NICE guidelines. In a later report, published in 2014, Epilepsy12 said that some progress had been made, and that two thirds of units had specialised epilepsy nurses and more clinics were being held. However, only two in every three units reported holding a weekly epilepsy clinic just for children and young people.
The way in which young people are treated is important because it affects their education as well as their lifestyle. A three-year population-based study by Children with Epilepsy in Sussex Schools—CHESS—found that 95% of the children affected had difficulty in at least one of the assessed areas and that most of the children had several problems. The CHESS study found that 60% of the children met the diagnostic criteria for at least one behaviour or motor disorder, but only one third had previously been diagnosed. We have heard about the difficulties that children on anti-epileptic drugs have. A study by the Epilepsy Society showed that AED drugs have a detrimental impact on processing speed and memory work.
On the transition period, Epilepsy12 found that there were inadequate services and transition arrangements for young people. So more attention needs to be given to handover clinics, which could comprise both adult and paediatric health professionals. The loss of the continuity of care at transition needs to be addressed to ensure that new relationships with the clinicians are established.
Let me now discuss adults. The report by Epilepsy Action on clinical commissioning groups and commissioning in November 2014 found that only three out of 140 health and wellbeing boards are making plans for people with epilepsy. Some 78% of CCGs have not developed and do not intend to develop a written needs assessment for people with epilepsy—that must change. Evidence also shows that people with epilepsy have poor access to epilepsy specialists and epilepsy specialist nurses, and do not have regular reviews of their epilepsy. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) was kind enough to mention my ten-minute rule Bill, in which I called for direct referrals to a tertiary specialist. That has not been taken up yet, so we need to have referrals from a GP specialist to a tertiary specialist without the need to go through a generalist consultant.
The sudden unexpected death in epilepsy is an important issue, as was highlighted by SUDEP Action. The national sentinel audit of epilepsy deaths in 2002 found that 42% of such deaths were potentially avoidable. Brain surgery is another area where there is a lack of availability, with only 300 operations being carried out on adults each year. It is estimated that approximately 5,000 adults could and should benefit from the only cure there is for their epilepsy. I also wish to add my voice to those of other hon. Members on the outrage at the sacking of the young person at London Underground.
But there is hope for the future. The Epilepsy Society is undertaking active research. Its report highlighted a number of firsts, such as the first brain and tissue bank for epilepsy. It has created the first multilingual digital information resources for epilepsy, and it hopes to unravel the genetic architecture of the epilepsies and bring new hope for people with the condition. We should consider ourselves lucky in this country, because not only do we have committed practitioners who are desperate to help their patients, but we have areas where pioneering work is going on, such as that being done by Professor Cross, who has pioneered the ketogenic diet. In the US, until there was “Obamacare” those with epilepsy could not be covered by insurance because they had a pre-existing condition. We take all that for granted, which is why this debate fulfils the important role of highlighting awareness of this condition.
Hon. Members will remember the drama “The Promise”, where the lead character, Erin, not only was a heroine, but had epilepsy, which was incidental to her life: Its writer, Peter Kosminsky, lately the director of “Wolf Hall”, said that he wanted to show someone being brave and getting on with her life without letting her epilepsy circumscribe her actions, in the hope of de-stigmatising the condition. On de-stigmatising, let us also not forget the roll call of creative successful people who have or have had the condition: musicians Neil Young and Prince; and the writers Dostoevsky; Charles Dickens and Lord Byron. I hope we have today brought epilepsy out of the shadows of stigma and discrimination, and into the spotlight of knowledge, awareness and hope for the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We are running out of time for this debate. I want to be fair to all Members, so I am reducing the time limit to seven minutes. If there are not too many interventions, it will not be necessary to reduce it further.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing this important debate and giving us all the opportunity to contribute on behalf of our constituents. I particularly thank my hon. Friend for bringing her experience and for what she has done during her time here, and I echo the sentiment that it is a shame she will not be coming back to carry that on. Other people will have to do that, and I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will do that here.
It is important to start by saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health has taken a real interest in epilepsy and that he and his colleagues have introduced significant improvements in this Parliament. Equally, the NHS Commissioning Board’s decision to introduce a national clinical director for neurological conditions, Dr David Bateman, has been positive in ensuring that epilepsy is on the agenda at the most senior level in the NHS.
In February 2013 we saw the publication of the NICE new quality standards for children and adults with epilepsy. I also welcome cross-departmental working, and the fact that the Department for Education is looking at better support for pupils in school diagnosed with epilepsy. There is still a lot to do, and still too much of a sense that care is good in some areas and poor in others; that has to be a priority for the next Government.
I am proud that Epilepsy Action, an excellent organisation, is based in Leeds. Its headquarters are in Yeadon, an area that I represent. The office is about 100 yards over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). We share Yeadon, but we are both proud that this wonderful national charity is based in Yeadon in north Leeds. I will not repeat the findings of its powerful survey, except to reiterate one figure. Of the clinical commissioning groups that responded, 70% said that they had not produced and had no plans to develop a written needs assessment of the health and social care needs for epilepsy. That is simply not good enough and it has to change, and quickly. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister in the time that he has remaining to make it clear that that is not acceptable and must change.
Every health and wellbeing board must know how many people in their area have epilepsy and develop an epilepsy section for their joint strategic needs assessment, and that should include information about current local provision and services and future needs. Health and wellbeing boards must also work with their local CCGs to ensure that adults and children in their area experience a joined-up approach to their epilepsy health care needs. Every local authority scrutiny board with responsibility for health must consider whether their JSNA adequately meets the needs of adults and children with epilepsy in their local area.
I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust—this is not me saying it, but my constituents and practitioners tell me—is one of the best trusts in the country for supporting those who have epilepsy. We are proud of that. The trust has a team providing specialist epilepsy care and advice for people in Leeds and the wider Yorkshire region, and as well as the medical treatment of epilepsy it runs an epilepsy surgery pathway for people with difficult-to-treat epilepsy. It has specialist brain tumour and vagal nerve stimulation clinics. I hope that my right hon. Friend will join me in recognising that Leeds is a centre of excellence for epilepsy. If, in the remaining five weeks while he is definitely in this particular job he has the time to come and visit to meet some of the people involved, I would find time in my diary to join him.
Like many other Members, I have learned from my constituents about epilepsy. My constituent Dominic Ware and his parents Vic and Carol have given me their permission to pass on some of what I have learned from them. My constituent Andy Cavadino also has epilepsy. They have enabled me to see both the good and the issues that need dealing with.
Andy Cavadino’s epilepsy developed over 10 years after a serious head injury. The two main issues affecting him relate to driving and to medication. As a teacher, he finds it frustrating that he is allowed to drive a people carrier but not a minibus. He wants there to be a much more transparent discussion about what vehicles can and should be driven by people with epilepsy. The second issue that he raises has already been covered by other hon. Members. People have an attitude to those with epilepsy; they are often nervous and on edge around people with epilepsy. As Andy told me, people sometimes say, “Take it easy.” We need to raise awareness that people with epilepsy are generally on medication, if they need to be, and that that is helpful. We must do more to fight the sense of concern, paranoia and stigma that is attached to people such as Andy.
Dominic Ware’s epilepsy has been a huge part of his life and that of his parents, Vic and Carol. It is something that they have to cope with. The care that Dominic has received in Leeds has saved his life and now enables him to lead a normal life, which is precisely what needs to happen. However, they and especially Vic, who is a passionate campaigner, know that for too many people, that is not the case. During the debate, we have heard of people who, unlike Dominic, have been failed, often with devastating effects, and that is simply not acceptable. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister support Vic’s call that whoever forms the next Government should appoint an epilepsy champion in the Department of Health to bring things together so that there is a single, strong voice in government to push the issue forward?
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I add my thanks to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I wholeheartedly endorse hon. Members’ comments that she will be missed in the House. Her speech was not only informative but unique, because in the many years I have been in the House, I have never before heard a Member declare themselves to be both a law-maker and a law-breaker. Even more alarmingly, she declared her intention to become a repeat offender. Her speech was also unique in that it brought before the House the experience of people who suffer this condition, and she gave us the opportunity to understand more about its dimensions.
I need to say a word about the speech made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), in which he described a tragic case. Anyone who has experienced the loss of a child knows exactly the depths of misery that the people concerned will have experienced. The hon. Gentleman dealt with a difficult subject in not only a suitably moving way, but with great dignity, and I, too, pass on my sincere condolences to the family.
Steve Baker
I am extremely grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s kind words. I know that the family have heard him and will also be grateful.
Mr Howarth
The hon. Gentleman’s speech highlighted a more general point about how chronic conditions are dealt with. I have some knowledge of type 1 diabetes. When someone with that condition reaches a crisis, whether that is a psychological crisis or something that should be dealt with by a diabetologist, they cannot always get to see the right people at the right time so that they can get the right support, prescription or advice. Brilliant though our national health service is, that is one aspect that all too often breaks down, so I hope that the Minister will address that problem.
I want to concentrate on a particular issue, which I do not think has been mentioned, about which one of my constituents has contacted me: how the benefits system makes life very difficult indeed for those people who find themselves on benefits. No doubt the Minister will not be able to respond to my points, but I hope that he will pass them on to his colleagues in the relevant Department.
My constituent, who has asked to be named, Mr Adam Lane, who lives in Huyton, said:
“In regard to my DLA claim I had to go through 6 months with no money for myself, my wife and my two-year-old son. At that time we had to live on £50 a week until I went to a tribunal and won. Now I have to go through the whole process again on 13th of March for PIP. I have a letter from my epilepsy doctor stating how bad my epilepsy is. I fall and convulse without warning and have seriously damaged my knee, and have panic attacks throughout the whole experience. My seizures are occurring every week now and are very serious and now I suffer with migraines where I vomit 14 hours a day and I’m confined to bed through the process for 2 weeks at a time. I’m hoping Atos will not brush me off like last time, hoping to appease Government numbers to get people off benefits. I feel I am in need of benefits. I cannot work with my health conditions. My wife is my carer 24/7. My son has been traumatised though watching my seizures. I’m hoping my Atos interviewer sees what is in front of their eyes and not what the Government want them to see and say. Please, for others out there like me, let there be a way for people who do not abuse the system to be given a fairer crack of claiming what is deservedly theirs. Thank you.”
I thought it was worth reading that out in full because it gives a very clear picture of how this man has had to struggle to keep his family together and to support them in extremely difficult circumstances, where the benefits system seems to mount up against him to prevent him having any kind of reasonable life. I hope that such cases—there are many more of them out there—give the Government cause to think again about how people with chronic conditions are dealt with in the benefits system.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The whole House was moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker). The pain of losing a child under such circumstances is unimaginable.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) started her speech by beating herself up because she did not feel that she had done enough to raise the profile of epilepsy. Nothing could be further from the truth. She has done a magnificent job, and she made my day with her invitation to colleagues to come up with ideas about how she should break the law as an epileptic. When she gets back to her room later, she will find that she is inundated with suggestions. I, like others, am very sorry that she has chosen not to stand in the next election. I hope to God that she is replaced by someone with the good common sense and judgment that she has shown throughout her time as a Member.
Epilepsy is a potentially life-threatening neurological condition, as other speakers have said. It affects the lives of nearly 500,000 people in England alone. It can reduce life expectancy by up to 10 years and can leave people unfit to work, as we have heard. Among other consequences, epilepsy affects children’s performance at school owing to seizures. Nearly half of the number of deaths from epilepsy can be avoided. In the constituency that I represent, there are an estimated 865 people suffering from epilepsy. This figure increases to 13,600 for the county of Essex.
What are the local CCGs doing to assist people with epilepsy in the area that I represent? I am afraid to tell the House that the answer is not enough. Clinical commissioning groups have a very important role to play. They have a strategic influence and make commissioning decisions that impact on the lives of an average of 2,370 epilepsy sufferers in each CCG area. I have recently been in contact with Epilepsy Action which—I agree with others—is doing a wonderful job in raising awareness of the problems faced by people with epilepsy. I was shocked to hear that my local Southend CCG has no plans to produce a written needs assessment of the health and social care needs of people with neurological conditions; has no plans to produce a written needs assessment of the health and social care needs of people with epilepsy; has not identified neurology or epilepsy as an improvement and saving opportunity; has not identified neurology as a priority for the local health and wellbeing board; and has not appointed a clinical lead for neurology. That is simply not good enough.
Southend West has a higher than average number of people with epilepsy, because of its high age profile. The correct ratio for specialised epilepsy nurses to patients is 1:300. The specialist nurse at Southend hospital is currently looking after more than 1,000 patients, which is absolutely ridiculous. That has to change. More specialist epilepsy nurse posts must be created before any improvements can be felt by my local residents. I fully accept that it is a country-wide problem, but it is very frustrating that most CCGs do not understand the needs of people with epilepsy.
I am in regular contact with the South East Essex Epilepsy Support Group, which is superbly led by its chairman, Mrs Diane Blake-Lawson. It is a wonderful source of information and support for epilepsy sufferers in the area I represent. I hear about all sorts of obstacles faced by people with epilepsy. Very often local residents are diagnosed and then they and their families are left without any medical guidance or support, and we heard a little about that earlier. I was particularly upset to hear that Southend hospital has on a number of occasions refused MRI scans and other medical examinations.
I have received complaints regarding the prescription of generic drugs, despite evidence suggesting that their use leads to an increased risk of seizures. Even more alarmingly, I was informed that the latest drugs are not made available to patients, as older and less effective drugs are cheaper to use. That is just not acceptable. Local residents often get caught up in a confusing situation where the hospital says that they should speak to their GPs first, but once they contact their GPs there seems to be a reluctance to give any advice and they are told to turn to neurologists instead. There is clearly a lack of GP training in epilepsy.
Nationally, only 20% of people with epilepsy who are referred to see a specialist are seen within the NICE-recommended waiting time. Even worse, there is an 18% gap in the treatment of epilepsy, meaning that 18% of people with epilepsy who could attain seizure-freedom experience seizures unnecessarily due to a lack of appropriate treatment.
I want to touch on the issue of benefits, which the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) also raised, because a number of people are adversely affected by the present situation. As we all know, the process of claiming benefits can be lengthy and stressful, which in turn can aggravate the psychological symptoms as well as the frequency and severity of seizures. What I am most concerned about is the ability of benefit medical assessors—they are rarely doctors—to recognise and appreciate the severity of epilepsy.
In conclusion, I think that there is a role for the Government to play. We need more funds to be invested in medical research to ensure that more people with epilepsy can access effective treatments. Southend residents suffering from epilepsy should not be denied access to the various treatment I mentioned earlier. For too long epilepsy has been forgotten when it comes to funding and the variety of treatments available. It is time for the Government to hold CCGs to account to ensure that due gravity is given to this very serious condition. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet passes the baton to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), I hope that in the next Parliament, whoever forms the next Government, we will do our very best to provide the best possible treatment for those who suffer from epilepsy.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing this important debate. In common with many other Members, I would like personally to thank the hon. Member for South Thanet for the excellent work she has done. She might not thank me for a glowing tribute, given that I am on the left of the party, but I think that she is a thoroughly decent MP who does an excellent job. She will be sadly missed. I am perhaps a less active member of the all-party group on epilepsy, but I am a member of many other all-party groups, particularly those on health and cancer. This is a very timely debate. It is thanks once again to the Backbench Business Committee that we have been afforded this opportunity to raise awareness of this important and often misunderstood condition.
In a previous role—I was not double-jobbing, I might add—I worked in the national health service in an analytical chemistry lab where I used to do tests on anti-epileptic drugs using gas chromatography techniques, so I know a little bit about the chemistry but not so much about the clinical manifestations and symptoms. I pay tribute to the tremendous and powerful speech by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), which really brought home the potential risks of this condition if left unregulated. It is one of the most common neurological conditions in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for South Thanet said, 500,000 people in the UK, or one in 100, have the condition. That is a considerable number of people. As I think we are all aware by now, epilepsy is not one condition but a composite. Other Members have mentioned the suspected link with autism. There are about 40 different types of seizure and perhaps as many as 50 different syndromes with various degrees of severity and complexity. However, with the right treatment, the right medication and the right support, there is no reason why someone suffering from epilepsy cannot lead a full and active life, as the hon. Lady so ably explained.
Many Members have talked about access to medical care and stigma, but I want to stress another aspect—the discrimination that can be faced by those with epilepsy, creating barriers to education, and, more particularly, to employment. A report published by Young Epilepsy found that three quarters of people with epilepsy have experienced discrimination due to their condition. This situation was reaffirmed by work commissioned by the disabilities charity, Quarriers, which found that more than two thirds of people with epilepsy admit that they worry what members of the public would say or do if they had a seizure, with over a third expressing concern that having a seizure in public has led to anxiety about whether to leave the house, even, let alone take up employment. In relation to employment, more than seven in 10—72%—stated that their condition had an impact on their career progression and choice, with more than two fifths avoiding even telling people about their epilepsy.
There are protections in place for those looking for work and for those who are in work, but I am concerned that these duties and obligations are not being met by employers. Equality laws make it illegal for employers to treat people with epilepsy unfairly, and protection must be provided against bullying and harassment due to their condition. Employers also have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to help people with epilepsy to get into work, or stay there, and to prevent them from being at a substantial disadvantage. However, we have found that people with epilepsy have been shown to be twice as likely to be at risk of unemployment as those without the condition.
The case of Karen Guyott, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), has been drawn to my attention before. To comply with the instructions from yesterday, I am, as it says in my entry on page 205 of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, a member of the RMT parliamentary group, although it is unremunerated and the RMT is not affiliated to my party. It is important that we speak in this House on behalf of working people, and charities, and raise legitimate concerns. That example of someone losing her job is an important test case because, as my hon. Friend said, London Underground did not provide the training or support required.
I only have a little time left, so I want to put this to the Minister, who I know is a decent and reasonable man: at the conclusion of the debate, I hope that he will make it clear that it is unacceptable to discriminate against someone due to their having epilepsy. I hope that he will support people, such as Karen, who are fighting blatant discrimination. Will he agree to raise her case with the Mayor, because Transport for London comes under the Mayor’s auspices? TfL is a significant public sector employer, and we want it to be an example of best practice. Will the Minister meet a delegation of interested MPs to discuss discrimination and epilepsy at work?
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I commend the hon. Members who secured this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for bringing this very serious issue to our attention. I have found the debate genuinely shocking.
The statistics are shocking enough: 600,000 people in this country have epilepsy. That puts it on the same scale as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, but it receives far less attention, perhaps because we feel that we are used to epilepsy and it is not that serious. Another shocking statistic is that 1,000 people a year die of epilepsy-related deaths, and most shockingly of all—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—42% of those deaths are preventable, in many cases with little more than good communication.
The debate is all the more shocking and upsetting for me because of the case of Emily Sumaria. Emily went to my junior school in Cheltenham, and attended the secondary school of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), Cheltenham Ladies college. From there, she did work experience in Parliament with me for several weeks. I remember her as a brilliant young woman who had the kind of smile that lights up a room. Her mum, Rachel, describes her as
“a bright, beautiful and funny girl with her whole life ahead of her. Her epilepsy was totally under control and she lived a perfectly normal life.”
Indeed, I had no idea she was epileptic. She went on to get four good A-levels and then started at Leeds university, but she never graduated.
On 4 December 2012, Emily was found dead in her bed by her university housemates. Her mum says:
“Neither she nor I were ever told about the possibility of dying and had never heard of SUDEP”—
sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. The explanation was tragically simple: Emily’s university GP practice prescribed the wrong dosage of her medication when she moved from her home GP, which meant that when she missed one day of her tablets, she did not have enough in her bloodstream to prevent her from having a seizure. That one and only seizure, after almost two years, killed her. Rachel says:
“Knowledge is power and maybe if Emily or I had known about SUDEP then we could have taken additional steps to minimise her risk. This totally avoidable death has had devastating effects on a huge number of people. The ripple effect of Emily’s death has been enormous.”
SUDEP Action, the charity which looks into sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, states that being
“open and honest with patients about their level of risk, allows them to make educated choices as to their ongoing care and management”,
but that GPs in primary care lack confidence with epilepsy, and that even specialist services “do not routinely discuss” with patients the level of risk and much more serious risks of which some of them may not be aware. One of the families who contacted SUDEP Action said:
“There is nothing worse than losing a child but to feel that [our son] did not have all the information he needed to make informed decisions makes it especially cruel.”
There is also an issue about information for bereaved families after death has, tragically, occurred. NICE guidelines state:
“Where families and/or carers have been affected by SUDEP, healthcare professionals should contact families and/or carers to offer their condolences, invite them to discuss the death, and offer referral to bereavement counselling and a SUDEP support group.”
Yet SUDEP Action says that that is not happening. It is aware of many people bereaved by epilepsy who find no specialist support and who are often left struggling to understand what has happened to them and why.
In 2013, SUDEP Action launched—with, I am pleased to say, Government support—the epilepsy deaths register. It is not only an amazing research resource, but of enormous value to families, which the Government should be congratulated on supporting. It offers a means for bereaved families to express what has happened to them. SUDEP Action says:
“The bereaved families are robbed of the chance of saying goodbye; of saying the things that they always wanted to, and didn’t. They are robbed of opportunities, future hopes and dreams.”
The register is therefore an important outlet for the families:
“It is somewhere to leave their story; a way to feel that the information they give will be used for the benefit of others for years to come. The impact of these deaths is not yet fully understood, but in our experience is captured by one of the families reporting to SUDEP Action’s Epilepsy Deaths Register: ‘The physical pain and guilt are overwhelming, and we are only just becoming able to talk about him to each other after 16 months has passed. The impact is total and devastating, and has affected both the physical and mental health of the whole family.’”
SUDEP Action and families such as Emily’s are calling for better information. That means better information at primary care level. I know that this is a constant theme with GPs and that they cannot be experts in everything, but it is particularly important in the case of epilepsy because people do not understand the potential seriousness of the condition. There must also be better communication about risk that is communicated properly by specialist services and better information after death for bereaved families.
We as policy makers have little power to offer much comfort to families such as Emily’s, but if we can take action that saves even one more life from sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, it would matter a great deal to Emily’s family and friends, among whom I feel proud to have briefly counted myself.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to her outstanding work to advance the cause of those who suffer from epilepsy. She will certainly be missed from this place.
There have been 11 Back-Bench contributions to this debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and the hon. Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker), for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) for their considered contributions.
Advocates such as the hon. Member for South Thanet and the others who have spoken today are crucial because of the stigma around epilepsy, which is almost unique. Epilepsy is portrayed on television as somebody falling to the ground and foaming at the mouth, as we have heard in this debate, with the treatment invariably involving an ambulance with flashing blue lights. Somebody with epilepsy may suffer a seizure only once or twice a year, if that, but will live with the stigma of epilepsy all year round. Sufferers would probably prefer to focus on talking and on tackling the stigma.
I find appalling and completely discriminatory the case that was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for Easington of the Transport for London employee who was sacked. I hope that action can be taken to rectify that situation.
I, too, looked online at Epilepsy Action’s very useful tool. I found that my local clinical commissioning groups, Tameside and Glossop CCG and Stockport CCG, had not produced a written needs assessment for people with epilepsy, or appointed a clinical lead for epilepsy to take charge. That point was made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South, the hon. Member for Southend West and others. I ask the Minister to consider how we can ensure that CCGs undertake adequate needs assessments of people with epilepsy. It is increasingly important that local plans are drawn up for local provision.
It is important to recognise that epilepsy care has moved from predominantly secondary care to being based more and more in primary care. That has positives and negatives. Clearly primary care is more accessible, and therefore easier to access on a regular basis, but on the other hand it is less specialist. Some professionals operating in primary care might not have the expertise needed to recognise things that would be significant to a specialist. Some things can be done only in secondary care, as we heard from the hon. Member for Wycombe.
I particularly want to press the Minister on the issue of brain surgery. It is estimated that about 5,000 adults could and should benefit from brain surgery, which is the only cure for epilepsy. To put that in context, only about 3,000 adults have that life-changing surgery each year, so there is clearly more that can be done. Are there any plans to direct NHS England to increase the number of operations undertaken, to produce an adult epilepsy service similar to the one that, to be fair, has been created for children’s epilepsy?
According to Epilepsy Action, there are about 30,000 accident and emergency attendances due to epilepsy each year. According to the national audit of seizure management in hospitals in 2014, 18,000 of those could be prevented by the implementation of a better care pathway for people with epilepsy. What is being done to ensure that all A and E departments have a clear referral pathway for patients presenting with a suspected seizure?
There is clearly a welcome focus on research and development in policy terms. The 100,000 Genomes Project is a good example of the potential for genetics research to change lives. It would be nice to see the project encompass more specialist research into epilepsy, because genetics research could have an untold impact on epilepsy treatment.
A number of Members, most recently the hon. Member for Cheltenham, mentioned SUDEP. This week I, too, heard from the family of Emily Sumaria, who are in Westminster today. As we have heard, Emily died in her sleep while at university. She was bright and funny, with a lifetime ahead of her. Her epilepsy was to all intents and purposes under control, and she lived a relatively normal life. Emily was never told of the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, which primarily affects young people. The worst that she feared would happen if she had a seizure was that she would have her driving licence removed. Her mother is certain that if she had been told of the risk, she could have taken the necessary precautions and made the necessary adjustments to her lifestyle.
Emily was simply given a regular prescription, and basic mistakes in the moving of her medical records from her home GP practice to her new one at university resulted in her new doctor halving her dose without her knowledge. In preparing for the debate, I found that some medical schools do not include SUDEP in their curriculum in any great detail. It is asking a bit much for young people to research the risks of SUDEP and precautions against it, given that their doctors will themselves often not be fully aware of the details. I suspect that the inclusion of SUDEP, epilepsy deaths and epilepsy risks in the programme at medical schools would help to change that. Perhaps the Minister will give his thoughts on whether that could be brought to the attention of medical schools.
The Opposition have said that we will give every patient full ownership of their medical data; they would be able to share the data with whichever organisations they saw fit. We hope that with more people taking control of their data, we will be able to establish more data-driven research projects. I doubt that a patient suffering from epilepsy would object to their data being used to develop a cure, but the point is that they would have to give consent for the data to be used in that manner. Data would be more free and research would be immeasurably improved, but the final say would go to the patient.
Let me finish on a positive note, because I am optimistic about the future. Epilepsy research is going from strength to strength, and we are making improvements in treatment, with pharmaceuticals and surgery providing hopeful prospects of a cure. I looked at the NHS Choices website before this debate, and 17 clinical trials are recruiting now in the UK with the aim of advancing our knowledge about the condition. I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, especially the hon. Member for South Thanet whom I wish well for the future.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) who has worked with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan). Together they present a powerful case, and I join everyone in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet for everything she has done in this Parliament. She will be very much missed, and her case today was all the more powerful because she has epilepsy and can speak with authenticity. What she said about stigma is right—I see it often in mental health, and it is exactly the same issue in this debate. The fact that not long ago someone with epilepsy could not marry is an extraordinary reminder of what we have been up against. This debate is timely and gives everyone the chance to focus on the condition and on how we can improve the lives of those who have epilepsy. I am pleased that the baton will be passed to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who I am sure will ably continue to articulate the case for people who suffer from epilepsy.
The debate has been marked by reference to two tragedies involving young people, and my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) spoke incredibly movingly about the dreadful cases involving Jessica and Emily. We will all agree that we owe it to those two girls to do everything we can to improve the experience of people with epilepsy, and to avoid tragedies of that sort happening. It is important to raise awareness, not only among the public but among clinicians, of the condition and how best to respond to it.
I pay tribute to the work of organisations involved in campaigning and research into epilepsy. The Epilepsy Society is based in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, and Epilepsy Action in Leeds is close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). Young Epilepsy has also been mentioned, as has the important work done by SUDEP Action. I remember meeting its members when they were establishing the register, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham made clear, it has the potential to provide incredibly rich data and evidence to help us understand why sudden unexpected deaths occur, and how we can prevent them from occurring in the future. All those organisations are doing incredibly important work.
The hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) mentioned discrimination. They will understand that I cannot comment on an individual case—I am an ex-lawyer and cautious about these things—but the important point about combating disability discrimination, including for epilepsy, cannot be overstated. Where there has been discrimination, it is incredibly important that there are consequences and that lessons are learned to avoid such things happening in the future.
I cannot begin to do justice to all the important points raised in this debate, so I undertake to write to all hon. Members who have taken part and to respond on important points such as co-commissioning laser ablation treatment, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, as well as many other issues.
Norman Lamb
I am certainly happy to explore that, although the hon. Lady will understand why I cannot get involved in the case.
The Government are committed to securing high-quality outcomes for people in England living with epilepsy, whose number is currently estimated at more than 450,000. There are many different types of epilepsy seizure, and although some patients have the condition from birth, others become epileptic later in life. For the majority of people with epilepsy, the condition can be well managed—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West talked about the experience of people in Leeds and the excellent care provided by hospitals there—and they can lead independent and healthy lives. As such, the provision of services for these patients is the responsibility of local commissioners, who are best placed to manage services for local populations. It is critical, however, that those who require more specialised care can access the right services and treatments, which is why NHS England commissions such services nationally. That need not be undermined by co-commissioning with local areas.
The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that patients with suspected epilepsy are diagnosed swiftly and accurately. As most people will be aware, seizures are the main symptom of the condition, and it is common practice for anyone who has experienced such seizures to be referred for assessment by a specialist. Neurological conditions such as epilepsy are part of the generalist undergraduate medical curriculum and a component of GP training. As such, GPs should be able to manage, monitor and appropriately refer the epileptic patients in their care. In secondary care, there are nearly 2,000 full-time equivalent neurologists, and for 2015-16 Health Education England has made a commitment to invest in 217 neurological specialty training places. In addition, specialist epilepsy nurses should be a key element of both routine and specialist neurological care, as set out by NICE and NHS England respectively. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) has concerns in his locality, but it ought to be part of the picture in each area.
To support clinicians in the management of this condition, NICE has published a guideline setting out best practice on the diagnosis, treatment and care of patients. The guideline recommends that referrals for patients with suspected epilepsy are urgent, with patients being seen within two weeks, if possible. I think that the hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned a wait of two months. That is not acceptable and should not happen, and the local organisations responsible for the delays should be held to account. If it is possible in other areas of the country, it ought to be possible everywhere.
In addition, if seizures are not controlled or diagnosis is uncertain, people should be referred to a specialist service within four weeks. Most people with epilepsy can have their condition successfully controlled with anti-epileptic drugs, and there are more than 25 types of drugs with which to achieve seizure control. The NICE guideline makes it clear that treatment should be individualised according to the seizure type, epilepsy syndrome, co-medication and life style. On the point made by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), women with epilepsy wanting to conceive must—absolutely must—be given accurate information and counselling about medication such as sodium valproate. That is critical. I mentioned that the Department was considering the possibility of a red flag system, and I hope it will be possible to achieve that.
For some people with more complex conditions whose epilepsy is more difficult to control, other procedures, such as surgery or vagus nerve stimulation, might be appropriate. Patients whose epilepsy is particularly difficult to treat may be referred to a specialist neurological care provider. In particular, children with epilepsy should be considered for specialised care at an early stage, because of the developmental, behavioural or psychological effects associated with suffering from continuing seizures.
In conclusion, this has been an incredibly important debate, and I will do everything I can to follow up all the important points raised.
Laura Sandys
I want to thank everybody here and to ask the Minister to do something for everybody, not least the two young ladies we have heard about today. Their legacy is worth his doing three things.
The first is to talk to NHS England and work out a pathway to reduce by 400 the unnecessary deaths caused by SUDEP each year. The second is to kick and beat the more than 90% of CCGs that do not have a pathway. That is not acceptable; it is absolutely letting down many people throughout the country. The third is to determine how best to implement the NICE guidelines and ensure that the pathway of long-term chronic care—
Business without Debate
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the house
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Child Sexual Exploitation (Rotherham)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Exactly six months ago to the day, the report commissioned by Rotherham borough council into child sexual exploitation in the town was published. Professor Alexis Jay’s damning report catalogued failings of both the police and the council over 16 years, which resulted in at least 1,400 victims of child sexual exploitation. Still worse, most of those alleging the crimes received no support, no recognition and in many cases were dismissed, belittled or told that it was basically their fault. There has been only one major prosecution.
I believe that what happened in Rotherham was predominantly the result of a culture that refused to countenance “troublesome” teenagers as victims and one that was prepared to tolerate the existence of sexual abuse—a culture where targets were more important than protecting children. The Jay report stunned me, the country and, to be fair, the world. How could such barbaric abuse occur, let alone go on uninvestigated? I simply do not have the answer to that question, and I doubt that I ever will: it simply should not have happened in a civilised society.
When I managed to get my head around the enormity of the failings, my next thought was to get help from the Government. If there had been a natural disaster in Rotherham that had affected 1,400 people and the council and police had insufficient resources to deal with it, the Government would of course have intervened. I would expect a visit from the Prime Minister, national co-ordination of charities, Government experts to arrive and, as a priority, resources and support for the victims and survivors to be provided. To date, we have had nothing.
In this Chamber on 2 September, I asked the Home Secretary for resources for the victims and survivors. She subsequently met me, and I discussed in detail what was needed nationally and, more specifically, locally—but no cash followed. On the same date, I asked the Chancellor for additional funding, and met a Treasury Minister on 10 September, when I handed over a proposal for emergency funding that I had worked up with my colleagues, the two other MPs representing Rotherham, the police, the council and clinical commissioning groups. To date, I have not had as much as a reply to that request, although after much chasing, I did get a holding letter dated “December”, telling me that the Treasury was looking into it.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, so I hope the Minister is listening. To be fair, one small step has been taken today, linked to the announcement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government of £250,000 for the commissioners for Rotherham council over two years, to reintroduce an outreach youth work project—a Risky Business-style project. Does she recognise, as I do, that that is merely 0.5% of the budget cut that the council must make in April, so it is simply not enough? Should not the Communities Secretary now release the troubled families and transformation award funds that have been withheld from Rotherham, because the council and other agencies need them to deal with the problems highlighted in the Jay and Casey reports?
Sarah Champion
I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend about the situation in which Rotherham finds itself. It is unsustainable. Like him, I welcome this donation—[Interruption.]—or drop in the ocean, as my right hon. Friend says. It does not go anywhere near far enough. I shall come on to discuss what resources we need as I progress.
On 3 September and 19 November, I raised the issue of support for the victims and survivors of Rotherham abuse with the Prime Minister. I met him on 4 February, and he subsequently pledged support on “BBC Look North”, for which I am hugely grateful. I am delighted that, as my right hon. Friend has said, the Communities Secretary announced £125,000 a year for two years to reform Risky Business. Without wanting to sound ungrateful, however, it is indeed a drop in the ocean in comparison with the resources we need to allow the young people of my constituency to rebuild their lives.
I ask the Minister to recognise that Rotherham’s police force must pay for the intervention of the National Crime Agency from Rotherham’s policing budget, and that Rotherham council must pay for the Casey report and the commissioners from Rotherham’s resources. That is taking more money away from a town that needs more resources, not less, at a time when the Government have already reduced the police budget by 20% and the local authority budget by 40%. How, realistically, are we meant to cope? Why are the Government compounding the horror that we already endure?
Let me make some suggestions about the sort of support that we need. There are currently only two child sexual exploitation workers dedicated to the victims in Rotherham. One is employed by me, and I am eternally grateful to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for giving me emergency funding to pay for that worker. However, that funding will run out on 7 May. The other is employed by Barnardo’s. She works only with people under the age of 18, and her work load consists of only 12 people. There are social workers, counsellors and police officers working in the field of child sexual exploitation, but there are only two people who are dedicated to supporting at least 1,400 victims and survivors. It should be borne in mind that 30% of the Rotherham abuse victims covered by the Jay report are over the age of 25, and most are over 18. There is only one worker to deal with the majority, and her role will end in two months.
I want the Government to recognise that Rotherham needs specific intervention to allow us to move forward. We need a fully independent unit whose sole purpose would be to support victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation. It should have charitable status, and a board of trustees that should include representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service, the council, the police, survivors, parents and the voluntary sector. The money that has been pledged today could provide a seed fund.
The unit would work in three ways. First, it would provide early intervention and prevention through a team of youth workers, survivor volunteers, family support workers, parent workers and health workers. They would deliver education and training to professionals and parents, carry out early prevention work with young people in educational and community settings, and provide awareness sessions for the community at large. Secondly, it would provide support and intervention for young people who were at risk and involved in grooming and sexual exploitation. That support and intervention would be delivered by a team of youth workers, social workers, police—police constables, and police and young people’s partnership officers—survivor volunteers and trained counsellors. Thirdly, the unit would offer one-to-one support, help with intelligence sharing and gathering, strategy meetings, and section 47 investigations. There would also need to be interpreters, policy writers and crèche workers. I see that as a model that could be replicated across the country.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on making this case and on all the work that she has done in Rotherham, although I am afraid that the problem of the lack of support for survivors who might come forward is not limited to Rotherham. What does she think about the negotiations which, I gather, are currently taking place between Rotherham council and Ofsted? In its “improvement offer”, Ofsted suggests that it should provide advice and support, although it failed to recognise the problem earlier, and something might have been done about it sooner if Ofsted had been rather better at its job.
Sarah Champion
It would take a great deal for me to have faith in Ofsted and trust it to investigate and, indeed, support Rotherham council, given the failings that it has demonstrated not just in Rotherham but throughout the country. Ofsted needs to be much more aware when it is assessing councils and individual organisations in the context of child sexual exploitation and child abuse in general.
In the short term, there also needs to be a Rotherham-specific organisation that is dedicated to co-ordinating the witness statements that victims and survivors are asked to give. We currently have a ludicrous arrangement whereby the same young victim is asked to give evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the National Crime Agency, and South Yorkshire police. That is hugely invasive, logistically demanding, and overwhelming for young people who are still trying to rebuild their lives.
We need a centre that can co-ordinate all of the interviews and questions so the victim needs only to speak to one person in a safe and supportive space. To facilitate this, I ask that the Minister funds a remote video link to enable a victim who is involved in a court hearing to give evidence from a remote location. That would help serve the needs of victims in Rotherham, enabling them to link into court proceedings without the trauma of attending court. This fact was highlighted as an issue for victims in the Jay report. There are challenges associated with delivering the initiative and the provision of defined funding to progress technological solutions would be beneficial.
To state the obvious, if we look after the victims and survivors we will get prosecutions. If we keep being demanding of their time as is happening currently, they will withdraw their good will and the case will be lost.
Another short-term Rotherham specific request is a dedicated Crown Prosecution Service team to provide timely pre-charge advice and progress cases. That would be a team of four or five CPS lawyers plus additional admin support to manage current and future cases effectively. Initial discussions have taken place and the suggested team size and cost has been provided by the CPS.
I also recommend that an additional independent sexual violence adviser, or ISVA, should be recruited, to be co-located with the public protection unit in Rotherham to offer support and advocacy for victims as they are identified. Alternatively, the ISVA could be community-based. The ISVA would need to be trained as a child ISVA and therefore be able to support child victims in both current and historical cases.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good case. On her point about the CPS, I dealt with a case in 2003-04 that is still being investigated. It was with the CPS at that time, and they are a distance away from the borough. To echo another point, within the past hour, I spoke to the father of one of the victims who I have been in touch with for many years now who had a meeting this week with the police and crime commissioner, but setting up regular meetings to try to sort something out is hindered by the lack of income because of budget cuts for the PCC and Rotherham borough council. May I tell the Minister that we need help to sort this situation out?
Sarah Champion
I echo what my right hon. Friend says. In the CPS for South Yorkshire and the Humber, the Sheffield CPS has seven lawyers, each carrying a caseload of at least 100 individuals.
Finally, in Rotherham we have three voluntary counselling services trying to support all our survivors: Apna Haq, GROW and the women’s counselling service. Although it was welcome that Rotherham council gave each organisation £20,000 to fast-track child sexual exploitation cases, that is only until the end of the financial year. What is needed is long-term investment to enable them to work with victims and survivors in an intensive way and at the pace that the victims and survivors want.
In discussions with the police and crime commissioner, he has offered to be the fundholder for all the schemes I have outlined, as I am aware the Prime Minister was nervous about giving additional funding to the police or council.
I would now like to focus on what needs to happen nationally. We know that Rotherham is not an isolated case; it already follows high-profile cases of widespread sexual abuse in other towns and cities. The sexual exploitation of vulnerable teenagers is happening across the country. It is of grave concern that our statutory services are not in a fit position to respond consistently and convincingly. In addition, there is a serious shortfall, and inconsistencies, in the support provided to victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation that must be urgently addressed, from disclosure, through the criminal justice system and into therapeutic support for those who need it.
Research conducted in 2009, currently being updated by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, found there was a shortfall in therapeutic support for victims of sexual abuse of more than 50,000 places a year, a huge gap between need and service provision. Victims are subject to a postcode lottery with only one support programme for every 25,000 children in the UK. The 508 services that are available are so overstretched they are now being forced to stop taking on new cases.
On Monday, the shadow Home Secretary committed a Labour Government to creating a dedicated child protection unit. I urge the Government to do the same. This topic should be not about politics but about doing the best for our children. I would like to propose a five-point plan to tackle child sexual exploitation nationally. The first is the establishment of a national taskforce for organised child sexual exploitation, based on a similar model to the forced marriage unit or the modern day slavery commissioner. That would be a small, dedicated team of experts in policing, prosecuting and psychological support that can be used as a resource by police forces, councils and the voluntary sector if they suspect organised child sexual exploitation. If that taskforce had existed when the Jay report came out six months ago, the police and the council could have immediately had specialist support on how to work with the victims; best practice in securing prosecutions; setting up a dedicated investigation team; and how to manage communications.
In reality, the police and the council have been left to flounder for six months, learning by their mistakes rather than being supported through an intensely difficult time. When the Jay report clearly identified failings with the police and the council, why did the Government not offer immediate support? I welcome the intervention of commissioners now, but why could they not have been brought in much earlier, avoiding some of the mistakes that have been allowed to happen?
My second point is that we should introduce mandatory personal, social, health and economic education for key stage 1 children. This is about teaching children not about sex, but about what is, and is not, a healthy relationship. We need to give our children the tools to arm themselves against abuse, not leave them to discover the horrors of the internet and, in the absence of proper education, be forced to consider what they see there to be normal.
I would also like the Government to make it mandatory for anyone employed to work with children to have training in spotting the signs of child abuse and how to report concerns.
Fourthly, I am tired of professionals being more concerned about protecting data than about protecting the child. The Government need to send out a clear signal that there will be penalties if health and education services, local authorities and the police do not share information to prevent child abuse.
Finally, we need a culture where victims of child abuse are believed. In Rotherham, victims were trying to report their abuse for decades. They repeatedly had doors shut in their faces and were branded prostitutes, worthless or complicit. I say to the Minister that that culture has to change. It is slowly changing in cases of rape and domestic violence; it needs to quickly change in the case of child abuse.
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and congratulate her on securing this debate on such an important issue. Her continued dedication to addressing child sexual exploitation, both in Rotherham, alongside the police and local agencies, and nationally, in partnership with Barnardo’s, is to be applauded. As she is aware, I wholeheartedly agree that the failures identified by Professor Jay’s report are grave indeed. What happened in Rotherham was a complete dereliction of duty.
Shockingly, Louise Casey’s report of 4 February shows that, even since the Jay report, the council and its local partners have continued to deny the scale of the problem, highlighting
“past and present failures to accept, understand and combat the issue of Child Sexual Exploitation, resulting in a lack of support for victims and insufficient action against known perpetrators.”
Louise Casey’s report is a disturbing account of “a council in denial”. It concludes that Rotherham council is not fit for purpose and failing to comply with the statutory best value duty, and that it needs a fresh start.
Separately, the Independent Police Complaints Commission announced in November that it is investigating the conduct of South Yorkshire police officers in relation to their handling of reported child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. That is in response to Professor Alexis Jay’s review, and I am pleased that South Yorkshire police have committed to fully co-operate with the investigation.
The hon. Lady has raised a number of issues and I undertake to get back to her on any that I am not able to respond to during the course of this debate. I appreciate many of her suggestions and she will understand if they do not automatically become part of the Government’s programme, but I undertake to report all of them back to the Home Secretary, who is committed to this issue.
Lynne Featherstone
In a moment.
The Government have taken immediate action to protect children in Rotherham. We have appointed Malcolm Newsam—one of the country’s most experienced experts in children’s services improvement—to oversee the initial changes needed. In addition, following the publication of Louise Casey’s report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Sate for Communities and Local Government announced his intention to appoint a team of commissioners who will exercise functions of the authority and oversee a rigorous programme of improvement to bring about the essential changes in culture and ensure there is effective and accountable political and officer leadership in future. My right hon. Friend has today issued directions in order to exercise those intervention powers in Rotherham.
In parallel, the Secretary of State for Education asked Isabelle Trowler, the chief social worker for children and families, to undertake a swift piece of work drawing out the social work and leadership lessons for local authorities and local safeguarding children boards from the Rotherham report. Isabelle concluded that the social work response in Rotherham was weak.
To address the need for urgent improvements in Rotherham and elsewhere, the Secretary of State for Education has announced a new programme of work focused on practice leadership of child and family social work, and the development of new teaching partnership arrangements to improve the quality of initial education and tie initial training into professional practice.
The National Crime Agency has also launched an independent two-stage investigation into child sexual exploitation and abuse in Rotherham—Operation Stovewood —following a request from South Yorkshire’s chief constable. The Ministry of Justice has provided a 50% increase in the funding provided to the three rape support centres that operate in South Yorkshire. There is undoubtedly more to be done for the victims in Rotherham, and more to be done to minimise the risk of such terrible events occurring in Rotherham or anywhere else in the future.
Unfortunately child sexual exploitation of the extent seen in Rotherham is far from unique. We need to confront these failures at national level, and this Government are committed to doing so. I am sure that the next Government will also be committed to doing so.
Tim Loughton
When I was a Minister in the Department for Education—and when I occupied the ministerial role that you have also occupied, Madam Deputy Speaker —we would send in officials to make an intervention, and it was crucial that there were civil servants and Ministers in the Department who understood the nature of the problem and could oversee the data that were being brought back to them. Given that this responsibility now rests with the Home Office and that the chief social worker is accountable to the Department for Education, is the Minister confident that she has the necessary officials and time to ensure that the people overseeing what is going on in Rotherham know what they are looking for and can see the job through properly?
Lynne Featherstone
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need that kind of hands-on experience in both Departments as well as co-ordination between them, because we do not want anyone falling through the holes or not recognising what needs to be done.
Louise Casey’s report also describes how a small youth project, Risky Business, had developed a ground-breaking approach to reaching out to victims of sexual exploitation and to collecting evidence about perpetrators. Unfortunately, misguided and inappropriate decisions made by the council resulted in the closure of the service. The report concludes:
“The critical work they undertook is now missing from RMBC.”
That situation should not continue, and the victims of historical child sexual exploitation should be given the help they need. Accordingly, subject to being provided with an appropriate business case demonstrating value for money, I am prepared to make available £250,000 over the next two financial years for a Risky Business-style service to be established.
Sarah Champion
As I said in my speech, I am extremely grateful for that, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and I have both pointed out, £125,000 a year is a drop in the ocean. It will pay for four workers and an office. I am really hoping, therefore, that the Minister is about to tell us that she will make available more Government support for the victims and survivors.
Lynne Featherstone
I understand the hon. Lady’s anxiety and need. When someone knows a situation as closely as she knows this one, they can see all the answers and they want something right now, and a lot of it—[Interruption.] Indeed, it would be for the victims.
The Home Secretary has led a series of meetings with her Secretary of State colleagues to consider what more we as a Government can do to help to prevent these failures from happening again. Those meetings have focused on the issues highlighted in Rotherham: the complete failure of local leadership; the culture of inaction and denial in the police and the council; the failure of local agencies to work together to protect children; and the lack of support for survivors. A report on the action to address each of those issues will be published shortly. A key part of that response will recognise the need for further support for victims from statutory and non-statutory support services, and for their engagement with the criminal justice system.
Effective, timely support for victims of child sexual abuse is a matter of national importance and it is one that this Government have prioritised. We have put rape support centres on a secure financial footing, by providing more than £4.4 million a year to 86 organisations across England and Wales that provide support to women and girl victims of rape and sexual violence. That funding is targeted at women and teenage girls who have been the victim of rape or sexual abuse; whether as a result of a recent attack or of historical abuse. We have funded a further 15 new rape support centres in areas that were lacking specialised support—13 centres were brought into existence by June 2014, and the final two centres, located in Grantham and Crawley, were commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in September 2014 and will be open during 2015.
Lynne Featherstone
I will but I may not get to the end of the list of support we are giving.
Sarah Champion
I hope that the Minister realises that rape is a completely different crime from child sexual exploitation and grooming.
Lynne Featherstone
I do recognise that, but these services all relate to sexual violence. On rape and sexual violence, young women may come to those clinics as a result of what has happened to them, so there is some overlap between child sexual exploitation and sexual violence against teenage girls.
We recognised the gap in services supporting men and boys and, as a result, launched a fund dedicated to supporting male victims of rape and sexual violence of more than £600,000 over two years. We have awarded a further £400,000 over two years to Survivors UK to help it create the first ever national website to provide an online support service for male survivors of rape and sexual abuse. We have funded a network of independent sexual violence advisers at a cost £1.7 million per year to part-fund 87 ISVAs to provide appropriate and independent support for victims. We have funded a network of 13 young people’s advocates, at a cost of £400,000 per year, who provide direct and dedicated support to young people who have been victims of, or are at risk of, sexual and domestic violence and/or sexual exploitation.
We do, however, recognise that there is a need for an uplift to these services. In the past two years a 40% increase in child sexual offences has been recorded by the police, leading to significant increases in the demand for support for survivors. The large increase in the number of victims reporting child sexual abuse and exploitation to the police, and other bodies, has resulted in a significant demand. That is why we agreed in December an immediate uplift in non-statutory sector support to victims of child sexual abuse of £7 million. That fund was split between an immediate uplift of £2.15 million to the 84 existing rape support centres; a £2 million fund to non-statutory organisations, which are reporting an increase in demand as a direct result of the announcement of the child sexual abuse inquiry; and a £2.85 million fund for non-statutory organisations providing support across England and Wales to help meet the increased demand on those services. Tragically, this is happening right across the country, although Rotherham’s is the case that we all know best and that was so shocking. We will ensure that this funding is available to organisations supporting victims and survivors in areas where there is a high prevalence of child sexual abuse and exploitation, such as Rotherham. As the hon. Lady will know, the funds are being administered by the police and crime commissioner for Norfolk, because the chief constable there, Simon Bailey, is the national policing lead for child protection and abuse investigation. The Home Office is also supporting that work, and bidding for both funds will close on 2 March. We would expect successful bidders to be notified by the end of next month.
Let me deal with some of the specific points the hon. Lady raised. On the need for a remote link for vulnerable victims and witnesses to give evidence, the Ministry of Justice has committed to set up at least one remote, non-court video link in each Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service area by the end of next month. Although specific locations cannot yet be confirmed, there will be a site in the north-east region, which covers Rotherham, as well as in other locations in England and Wales. In addition, vulnerable and intimidated witnesses can give evidence using a live link from any other Crown court and most magistrates courts away from the trial court. It is recognised that that has to be available.
I am way off Government message on PSHE, as everyone well knows. I totally agree that it does need to come forward but as we are very near to the ending of this Parliament, I hope that all three parties will come back with a recommendation for that. I have particularly to agree with the hon. Lady on data sharing. Like her, I started with an issue in my area, with baby Peter being the issue in my constituency, and in my experience and in all the serious case reviews I have read since then, the lack of data sharing at every point has allowed a gap for a child to fall through. As I say, I will report all her requests to the Home Secretary.
Child sexual abuse is a despicable crime and this Government are absolutely determined to eradicate it. In the past, all too often these horrific crimes were ignored, but now child sexual abuse is rightly centre stage as an issue and we must work together to tackle it. I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, and on all the passion and commitment she brings to this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Low Carbon Energy Generation
(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 Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Brady. It is a pleasure, indeed it is an honour, to serve under the chairmanship of such a distinguished colleague—and this may be my last opportunity to say that in public. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my interests in the energy sector in particular.
I am delighted to have secured this debate and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I am sorry that, despite valiant efforts, we do not have quite as many people here as we had when we made the application. I also warmly welcome my hon. Friend from Lancashire—I am about to say west.
Mr Yeo
I apologise. I made the same mistake last time my hon. Friend was responding to such a debate, but I am delighted to see him and I know that he will give us a robust response to any points raised.
I stress that my commitment to low carbon energy goes back more than 20 years. When I served in John Major’s Government as a Minister in what was then the Department for the Environment, among other things I dealt with climate change, which in 1993 was much less understood or even talked about. If someone mentioned climate change at a social occasion, people would look at them as though they were slightly strange. However, it did not take me long to be convinced that climate change was occurring—the scientific evidence was powerful even then—and that the changes we were observing were caused at least in part, and in my view in substantial part, by the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the past 200 years, which was a result of man-made activity and the industrial revolution in particular.
As I recall, in the 1990s the scale of the problem was much less certain. Today, the need for substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is widely, even if not universally, accepted. As we approach the Paris conference of parties at the end of the year, the world’s attention will be increasingly focused on how we can achieve a more rapid decarbonisation of our economies.
Last November we had the historic joint announcement in Beijing by President Obama and President Xi of China in which they committed to cut emissions. Such a commitment would have been completely unthinkable even three years ago: for the US President to say what he did and for the Chinese to say that their emissions would peak on a date not later than 2030 simply could not have happened. In my judgment and experience, for the Chinese to say publicly that something will happen not later than 2030 means that they are absolutely certain it will happen well before that. I warmly welcome the greater determination of the US Administration to engage with this issue, which is still extremely controversial in parts of the United States.
Here at home we had an historic announcement this month. The three leaders of the major parties united in a public joint commitment to continue to take action to tackle climate change. I do not recall any other major political issue being addressed in quite the same unanimous way just two months before an election. I welcome both those important political developments.
Equally important is the transformation in business’ attitude. Twenty years ago, much of industry was reluctant to acknowledge the need to engage in finding solutions to climate change. It felt that such demands for reduced dependence on fossil fuels were a threat to their business models. Today, by way of contrast, in many parts of the world business leaders are ahead of policy makers in recognising both the urgency and the scale of the need to move away from models that are dependent on fossil fuel consumption.
I warmly congratulate the Government on confirming the fourth carbon budget for the 2023-27 period. That challenging budget, which was set four years ago, was reviewed last year and, to the coalition’s enormous credit, it confirmed it. I am sure that in private, parts of Whitehall argued strongly for a dilution of those targets, but they were confirmed.
I also warmly congratulate the European Union. That is not something Conservative colleagues frequently do, but its recent, excellent decision, supported by the UK, to adopt a cut in greenhouse gas emissions of 40% for its 2020 target was at the upper end of aspirations. That is good for two reasons. First, it sets a challenging figure that will force businesses and consumers across the EU to think about how they can help achieve it.
Secondly, it is a rational target. By setting an overall target for a cut in emissions, the need for any subsidiary targets is largely removed. I have always been concerned about the artificial imposition of targets for the proportion of energy that comes from renewable sources. They are not the right way forward; it is up to member states to decide how much they want to use renewables and other technologies. The European Union achieved a good outcome.
Achieving the UK domestic target, which is enshrined in law, and the EU target will require in particular substantial decarbonisation of the electricity generation industry. We have the technology that makes that possible; the question is whether we are willing to adopt it. In effect, a transformation must take place in the energy industry in the next 15 to 20 years. Because it has one of the longest investment cycles of any industry, we cannot leave decisions for another five or 10 years.
The decisions we make in the next two or three years—before the end of this decade—will have a huge and material impact on what happens later on. In effect, those decisions will determine at what cost the decarbonisation of UK electricity generation will be achieved. If we get those decisions wrong and we lock ourselves into too much dependence on fossil fuels, we will be forced into making emergency, very expensive changes in the late-2020s and early-2030s.
This debate is about how to decarbonise electricity generation, and I want to start with the nuclear industry. I warmly welcome the fact that, broadly speaking, there is bipartisan political consensus that the UK needs a nuclear component in its energy industry. The latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that even now, following the shutdown of a couple of EDF’s reactors, nuclear still provides roughly a fifth of our electricity, so it is a substantial component. Nuclear, as supporters such as me constantly remind people, provides reliable, base load, low carbon power.
I do not want to turn this into too partisan an occasion, but there was a slightly wasted decade under the previous Labour Government during which nothing much happened on nuclear. However, the bullet has now been bitten and the decision to go ahead first with Hinkley Point was supported in all parts of the House—even the Liberal Democrats supported that, which showed a welcome change of heart. Unfortunately, the implementation of the decision to go ahead with Hinkley Point is proving to be tortuous and slow. I therefore commend the Government’s willingness—in fact, they have been positively welcoming—to perhaps have a foreign investor as the minority partner in Hinkley. I trust that the final investment decision on Hinkley will not be delayed much further, and I hope the Minister will give us an update on progress because many of us have been getting concerned. The timetable for this project has already slipped considerably, and it would be a huge relief to many people if we thought that final investment decision would be signed off imminently.
Of course, the future of nuclear is not just about Hinkley. It is the first step, but other projects are within sight, and I believe that gives Britain the chance to lead a European nuclear renaissance. We have huge advantages in this country, such as the political consensus to which I have referred, and the fact that our regulator is probably best in class; it enjoys universal respect. One reason why the accident at Fukushima four years ago did not derail progress on nuclear power in this country was that people trust the Office for Nuclear Regulation. In the wake of Fukushima, Mike Weightman’s report reassured people that such an accident could not occur here and the circumstances of it could not be reproduced here. That has helped to create in the UK a public opinion that is more supportive of nuclear power than that in many other countries. Interestingly, people who live closest to nuclear power stations are often the strongest supporters; they recognise that nuclear is a clean, reliable and safe technology that provides a decent number of well-paid jobs.
The interest that other countries are showing in the UK market reflects those circumstances. We now have interest from the Chinese, South Koreans, Japanese, Americans and Russians; they would all like to be here in the UK nuclear market. Some of them see the UK as a good starting point for the rest of Europe. Many of them will feel that going through and getting approved by the UK’s generic design assessment process is an imprimatur—a mark of approval—that would be useful to their technologies in other markets. Britain should welcome and take advantage of that interest. There is something here we can exploit and perhaps even use to gain a bigger share of the supply chain, with resulting benefits for our economy.
Nuclear clearly ticks the security of supply and cutting carbon emissions boxes, but the industry still has some work to do on the third aim of energy policy: affordability. The questions about cost are a work in progress. I am confident that there are ways of cutting the cost of nuclear. The nuclear industry, rightly, has very demanding safety requirements imposed on it. If the same requirements were applied to some other energies, their impact would be enormous. If the coal industry, for example, had ever had to cope with the safety demands made on the nuclear industry, it would have struggled to survive in the way it has.
However, we must be mindful of the importance of value for money. In this country, we are often supportive of first-of-a-kind technology. It is interesting, because we have a great record and history of innovation and research. However, there is a question mark over whether first-of-a-kind technology will be the cheapest. If nuclear is to roll out extensively, as I hope it will, and continue to supply a significant proportion of UK electricity generation capacity, we have to consider whether technologies that have been tried and tested in other countries first—in a home market—may then be able to offer us something.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Hinkley, of course, is going with technology that has yet to be proven. In my constituency, the Hitachi project is using reactors that have worked elsewhere and have been upgraded. That is relatively new to this country, but a rigorous process has been gone through. The fact that we have two different types bodes well for the future; we cannot put all our eggs in one nuclear basket, so to speak.
Mr Yeo
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he will enlarge on that point when he speaks in the debate, should he catch your eye, Mr Brady—there does not appear to be overwhelming competition for that. However, it is an important point that we need to bring out in the debate about nuclear. I welcome the fact that there are competing technologies that want to get started in the UK, but in deciding which ones we might “go nap” on, we need to focus on value for money. There will perhaps be an opportunity to choose between a number of them, and those that have been tried and tested elsewhere first may have a cost advantage that we should not be afraid of identifying.
Let me move on to renewables, on which there has been excellent progress since 2010. In stimulating new investment in renewables, the regime established by the electricity market reform process and all the accompanying legislation, which some of us have laboured for many hours to improve, is now one of the best in the world from the point of view of investors. Today’s news about the contracts for difference allocations confirms that. There is a lot of interest in investment in renewables here in the UK, and I warmly welcome the success of the CfD regime.
There is, however, a clearly topical issue in this regard that relates directly to my concerns about value for money. The strike prices announced today remind us—much more clearly than the previous, somewhat opaque renewables obligation certificates system ever did, certainly to the layman—of the relative costs of different renewables technologies. Of course, it is great news for consumers that the cost of solar is falling and the strike price is now significantly lower. The rapid and considerable fall in the cost of solar is partly a reflection of the enormous expansion of the solar industry in China, and that has had direct benefits for British consumers. It is now clear that solar can reach grid parity before long, even in this climate.
I am also delighted that today’s announcement makes it clear that a significant amount of new capacity will be provided by onshore wind. I am aware that it is an extremely controversial technology, particularly among many of my hon. Friends, but as we can see today, the truth is that onshore wind offers good value for money, relatively speaking. Of course, there are some—perhaps many—places in which onshore wind turbines are simply unacceptable, for environmental and other reasons, but I would regret it very much if, as a matter of policy, we turned our back on onshore wind altogether. That would turn out to be an expensive mistake, because even with prices for offshore wind falling—again, I welcome the strike prices announced today—onshore wind remains substantially cheaper.
My anxiety about offshore wind is that I do not see the potential for the huge fall in cost that occurred with solar. A large part of the cost of offshore wind is in the installation process of planting and anchoring a turbine in deep and rough waters. There may be a limited number of days on which the process can even be carried out, and the cost of the equipment needed on site is very high. That places a limit on the potential further reduction in the cost of offshore wind. I hope it will come down somewhat—I am sure it will—but I do not envisage a dramatic collapse in cost.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I also welcome today’s announcement, particularly in relation to the Neart na Gaoithe wind farm in the firth of Forth. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about cost, but surely he would agree that only through a substantial increase in the volume of offshore wind will there be any possibility of the price falling. I also take his point about consumption, but savings can be made there as well, through advances in technology. It would be wrong to give the impression that offshore wind will not be an important part of the package in future, particularly given our obvious advantages because of our geographical situation.
Mr Yeo
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not suggesting that we should rule out offshore wind, but I am suggesting that we should be mindful of the fact that at the moment it requires a much bigger subsidy than some of the other renewable technologies, and we need to be hard-headed about what proportion of our available resource we devote to it.
Britain is of course the leader on offshore wind worldwide, so we have already achieved a great deal. Interestingly, there are some relatively shallow waters in Guangdong province in south-eastern China, and quite a big push is being made on offshore wind there as well. That may help the process of bringing the price down. Offshore wind will remain an important part of the energy mix, but I am concerned to ensure that we do not allocate too much of the resource available through the levy control framework to offshore wind.
Last year, we had an announcement about the final investment decision enabling contracts, which I think were announced last April and used up just over half the available resource under the levy control framework. A large chunk of that was allocated under contracts that were at higher prices than those today. Things are always easier with the benefit of hindsight, but looking back, I think that in our anxiety to get the process under way, we may have gone a bit further than we needed to at that early stage and are locked into some relatively expensive contracts. Be that as it may, the benefits of competition and the continuing fall in costs are reflected in today’s strike prices. I therefore urge the Government to be as technology-blind as possible in the future. They should leave local objections to individual proposals or projects to be resolved through the planning system, and try to help the best value for money technologies to continue to cut costs and to flourish.
I have already mentioned that I think that solar will reach grid parity. I think that onshore wind also has the potential to reach grid parity, and if that happens and a local community are happy to see some turbines in their neighbourhood, why should they not be allowed to construct them?
Let me move on to gas, which is not everyone’s idea of a low carbon technology, although compared with unabated coal, it certainly is a lower carbon technology. The problem for Britain with gas is that our reserves are running down, so we are importing a great deal of gas. Luckily, a lot of it comes from our friendly neighbour, Norway, and we are not dependent to any meaningful extent on Russian gas for our consumption. However, we are importing a lot of liquefied natural gas. Interestingly—this came out in the debate that we had a few weeks ago on what was then the Infrastructure Bill—David MacKay’s report in September 2013 pointed out that net greenhouse gas emissions from imported LNG are actually higher than those from shale gas extracted by fracking, so if we continue to use large amounts of imported LNG instead of exploiting what may be significant domestic reserves in the form of shale gas, using fracking, which my Select Committee has reported on twice and regards as potentially a safe technology, we are locking ourselves into a slightly higher emission pattern.
I believe that, no matter what, in the next 15 to 20 years gas will remain an important part of our energy mix. It is completely unrealistic for people to assume that we can get by without consuming a great deal of gas, so we should now press on with exploiting our shale gas reserves. To do that, or even to determine how great those reserves may be, we need to start drilling. I regret the fact that there appears to be continued delay, caused in part by local opposition, to embracing that opportunity.
Britain could be the leader in Europe on shale gas. If we get on with it now, we could write the European rulebook on shale gas. There would be benefits for contractors, supply chain companies and others. There would be an economic advantage for the UK if we delayed no further and pressed on with shale gas, as other countries would then follow our lead. They would overcome their current caution and follow us down the shale gas route. I therefore hope that we will not miss that opportunity. It is just as unrealistic to assume that we can do without lots of gas in the next 15 years as it is to assume that if we close down all our nuclear power stations, they can be replaced by low carbon renewables.
Of course, the lowest carbon energy of all is the energy that we do not use. In this context, I again urge the Government to promote demand-side response. There is still a great deal of misunderstanding about demand-side response. Many people think that it means imposing power cuts on consumers without notice and against their will. It means nothing of the sort. Demand-side response today involves harnessing the latest technology to facilitate voluntary cuts in consumption at peak periods by consumers who are paid for their ability to switch off their power at very short notice. The prize, if we embrace demand-side response, is enormous. It means that we can cut the total electricity generating capacity that has to be maintained. At the moment, we have to have high levels of capacity available even though it might be used only for a few days in the whole year. That is an incredibly wasteful arrangement. If we have a vibrant demand-side response sector, we will not have to have so much capacity. Every consumer will benefit from that, because at the moment every consumer is subsidising capacity that is scarcely ever used.
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. Of course, marine technology is underdeveloped. If we had tidal, we could have greater control. In different parts of the country, the tides would be producing different types of electricity. We on the Committee on Energy and Climate Change looked at that, but not in enough detail. The Government need to look seriously at developing not just offshore wind, but the marine technology of tide and wave.
Mr Yeo
I agree, and I am glad that Britain is at least a world leader in research on some of the marine technologies. It is welcome that we are also, I believe, going to go ahead with experimental tidal lagoons in the west country. The potential from those is enormous, but it would be greatly facilitated if we embraced more demand-side response. It would also, of course, be greatly enhanced if our research on storage were successful in finding cheaper ways of storing electricity. That is another very urgent and hitherto somewhat overlooked area.
Mark Lazarowicz
I was going to make the point that the hon. Gentleman made. As well as the issue of investment in advanced technologies for storage, there is the fact that there are some very tried and tested technologies for storage that are not fully made use of. Does he agree that that also needs to be ramped up by the Government?
Mr Yeo
The hon. Gentleman is right. Storage generally, quite apart from new technologies for storage, has been under-emphasised by successive Governments. One of the problems is the mindset. There is a 20th-century mindset, dating back to the old days of the Central Electricity Generating Board. The overriding aim then was to ensure that people never had a power cut, so vast amounts of surplus capacity were maintained at all times. The answer to every anxiety about whether we were going to be short of capacity was, “Let’s build some more power stations.” That was a 20th-century answer; it is not the 21st-century answer. The 21st-century answer is, “Let’s use this more efficiently. Let’s make sure we can avoid the peaks in demand.” We may well not need any net increase in total capacity ever again.
It is therefore, in my view, unfortunate—I put it no more strongly than that—that the Government’s principal adviser on these decisions is a privately owned company whose profits are made for its shareholders by investing in more transmission capacity. The National Grid, in my view, is seriously conflicted in this matter. Quite understandably, it has a regulated UK domestic business, the profits of which are directly increased if Ofgem signs off investment programmes involving more transmission, and more transmission is obviously needed if there are more power stations. Its profits, in the UK market, could go down if we make a sufficient success of demand-side response. We cannot hide from that conflict. I do not cast any aspersion on the integrity of National Grid’s management. They are doing an absolutely straightforward and proper job for their shareholders within the regulatory framework. However, we must not allow that to have an influence on how we see the capacity market develop.
The first round of auctions in the capacity market produced, I have to say, a pitiful allocation to demand-side respondents. This issue is extremely urgent. I know that DECC is looking at it, and a review is taking place of how the auction will work at the end of this year. It is very urgent that we ensure that the next auction has a much more level playing field, so that demand-side respondents are able to bid into this market and get a bigger share of it.
It is a shaming outcome that the principal beneficiaries of the capacity market auction appear to be the most polluting technologies, such as diesel farms and coal-fired power stations. That is exactly what we hoped to avoid. The review of the capacity mechanism is of great importance. Allied to that, we should ensure that as smart meters and other smart technologies are rolled out, they incorporate mechanisms that allow time-of-use pricing to be introduced widely in a way that consumers can easily understand, and that does not penalise poorer consumers. Time-of-use pricing, allied to the demand-side response contribution, has the capacity to cut costs for consumers and reduce the need to maintain excessive amounts of capacity at all times.
Let me give a plug to the importance of the carbon price. The biggest factor, in the long term, in investment decisions favouring low carbon technology will be a significant carbon price, which might be brought about through carbon taxes or through emissions trading. Personally, I have a preference for the latter; a cap-and-trade system has the great merit of making total emissions predictable. If there is a cap, there is a cap. If we rely entirely on carbon taxes, no one can be sure about the elasticity of the market’s response to a particular carbon tax.
I am pleased that the UK Government have been on the side of those arguing for faster and more radical reform of the EU emissions trading system. Unfortunately, it is a work in progress, and there is still a lot to be done to try to make sure that the system is capable of driving a significant carbon price before 2020. A carbon price across the EU ETS will not penalise any one country, because every country will have to face the same imposition. Those who fear that a higher carbon price in the form of a domestic carbon tax would simply drive industry to other countries would not have that fear if the price were driven through the EU ETS.
I hope that the British Government will be among the leaders in the promotion of linkage between the EU ETS and emerging emissions trading systems in other parts of the world. My Committee published a report earlier this month, “Linking emissions trading systems”. We are encouraged, and even impressed, by the progress made over a short space of time by the emissions trading systems in China. We are also encouraged by the establishment of an emissions trading system in California, which is already linked to one of the Canadian provinces.
Emissions trading is an idea that now has critical mass, even though five years ago it seemed to be faltering. If China rolls out a national system during the 13th five-year plan, as I am confident that it will, a third of the world’s population will live in areas covered by emissions trading. If emissions trading spreads in the US, as I think it will, more than half the world’s GDP will come from places where emissions trading operates. The goal—in my view, the wonderful goal—of a global cap-and-trade system starts to come into view. I hope that that will be kept in mind at the Paris COP meeting at the end of the year.
The fifth and most recent assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proposed the concept of a maximum level of greenhouse gas emissions that can safely be allowed if the world is to keep within the target of an average rise in temperature of no more than 2° centigrade. A maximum safe level of emissions leads naturally to the idea of a global cap-and-trade system, with that maximum as the cap. Although that dream will not be realised in the next five years, we should keep it in mind. The danger is that we will lock ourselves into systems that are incompatible with the achievement of that goal.
In conclusion, I believe that if Britain decarbonises its electricity generation system, our economy will become more competitive, not less. International concern over climate change will intensify quickly over the next few years. That will lead to a significant carbon price, either from emissions trading or from carbon taxes. Countries, industries, companies and perhaps even households that have taken the lead in decarbonising their economies, business models and patterns of consumption will enjoy greater prosperity, not less. Decarbonising electricity will also promote security of energy supply and accelerate the cutting of greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that Britain will continue to be a leader in that process. In the way in which it achieves that leadership, I hope it will keep clearly in mind the importance of getting the best value for money in each decision that is made to achieve decarbonisation. I emphasise the fact that the decisions we make today have a long-term effect.
I believe that the Government can claim to be the greenest Government ever because of what they have done in the past four and a half years and, importantly, because of their ambitions for the future. The truth is that the benchmark for the accolade of “the greenest Government ever” is not a demanding one, because no previous Government could really claim to have been particularly green. The next five years will, therefore, be judged against a benchmark that is slightly more demanding, and that benchmark will become progressively more demanding in future. I look forward very much to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister, and I hope that he will indicate that he and the Government share my hopes for the future.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, of which I am a member. I was impressed by his very competent speech, and equally impressed by the fact that he delivered it from the modern technology of an iPad. He is the moderniser of the Conservative party, in many ways. I am pleased to have a quality Front-Bench team on both sides of the Chamber; the Minister and shadow Minister certainly know their brief. In addition, the Minister knows my constituency, so he is familiar with the places that I will talk about. I look forward to knowledgeable winding-up speeches from them.
I come to the debate from a similar background to that of the Chair of the Select Committee, who has just spoken eloquently about energy matters. Energy security and food security are issues that successive Governments have taken seriously, and which they must take even more seriously. In the first Queen’s Speech debate of this Parliament, I indicated that I would concentrate on two subjects during this Parliament: energy and energy security, and food farming and food security. I think that they will be dominant features of future debates.
On climate change, there are various similarities between my views and the hon. Gentleman’s. I have studied the matter for some time. The first job I ever had was to be a galley boy on an oil tanker, just after the middle east crisis. I remember the debates that took place at the time about oil sanctions and the conflict in Israel, and their global impact. We have learned nothing since then. At the time, we were talking about greater security, but when we had a windfall of oil and gas we more or less squandered it. We did not invest in some of the technologies that we are about to invest in, and that we have invested in during recent years. I believe that that was a wasted opportunity.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that this Government are the greenest ever. For many of the things that the Government have delivered, the consents were arranged by the previous Government. A lot of the hard work was done in the Climate Change Act 2008, and things such as the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariffs were the work of the previous Government. It is important to note that a consensus was built between the main parties at the time so that we could deliver continuity on such long-term projects.
There have been problems. I remember that when I arrived in the House in 2001, we had energy review after energy review, and nuclear was the big issue that split the Labour Government. It split the Opposition as well, and I remember the current Prime Minister hugging huskies in one of the colder regions of the world, trying to embrace Greenpeace and being very anti-nuclear, to the extent of thinking that it would be the last resort. Nuclear is now the Government’s flagship, and I am pleased about that change. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is another convert to the cause, which I welcome. I remember debating the subject with him when I first came to the House, and not only was he against nuclear but his party was never going to go down that road, yet we are now moving in the right direction and building consensus.
The low carbon economy has great potential for creating jobs, boosting GDP and making us a world leader in many technologies. I am pleased that there is now common ground for an energy mix. I say this in most energy debates, but I am unashamedly pro-nuclear, pro-renewable and pro-energy efficiency. I see absolutely no contradiction in holding those three views. We need the base load that nuclear can provide, along with clean coal and gas, and we need the flexibility that renewables give us. The hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned peak demand. When we come down from peak demand, we must be able to switch off some of our technologies so that the right supply goes through the grid transmission system. We need that balance and, of course, we need to reduce use through energy efficiency measures to curb emissions. I welcome the progress on that over the past 10 or 15 years.
I am a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. In this Parliament, we have made an important contribution to shaping the debate on energy. The Committee has held inquiries into various energy sources, from marine technology to shale gas. As the Committee’s Chair indicated, we held an inquiry into shale gas early in the Parliament, and in 2011 encouraged the Government to make progress. I am afraid that the Government’s initial response was not positive, and here we are again saying that nuclear is a flagship and the way forward. We are shaping the debate in many ways. We have considered prices and the future affordability of energy for domestic consumers and businesses. We have scrutinised the profits of the energy companies, which was positive. We also considered the issues of fuel poverty. We have done a good job. All those inquiries have been topical and interesting, and the public understand their importance.
All parties in the House can agree on the need for stability and certainty on energy policy. That is what businesses and consumers want, and politicians need to shape a policy whereby we can offer such certainty for investors, whatever technology we are talking about. We can benefit from creating a thriving low carbon economy through energy generation. A low carbon economy will go through a number of phases. Importantly, today we are talking about energy generation, but there is also the phase of surface transport, of cars and trains, which are hugely important for the future. How will we carry goods and people across the United Kingdom efficiently not only in terms of speed and time but in terms of energy? We will need to move away from diesel and petrol towards electricity, which is a huge task. We also need to consider sea transport and the built environment. This is phase 1 of a long-term plan to decarbonise our economy, and there will be important economic decisions that create benefits.
The debate over the past five or six years has been interesting to say the least. Unfortunately, it has been hijacked by certain newspapers and different wings of the print media, which have shaped and coloured some of the political debate in the House. That is unfortunate because the consensus between the previous Government and the then Opposition, and between the current Opposition and the coalition, has been good for providing the stability and certainty that is needed. We tend to react, and it is easy to be anti something. I represent a constituency that has nuclear energy, early onshore wind and the potential for biomass and marine technology. People write to me who are anti each of those things, which it is very easy to be. We have to be sensible and have a balanced, mixed energy policy.
We need to take the public with us, and the House needs to show leadership and send the right signals to business and consumers. As we build, energy security will build a better economy with high-skilled jobs. My constituency is an island, and we have run on the “energy island” label. We have done many proactive things. The nuclear power station, which has been operable since 1971, is the core. Before that, there was a huge construction phase on which my father worked. He was very much in favour of nuclear power because, in the 1960s and 1970s, he was given the impression that, as we had cheap gas, oil and nuclear energy, electricity would be so cheap that it would be difficult to meter. That has not come to fruition, of course, but nuclear has provided a stable base load. Nuclear has been important in providing safe generation, jobs and skills. We were once the world leader, but we have let that slip.
I slightly disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who said that the previous Government did nothing. Very little was done in the 1980s and 1990s, and that continued into the noughties, too. Privatisation was framed on gas and electricity, and nuclear was difficult for the Government to sell. There was a lack of enthusiasm for reinvesting in and updating the technology. Because the technologies, such as magnox, were bespoke, it was difficult to move forward, so there was a phase when there was little investment. The planning system was problematic, too. We have resolved many of those things and, again, much of the spadework was done by the previous Government. I applaud this Government for proceeding with large infrastructure. There is a good planning system for such large projects.
On the island of Anglesey, the energy island, we not only have nuclear. We have a plan for an eco-park, at the core of which will be a 300 MW biomass generator. The vast majority of that electricity will go into the national grid, with the waste from the generator and from a fish farm being used to grow plants. The eco-park, which will be self-contained, will also have a distribution centre. There will be an opportunity for local direct grid investment, too. Exciting ideas are coming from low carbon energy development.
The Horizon nuclear project at Wylfa Newydd, or Wylfa B, is exciting. Investors, including Hitachi, have proceeded with that project, and I recently went to the site with the shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). The site is vast and has created 1,000 permanent jobs. Importantly, there will be indirect jobs in the supply chain, too. The Leader of the Opposition also went to the site when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change—the project started in 2008-09.
The shadow Secretary of State and I also visited the energy centre, which is training and upskilling young people. We saw local apprentices between the ages of 17 and 20 who have an opportunity to use their skills in the local energy sector. Bringing and keeping prosperity in the area is something that we should add to this debate, because young people are important to our economy. The skills they are learning are not only usable in the nuclear sector; they are transferable, high-quality engineering skills. In the construction phase of Wylfa Newydd there is talk of some 6,000 to 8,000 construction jobs, which will be high-skilled in many cases. There will be opportunities for local businesses and individuals to work in the environment. There is cross-party recognition of the importance of vocational skills, which in the future will have parity with academic skills.
The energy island concept is more than just nuclear; it involves biomass as well, and there are opportunities for offshore wind. The Celtic array has been shelved for now, but Centrica was talking of huge investment. That potential not only benefits energy companies but the marine sector. In my constituency, we have an excellent company, Holyhead Boatyard, which runs tugs around the world and has moved into facilitating the offshore wind sector around the world with purpose-built boats. Its turbine transfer skill base ranges from apprentices to master mariners, with top engineering jobs in between. It builds crafts in the United Kingdom and maintains offshore wind. There is huge potential for low carbon energy sources such as offshore wind to benefit the United Kingdom, its ports and the maritime industries. That local company has an international reputation and employs people locally who also have the opportunity to travel.
As the hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned, solar energy is a huge success story for the United Kingdom, although many parts are imported and assembled here. Onshore wind is controversial—I remind the House that Anglesey was an early pioneer of many early wind farms. I must say that I am not a fan of onshore wind farms due to their sheer scale. They are four or five times the size of the original ones on Anglesey. We should be developing offshore, and not just for aesthetic reasons of how they look on the landscape; the wind resource is better offshore, and as wind technology develops, they will be of greater benefit offshore. I agree that we can get down to grid parity in the future, as has been indicated, if we invest long-term in offshore wind.
Research and development are important—we have also taken the lead there—as are links between the energy industry, electricity generation and low carbon, and colleges and universities. The university of Bangor in my constituency has a faculty on Anglesey, the School of Ocean Sciences, which has been pioneering climate change research not just on UK and European shores but in the south Atlantic, where it has been doing excellent work on climate change. We can give individuals career paths not only in the operation of energy generation and low carbon, but also in research and development, software technologies and all the things that I have seen that faculty use on Anglesey. There is great potential for jobs in construction, engineering, mechanics, security, catering and supplies in the area. All those downstream jobs help build a more prosperous economy in areas where energy development is going forward.
This is an important debate. The United Kingdom is leading in many such technologies. If we have a proper long-term plan for energy with consensus and certainty, we can benefit GDP. I call Anglesey the energy island, and we are going forward with that concept, but of course Britain is an island, and Anglesey could be a microcosm for the whole of Britain. Britain could be a leader on the European continent. As an island, we could be self-sufficient using new technologies, but we could also be pioneers in the development of many of those technologies, showing the way for the rest of Europe.
Energy security will still be on the agenda for decades to come. The decisions made by the previous Government and carried forward by this one—I welcome many of the things that this Government have done—need to move forward to give the stability and certainty that I have discussed, so that investors, whether indigenous or foreign, can look to the United Kingdom and say, “This is the place where we want to invest in new and low carbon technologies to generate the electricity that companies need and domestic consumers want, at affordable prices for consumers.” We need to create top-quality jobs so that we can be a world leader and the United Kingdom can move forward.
This is not just a debate at the fag end of a zombie Parliament; it is a restatement of the fact that we as a United Kingdom are forward-looking when it comes to climate change and low carbon energy, and that we will create the quality jobs, education, training and transferable skills that are needed to make UK plc and Anglesey energy island world leaders.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) on securing this debate. As he said, it is a shame that there are not more people here taking part. It is a sharp contrast with the debates that we had in the past few weeks during the closing stages of the Infrastructure Bill. Many people who seemed interested in one particular aspect of the Bill applying to energy policy are not here today, nor are Members from some of the smaller parties represented in the House. It is a shame that they are not here to take part in this debate.
In his wide-ranging contribution, the hon. Member for South Suffolk touched on numerous important and significant issues. Apart from some slightly more partisan points that he made, there was quite a lot with which I agreed. He will probably not be surprised by that, as we have debated many of these issues in the past five years. As he said, there is a degree of consensus on them. It is always important that we do not let consensus slip into complacency, but there are good reasons to seek consensus, because the energy and investment decisions that we are discussing will last a lot longer than any of us are likely to be in this House, and longer than any Government last. They are often long-term decisions, and it is important that we debate, discuss and scrutinise them with that in mind.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) in his place again. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) is not here. I think I might have upset him; whenever we have a debate in this Chamber or on a statutory instrument, the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North seems to be here in his place. That is a good thing, as he is more than capable of explaining and discussing the Government’s position, and of course the Energy Minister is a busy and important man who probably has busy and important things to do elsewhere. However, he might benefit from coming to some of these debates, because they help illustrate the wide range of issues that come within his Department’s brief and that we seek to discuss.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk started by talking about climate change and the need to tackle it, mentioning the statement from the leaders of the three larger parties within the last week or so. It is important to remember that the reduction in emissions from energy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, is only part of the challenge in terms of emissions; there are also challenges in relation to transport, heating and industry. However, in energy supply and electricity, significant progress can be made. The hon. Member for South Suffolk, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) in an intervention, mentioned today’s announcement on the contracts for difference auctions.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk said that Britain was in the lead on offshore wind. Actually—it gives me no great pleasure to say this—it is England that is in the lead on offshore wind, because there is 20 times more installed capacity in English waters than in Scottish waters, despite the claims that are sometimes made. However, a number of projects in Scotland have been successful in the auctions, including an offshore wind project, which has been referred to. I hope that that gives us in Scotland an opportunity to make some progress. Of course, that is underpinned by the UK-wide system of support that we enjoy, which benefits Scotland hugely in terms of being able to develop renewable technologies, and which benefits everybody in all parts of the UK in terms of the power that is therefore supplied.
The discussion in the past few days on the potential closure of Longannet coal-fired power station in Scotland illustrates that we have an increasing imbalance in the energy supply in Scotland. We have to be careful to ensure that we do not end up having to import energy from England to Scotland, as is now the case for at least part of one day in six, to keep the lights on, particularly at times of high demand and when the wind is not blowing.
Members may not have been where I was between Christmas and new year, but it was very cold. There was no wind at all, and, without power from other parts of the UK coming to Scotland, the lights may have gone out, which would have been serious. That is why I maintain that we need a balanced energy mix, and that is probably the view of everybody taking part in this debate.
There are a range of low carbon technologies. Sometimes people make the mistake of assuming that low carbon equals renewable. Renewables are a significant part of low carbon technology, but not the full suite. We have had some discussion this afternoon on nuclear, which I will say a little more about shortly. There are other potential technologies, including carbon capture and storage if it can be developed, that can help to meet some of the emissions targets as we renew our generation fleet.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk touched on the attitude of business, and said how refreshing it was that in his time as an advocate of low carbon technology, the attitude of business seemed to have changed, which is to be welcomed. He will recall our debates on what is now the Energy Act 2013. We discussed various issues, particularly around longer-term targets for decarbonisation, which was advocated by non-governmental organisations with a particular interest, but a lot of businesses advocated a 2030 decarbonisation target, too. The cross-party amendment that he supported did not make it into the Act, sadly, but it was supported by people in various parties. There is need for a longer-term signal; that is significant.
Issues around the costs of offshore wind are partly to do with scale, and that is partly to do with opportunities for manufacturing and the supply chain, which require a long-term signal to invest. Although I welcome Siemens’ investment in Hull, there could be much more investment if we had a stronger sense of direction and targets that could give the certainty and predictability that Members talked about to enable investment.
The hon. Gentleman talked about lowest-cost decarbonisation. I tend to prefer best-value decarbonisation. There is value in seeking to ensure that various technologies are developed, and that we do not run the risk of missing out on technologies that can help, particularly in relation to renewables that may be less intermittent than those that are currently commercial viable. It is important that we continue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said, with the research going on at the university in his constituency. Just in the past few months, at the university of Hull, I have seen software development to help cut the costs of installing offshore wind without compromising safety, for example. I have seen the energy research centre at the university of Strathclyde under the leadership of Professor Sir Jim McDonald, and, in Edinburgh, the facility for testing marine technology. Those are all good examples of the great academic and research expertise that should benefit the UK more widely. Economic benefits can come from the inevitable and desirable need to move to a much lower carbon mix for our generation supply.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk celebrated the broad consensus on new nuclear being part of the mix. He may have been slightly churlish in his comments about party political support, because he will know that Brian Wilson, a former Energy Minister and Member of this House, began the process of identifying sites and agreeing the process. It is important to get that right to give the confidence that the hon. Member for South Suffolk spoke about. It is important to maintain confidence following Fukushima, but the process was established at a time when his party leader said that nuclear was a last resort, and the party of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was implacably opposed to nuclear. I am glad that we have got to a position where there is support for new nuclear as a low carbon-based technology in the lower carbon mix, and I hope that continues.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk was right to make the points about affordability and cost. The European Commission was able to find significant cost savings in its scrutiny of the agreement between the Government and EDF. That indicates the importance of ensuring that a proper eye is kept on costs in the nuclear sector. We do not want to compromise safety, but we want to make sure that things are done effectively and as affordably as possible. If not, we run the risk of seeking technology that seems very expensive compared with alternatives. Although those alternatives do not provide the same broad range of advantages, on paper nuclear will look much more expensive. It is important that the industry takes a role, as well as regulators and the Government, to ensure that that is done in the most efficient way possible.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the capacity mechanism. Whoever is in government post-May will have to make important decisions in relation to applicability and how the next capacity market auction happens. I still have a degree of doubt as to why existing nuclear power should be included in the capacity market, but his points about demand-side management are well made. It seems a very small amount in the first round, and that should be addressed. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved in relation to interconnection. That is another important and potentially efficient way of being able to meet some of the objectives.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the amount of gas that we need. Members here today will know that 80% of our heating comes from gas. We will continue to need gas for heating for a significant period. We will also need gas as a source of peaking power capacity, so the debate around the sustainability of our gas supplies and where they come from is an important one. I note that the Committee on Climate Change has published new information, following the debates on the Infrastructure Bill, on how shale gas might be a part of the mix, in line with climate objectives.
On the wider debate on shale, it is important to make sure that regulation is properly robust, and that the monitoring is comprehensive, to ensure public confidence before anything takes place. Also, we need to ensure that any exploration or extraction is done in the context of the wider carbon commitments. The hon. Gentleman probably agrees with that. That is how the debate should be taken forward, although I realise that that is sometimes difficult, particularly as we get closer to the general election.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, who is a member of the Select Committee that the hon. Member for South Suffolk chairs, made several important points. He made a point about consensus—considered consensus, as I say, rather than complacency—which is important when we are dealing with long-term policy. It is right that Government policy be properly scrutinised, but we need to do that with an eye to the long-term objective that we want to meet.
My hon. Friend spoke on a number of issues that the Select Committee has touched on recently, including the debate on the generation of low carbon technology and the importance of stability in policy. As I said, stability is important if we are to attract investment and secure the maximum possible economic benefits. He also talked about issues in his area and mentioned Anglesey energy island. The Minister knows that part of the world well, and I have been there. It is a beautiful part of the world and, from what my hon. Friend said, it is a place where there is a huge amount of creativity, and where people are coming up with some potentially good opportunities in terms of energy. It is not just about the nuclear power station; it is about a number of different things, particularly decentralised energy, which he talked about.
Issues around investment and business certainty are important. My hon. Friend was on the Committee considering the Energy Bill, which became the Energy Act 2013, and he will recall that the head of energy finance at RBS gave oral evidence to the Bill Committee, saying that the 2030 decarbonisation target was
“absolutely critical from the conversations I have with potential supply-chain investors because they…point out that it is very difficult for them to take investment to their board if they really only have visibility on three or four years’ worth of work.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 15 January 2013; c. 51, Q154.]
That is where we are, because we have visibility to 2020 through the levy control framework, but not beyond that. Again, that is an important issue for the next Government to address properly when taking forward the levy control framework and considering both its structure and the amounts. It is also important in respect of the longer-term decarbonisation target.
Mr Yeo
I omitted to say something: the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of long-term predictability and support. I and my Committee believe it would help if the next Government committed to an annual rolling update of the levy control framework totals, so that it is always set for seven years ahead. That would facilitate investment decisions, and would therefore tend slightly to reduce the cost of investment and consumer prices.
Tom Greatrex
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the cost of risk and uncertainty. Whoever is in government in a few weeks needs to look quite early on at how the levy control framework will be taken forward—at both the structure of the mechanism and the amounts. It is not just about the amounts of money; it is about the way the mechanism is calibrated and taken forward. Whoever is Energy Minister in 72 days’ time, they should have the report of the hon. Gentleman’s Committee in their in-tray to consider, among other issues.
I have touched on demand-side response. The Select Committee has done important work on that. The exchange of correspondence between the Committee Chair and the Energy Minister was interesting and indicates, I hope, that there is still some opportunity for the Government to take that matter more seriously, going forward. I hope that that is also the case for the next round of capacity market auctions, which will happen towards the end of this calendar year.
The technology that we have not really touched on is carbon capture and storage. No serious modelling of our energy mix in 2030 does not include a role for fossil fuel plants and industrial processes running carbon capture and storage. CCS is a key tool that we need to meet our decarbonisation agenda. We must use it in a way that helps sustain some industrial processes that are important for our wider manufacturing base; we must not just offshore that activity. We sometimes overlook the potential cost savings of meeting carbon targets. Hon. Members will be aware of the Energy Technologies Institute estimate that states that deploying CCS could reduce the cost of meeting UK carbon targets by between £30 billion and £40 billion, or up to 1% of GDP, by 2050. That is an important piece of work.
We in the UK have a degree of academic and expert knowledge in this area. We know that lots of work is going on in places such as Edinburgh. Two projects are currently undergoing front-end engineering design studies. On taking forward the tools and mechanisms for low carbon investment, it is important that the contracts for difference are tweaked as needed so that they are appropriate for CCS development into the future, because it would be remiss of us to have two exemplar projects funded through the competition, and for nothing else to come after that. The key to that is ensuring that the contract for difference is properly applicable to CCS, which is a differently structured investment to new nuclear or many renewable technologies. It would be good for whoever is in government in a few weeks’ time to be clear about their ambition for CCS, and to seek to unblock issues that have caused some delay in the progress of CCS.
I am conscious that there has been a lot of talk about consensus in this debate, particularly with regard to the policy tools for incentivising low carbon investments. Unfortunately, in other debates in this House over the past five years, the consensus on the need for such investment has become a little bit frayed. Having only been here for five years, my sense is that, among some hon. Members, that consensus has deteriorated. It is right that the costs of decarbonisation be properly scrutinised, and that people carefully consider the potential impact of technologies in different places, but we should all resolve the matter for the future—beyond the election, for those of us who might be here. We need to ensure that consensus again, so that we can renew our generation supply in the lowest carbon way possible, and in a way that benefits the UK’s wider economy. I hope, regardless of party political differences on other issues, that this can be taken forward in the new Parliament, because it is far too important not to be.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
I am delighted to serve under your Chairmanship, Mr Brady. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo). I am not sure if this will be the last time we debate and listen to his contributions, but I pay tribute to his work for his constituents and for his party in serving the Government over the years, and to his work for the Committee on Energy and Climate Change.
The Committee has done an amazing job, not only in building the consensus that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) mentioned, but in demonstrating to someone like me that people do not have to live in a tepee to be green and do not have to switch off the lights and go backwards. To roll out a proper, successful, renewables-based energy policy, people have not only to understand targets for carbon reduction and the pressure of global warming; they have to understand the real world as it is, including finance, investment, risk and technologies. My hon. Friend has done a tremendous job as Committee Chair in bringing along both sceptic and enthusiast with the policy of renewables, and with an energy policy that has satisfied many of the historical splits across the parties that we have seen over the past 20 or 30 years.
Ministers could do a lot more listening to Select Committees, especially my hon. Friend’s, which has genuinely helped policy makers and has brought together the main parties in reaching a proper, grown-up solution to providing energy security and meeting our carbon reduction targets. My hon. Friend’s Committee marks a refreshing change. Members present will have spent time in other sectors of Government such as the Ministry of Justice, where constant party politicking goes on, or disagreement is often more important than consensus. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work. He will be missed, as will the sensible way the reports have been presented to the Government.
There are only 19 sitting days left in this Parliament. That is a rather scary number for all of us. I noted the kind comments made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. I am not sure who will be the Energy Minister in 70 days. He will certainly make a fine Energy Minister—if he is successful. I cannot wish him that success; I would not do that. I would certainly not want Russell Brand or Alex Salmond as Energy Minister. The main parties are all in a good place, engaging in grown-up politics in working towards a proper energy policy. It is important to note that among the most vocal opponents of the Infrastructure Bill was the Scottish National party, whose Members have failed to turn up for today’s debate. They are no doubt posturing on some other subject this week. They are not even here to claim credit for some of the successful CfD contracts that have been offered today. We should not forget that we will only solve Britain’s energy crisis as Britain. We will only keep the lights on as Britain, not as separate countries focusing on what divides us, rather than what unites us.
Today’s debate is timely, because the CfD auction results have just been published. We have offered contracts—they obviously have not been accepted yet—to 27 projects. The good news is that the CfD auction showed that, amongst other things, competition has worked. We have had a good result from our focus on trying to ensure that we provide value for money for the bill payer, and on increasing energy generation. The auction price for solar, for example, was 58% less than the administrative strike price. It was 18% less for offshore wind and 17% less for onshore wind. The value for money that that represents helped lever in £45 billion of investment into the energy market between 2010 and 2013. I am always trying to explain to people in different sectors that there is only so much money in this world chasing only so much investment. We have to make investment attractive to money or it will go elsewhere—not just domestically, but internationally.
Both this Government and the previous Government have done a good job in recognising that we have to create the conditions to get investment into high-risk areas and those with maturing technology. The CfD process has been a real success. Let us remember that the aim is to reduce carbon emissions. The UK will emit 4 million fewer tonnes of CO2 emissions a year as a result of the auction. No one can say that that is a bad result. It puts us on the right path to meeting our aim of reducing carbon emissions. At the same time, we have shown that, if we seek a stable framework, people want to come forward and share the risk. The overall cost of production will reduce over that period, and I hope that by the end of the first 15 years—or whatever the time scale is—the actual production costs of many of these generators will be even lower. I hope the Government of the day will remain attuned to when a technology moves from “maturing” to “mature”, when they need to incentivise newer technologies further down the path, and when they perhaps need to let go of more mature technologies that have run their course over many years.
I again make the point that 11 of the 27 projects are in Scotland. That is a good news story for Scotland. I pay tribute to Scottish Labour Members who have lobbied hard on behalf of the Scottish renewables industry and their constituents. That would not have happened in such an easy way if we were two separate countries. All our bill payers will be sharing the burden of electricity generation. As the shadow Minister said, when there was not much wind blowing in parts of Scotland or when Scotland had to rely on our market in England, it was just a formality; there was no artificial barrier to that happening. People who are attracted by the Scottish nationalists or the agenda of separation should remember that independence would fundamentally undermine and damage Britain’s ability to provide electricity for all its citizens across all the isles. That needs to be fully taken on board.
Given the competitive drive to reduce the cost or strike price, which has been a good thing, we think the CfD auction will result in average annual savings of £41 per family bill. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) is right: I love Anglesey. When we go on holiday there, I can look out the window and see the red light shining on what used to be the Rio Tinto tower. I am happy, as are the Government, to work to ensure that any barriers to biomass are addressed in the next round of CfDs. That could include help to reduce risks for biomass investment. By working together, we can ensure that biomass has a better showing in the next round. Personally, I would like that project to be successful. I know how important energy is to the island of Anglesey and the pragmatic approach it takes. It would be good news for Holyhead if that project were successful. I am always happy to help ensure that biomass is embraced.
On the subject of the capacity market, securing our energy security is incredibly important. It is all very well encouraging generation, but if the lights go out and we have not worked together to ensure that there is always some capacity, that is almost for nothing. The auction for the capacity market recently completed. We secured 49.3 GW at a clearing price of £19.40 per kW for delivery in 2018-19, which is good news. Consumers and the public can be sure that, alongside our commitment to develop renewables, we have also achieved more security and secured more capacity.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk is a keen supporter of demand-side response. I asked officials to see an example of DSR, because how we use electricity efficiently and how we reduce demand are as important as how we cater for demand at other times. I urge Members to look at the example of ExCel, the big London exhibition site, which uses Flexitricity and has a genuinely good case model in how it uses diesel generators that switch on and off as demand requires. Flexitricity can control some of the generation remotely, reducing waste on the grid, and I hope to see more of that. The Department and I have certainly heard loud and clear my hon. Friend and his recommendation of and enthusiasm for DSR, which I hope is given a more prominent role in the next few years.
Other Ministers might get home or to their offices to find that the locks have been changed, because this is the second debate I have been at where Members have clearly demanded a future levy control framework and said that it is required. We hear that urgency. It is no comfort, but with only 19 sitting days to go, I anticipate that the Secretary of State will not be revealing that framework any time soon. We will certainly recognise that urgency in the near future. Whoever is in government, we will all be working to ensure that that long-term indication is in place. I hear with open heart and open mind the recommendation for a rolling seven-year framework to ensure that we keep things up to date. In my opinion, that would help to reflect advances in technologies as they develop. If we understand the impact that technologies have as they roll through, we might understand how much influence they will have on levies and everything else.
There is obviously a long list of renewables that we could talk about. The Government have clearly been happy to encourage offshore wind farm developments. We hear the fears about the high strike price and expense of offshore wind, but the CfD auction has shown that the direction is downwards. As the technologies have developed and competition has been brought in, we have started to reduce the offshore price, which I hope in the medium to long term will converge to be not so different from the onshore price, or near enough.
The Government are obviously committed to onshore projects as a way of generating energy. We are at a stage where many of us who see applications in our constituencies should and can say—the Government have shown this with where they have chosen not to support onshore wind farms—that investors should think carefully about whether they bring forward planning applications for a well-sited, well-researched location, or indulge in the speculative, lazy applications that we see in our constituencies. Out of the blue, a speculative application happens, and that is often what upsets and surprises constituents, coming as it does without any indication of logic or anything else. In those cases, the message should be loud and clear: “Do your research and work. Make sure that you are not speculating and trying to garner profit for profit’s sake rather than trying to fit into the community.”
[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]
The biggest drop in price in the CfD auction was solar’s 58% drop. The Government support solar at all levels, including below 5 MW, and with the feed-in tariffs. It has been encouraging to see how the solar industry has been imaginative in finding new sites that get the sun—for example, by renting roofs. The Government are certainly committed in the long term to ensuring that solar is part of the mix. We want it to be successful, and I hope to see more bids in the next CfD round.
Albert Owen
Before the Minister moves on from renewable energy, I am not making a partisan point, but does he share my frustration at the lack of development of commercial-scale marine energy? There have been a lot of good demonstrations of it that have not moved forward. What more does he think can be done to make it happen? Everyone agrees on the potential of wave and tidal energy, but it has not increased in scale. Since I have been a Member of this House—I was interested in energy from day one—it has always been three or four years hence, but it has not happened. What can be done so that we can get good commercial projects up and running in order to get the predictable energy supply that we need?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, because I too remember the grander schemes, such as the Severn barrage and the Wyre barrage in my constituency. They were quite large-scale, ambitious schemes. I checked before I came to the debate, and one of the Department’s priorities is the Swansea lagoon barrage. If we can get that up and running successfully, it is the kind of thing that will quickly trigger a roll-out elsewhere. As he says, wave and tidal energy have been just over the horizon for as long as I have been involved in such issues, but we are getting to a stage where the scale is right and not over-ambitious. From what I can tell, local businesses and people are supportive of the scheme in Swansea, so we should all try to help it to become a reality and sing its praises far and wide, should it be a success.
Albert Owen
I fully support the plans for Swansea. In my area, where there is good tidal flow, we have had a demonstration from Marine Current Turbines and Siemens, and we have seen the technology working in Strangford lough. Siemens did not take it to the next stage. The Government have done what they can. There are good renewable obligations and support in Scotland and other places, but schemes have just not gone far enough. I understand what the Minister says about scale, but I am not talking about a large-scale project; it could have developed in sections and become bigger. There is something missing. Will he consider that so that we can move forward with tidal energy?
Mr Wallace
I am happy to ask the Department about its observations on why Siemens did not choose to go forward, because we can learn from that. It may have been a commercial decision or there may have been an internal conflict of interest because the company wanted to focus on another technology, but it would be good to find out and move forward.
My constituency borders the two current shale gas sites. I want to put the Government’s position on the record: we are absolutely clear that we are not determined to rush for gas or to throw everything out just to get fracking going. The Government are in favour of fracking, but we want to be its arbitrator. We want to listen to the science behind it. We do not want to be in the pocket of the oil and gas companies or the green movement. The Government’s role is to take a pragmatic approach and ensure that shale gas proceeds, learning from all the experience around the world and from all the environmental studies and impacts that have happened, and use our position to ensure that we set a gold standard. We must move forward where we can, mitigating the effects on local communities through sovereign wealth funds and local community funding, but also through the planning conditions that can be set by mineral rights authorities.
Shale gas will and must be in the mix at some stage. I would rather buy my gas from Britain than from Mr Putin, so if people have objections on human rights grounds, there is one reason. I would rather not compress gas in big ships and take it around the sea if it is possible to get it from Britain. The Government’s position is not simply to progress recklessly on shale gas at any cost. Opponents of shale gas often paint it as if the rush for gas is true, but that is not the case. As we saw recently in the debates on the Infrastructure Bill—the Government accepted Opposition amendments—we will work to ensure that the industry is safe, that constituents are not affected unnecessarily, and that we all benefit from the process.
The last thing mentioned by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West was carbon capture and storage. We cannot avoid the fact that it will be part of an ability in which we must invest, and which we must develop to complement our energy generation over the next 20, 30 or 40 years. We cannot just pretend and have it as a tokenistic thing. It is going to be a fact and we must invest in it. The Government are doing what they can to help investment in the process. As with the barrage and tidal schemes, I look forward to the day when we start the process and get the pipelines and everything else in place. Whoever is in government, it is worth monitoring and investing in carbon capture and storage.
I hope that colleagues have felt that today’s debate has cemented the view that the current energy policy is travelling in the right direction for this country. It is based on reducing carbon emissions, encouraging different technologies and getting value for money for the bill payer. We cannot pretend that those issues are separate; they have to be hand in hand. We have to carry the public with us if we are going to develop energy policy successfully. We should be not pleased, but happy that the CfD auction proved that things are going in the right direction.
The economic benefits are clear. Since 2010, we estimate that more than £30 billion has been invested in electricity generation, principally in renewable technologies. In previous years, it might not have been the case, but that money has gone principally on renewable technologies, and £30 billion does not grow on trees. If we cannot get investment from the markets and the private sector, in the end we will have to get it from the taxpayer. It is a good thing that we have helped to change not only Government policy but investment policy and thinking in this country. As someone who, to some extent, came late to the energy debate, I am grateful for the work of the Select Committee and for its reports. I find them incredibly educational and I know that the Department finds them very useful in helping to create and shape new policy for the years to come.
Before finishing, I repeat my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk. I thank him for his work with the Select Committee and for his work for the whole House as well.
Mr Yeo
I am sure I carry everyone here with me when I say what an excellent debate this was, with exceptionally high-quality contributions—I do not expect to be challenged on that verdict. The numbers taking part may have been small, but the quality could not have been higher, as one would expect, given that I have debated all these issues with exactly the same hon. Members on more than one occasion.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his generous comments about my Committee’s work and about my personal contribution to discussions on these issues over a number of years—that is very much appreciated. This is likely to be the last time I speak in Westminster Hall, although I cannot say I have great regrets about having only 19 sitting days left. Perhaps I should apologise to my hon. Friend, who is also my Whip, because I may have missed a Division last night, although the opportunity for doing that is diminishing very quickly—this is the first time I have used a debate to acknowledge such things.
It is important, as I think all those who took part said, that we approach these issues in a way that is long term, bipartisan and often consensual, although that does not mean that there cannot be vigorous debate and disagreement. In an industry where the effects of decisions made now will be felt not in 10 years’ time, but in 30, 40, 50 or even 60, we need to work hard to get the right answers. My Committee’s work has been consistently driven by our preference, first, to act constructively and, secondly, to look at the evidence first—it is very much an evidence-driven Committee, and I am sure that will continue in the next Parliament.
It is important that we maintain cross-party consensus about the importance, above all, of tackling climate change. That is the central issue for policy makers in the 21st century, and it will transcend all sorts of existing anxieties on the security front. The truth is that the prosperity of the human species is directly threatened by dangerous and irreversible climate change. Actions that we take will affect generations unborn for centuries to come.
As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) mentioned, there has been a slight erosion of the consensus on the science of climate change, particularly in the Conservative party. Nevertheless, I celebrate the fact that a vast majority in all the political parties, with the exception of UKIP, still accepts the overriding necessity of tackling climate change. Britain has played a leading role on this, partly because of our strong science base and partly because we take a thoughtful approach to sustainability issues, and I hope that is maintained.
Carbon capture and storage was mentioned, although I omitted to mention it. When I was making a few notes this morning, I was conscious of the fact that I did not want to take up too much time—as it happened, there was no shortage of time. Carbon capture and storage is the one technology the world most urgently needs, and it is the one thing that could transform the economics of fossil fuels, perhaps allowing us to utilise fossil fuel reserves that, at the moment, will never be utilised. It is therefore worth giving it the greatest support.
I am sometimes frustrated that the private sector is not more enthusiastic about carbon capture and storage. Given the resources available to companies in the fossil fuel industry, I would like to see them championing the cause of research on carbon capture and storage more than they are. That should not be left to taxpayers and Governments—I am not saying it is left entirely to them, but they are shouldering a lot of the burden. We should definitely prioritise attempts to achieve economically viable carbon capture and storage. There is also a detailed point of great importance about whether we can tweak the way we support other low carbon technologies directly to incentivise more research into carbon capture and storage.
The future of the levy control framework was mentioned several times, and it is important. It is easy for laymen to overlook the impact of the cost of capital on consumer prices in an industry as capital-intensive as energy. The cost of capital is directly related to the predictability and stability of policy—another reason why achieving a bipartisan consensus as far as possible is important. I am tempted to go down the track—the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West already knows what I am going to say before I have said it—of whether an energy price freeze is a good way to reduce the cost of capital. However, I will not—our respective views on that are well known.
I regularly talk to some very big investors, and I am pleased that they acknowledge that the UK regime, which has evolved over time, with a lot of thought from all sides, now offers quite attractive opportunities. It is not just that the rule of law is respected here; we now have a regime that looks capable of sustaining a framework in which long-term investments will be attractive. That will be to the benefit of everyone.
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s responses on a wide range of issues, including the potential for demand-side response measures. I just reiterate one concern. Bringing in back-up generating capacity at short notice is vital to trim the peaks and to enable us to get by with lower overall generation capacity, and an increasing number of people, including some individuals, are ready to provide capacity. However, that is just part of the story. The other part is that, in the long term, there will be an even greater prize if we can facilitate consumption cuts at short notice by building into equipment chips that automatically switch off air conditioning when the energy price rises to a certain level, and so on. That is another helpful aspect, and we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the potential of these things.
My hon. Friend sounded a measured tone about shale gas, and that is welcome. When the Daily Mail heard about shale gas, it thought it was the answer to all our problems. Others, perhaps on the extreme green wing, say that we should under no circumstances contemplate fracking in this country. There is a middle way, and I hope that whoever is in government will take it. There will be a prize for doing these things fairly quickly. There is an opportunity. We are good at designing regulatory systems in this country. If we move ahead, we could shape the whole EU regulatory framework for shale gas during 2015, and other countries might follow, which would give us benefits in the supply chain.
My final message is that, above all, the future has to be low carbon, for reasons we all understand, but it in no way needs to be low growth. Our economy can be—indeed, it is more likely to be—high growth if it is also low carbon. That is the way forward for the UK, the EU and the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Law Commission Report on Patents (Government Response)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Minister for Intellectual Property (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) will today make the following statement.
In 2012, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills together with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) asked the Law Commission to review the law relating to the making of groundless threats to bring proceedings for infringement of patents, trade marks and design rights.
The review was sought because of concerns that the threats provisions are overly complex and do not work as intended. In particular, there were questions over whether the provisions sit well with the expectation, under the civil procedure rules, that parties in disputes should try to negotiate a settlement before turning to litigation. There were also concerns about inconsistency between the different intellectual property rights.
The Law Commission’s report was published in April 2014, and the Government have now the opportunity to consider the report fully.
The Government are grateful to the Law Commission for a report which is exhaustive and careful in its treatment of this complex matter, and which makes very clear and detailed recommendations for reform. I was also grateful for the Law Commission’s willingness to have further discussions with IPO officials on a number of the detailed issues raised by the report.
The Government accept the Law Commission’s conclusion that the threats provisions should be retained but reformed. As well as accepting the overarching thrust of the recommendations, the Government welcome many of the detailed suggestions for reform. There are just a few recommendations where the Government’s acceptance is in some way qualified. We will want to reflect further on these points, and take discussions forward with the Law Commission, stakeholders and others.
Copies of the Government’s full response to the report’s recommendations will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Aside from the recommendations made, the report also discusses the possibility of removing the threats provisions entirely and introducing a new tort of making unfair allegations, either within UK law or as part of wider EU reforms. No recommendations are made in this respect, and the Law Commission suggests that it makes sense to progress first with what the report calls the more “evolutionary” changes to the threats regime. The Government agree that the idea of a wider, new tort may deserve more consideration in the longer term, but agree with the conclusion that the more evolutionary reforms should be focussed upon at this stage.
The Government are also grateful for the report’s careful treatment of issues concerning the interplay between the threats regime and the proposed Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court. Although no specific recommendations are made, the report (and subsequent dialogue with the Law Commission) has been very helpful to Government in developing draft UK legislation with respect to threats provisions for Unitary Patents and the Unified Patent Court.
More widely, I know that the level of stakeholder interaction with the Law Commission during the groundless threats work has been excellent, particularly within the IP legal community. I recognise that there is wide support among that community for the proposed reforms.
The Government are therefore keen that this work should move forward, and intend to bring primary legislation to enact the necessary reforms in due course. The Government will want to look carefully at whether it might be possible to do this via the special parliamentary procedure which is available for Bills that implement uncontroversial Law Commission recommendations.
[HCWS302]
The Registration of Consultant Lobbyists Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Part 1 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 provides for a statutory register of consultant lobbyists, which the Government are committed to introducing before the general election. The statutory register of consultant lobbyists will increase transparency by requiring those who lobby on behalf of a third party to disclose the names of their clients on a publicly available register.
Today the Government are laying regulations made under sections 22 and 23 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 which will provide for certain practical aspects of the register and registration process to take effect.
The regulations make provision about: limitations on the duty to supply information to the registrar; charges; the supply of VAT-registration information to the registrar by HMRC; and the detail of the information that lobbyists will be required to submit in information returns.
The Cabinet Office is also publishing a response to the consultation, which we conducted on a draft of these regulations. I am placing copies of this response in the Libraries of both Houses and it will be available at: www.gov.uk
It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.
[HCWS314]
Anti-avoidance
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are committed to tackling tax avoidance to ensure the Exchequer is protected and fairness is maintained for the taxpayer.
HMRC has become aware of a proposed transaction that seeks to take advantage of a perceived gap in the sale and leaseback rules for capital allowances. The claimed effect of the transaction is to create tens of millions of pounds of capital allowances in respect of assets where no real expenditure has been incurred. The Government do not accept that these arrangements would have this effect, but we will put this beyond doubt by taking action today.
I am today announcing that legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill 2015 to ensure that where an asset is acquired without incurring expenditure, an entitlement to capital allowances cannot be created by a sale and leaseback or connected party transaction. The legislation will have effect from today and will protect significant amounts of revenue.
We have acted quickly to prevent any exploitation of these rules. This Government will not hesitate to eliminate opportunities for avoidance that create significant risk to the Exchequer.
Draft legislation and further details of this measure are being published on HMRC’s website today.
[HCWS316]
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I would like to update hon. Members on Rotherham council.
On 4 February, I informed the House that I was satisfied, having considered the report of the inspection by Louise Casey CB, that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty, and proposed to use my statutory powers of intervention to secure the council’s compliance with that duty.
As I told the House,
“The report...confirms a complete failure of political and officer leadership in Rotherham...Poor governance is deeply seated throughout the council. There is a pervading culture of bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced political correctness that has cemented the Council’s failures. Both members and officers lack the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or of upsetting community cohesion. The council is currently incapable of tackling its weakness without substantial intervention.”
I gave the council 14 days to make any representations it wished on the inspection report and my proposal for intervention. I have now carefully considered the representations that the council has made and, having considered afresh Louise Casey’s report, I remain satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty. It is encouraging that the council in its representations wholly accepts the conclusions in the report and welcomes the appointment of commissioners.
I have concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for me to exercise my intervention powers and, given the serious failures in the council, that, as I proposed, the intervention should initially be broad and wide ranging with commissioners exercising many of the authority’s functions until these can be confidently rolled back for the authority to exercise in compliance with its best value duty.
I therefore inform the House that today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and I have given the council the necessary directions under section 15(5) and 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1999 and section 497A(4B) of the Education Act 1996 to implement the proposed intervention measures to ensure Rotherham metropolitan borough council’s compliance with the best value duty and to secure that the authority’s children’s social care functions are performed to the required standard.
I am also minded shortly to make an order under the Local Government Act 2000, as I proposed, to move Rotherham council to holding all-out elections in 2016 and every fourth year thereafter. One of the political groups on the council has made representations to me that the 2015 local elections should be the first all-out elections. I have carefully considered this, but I am clear that making such a change only some two months before the elections is neither practicable nor desirable. The 2016 all-out elections, for which there will be adequate time for candidate selection and good planning, will provide a good foundation for the fresh start that Rotherham needs.
These intervention measures are centred on a team of commissioners who will both exercise functions of the authority and oversee a rigorous programme of improvement to bring about the essential changes in culture and ensure there is in future effective and accountable political and officer leadership.
Specific intervention measures include the following:
The commissioners exercising all the authority’s executive functions—i.e. the functions which are the responsibility of the authority’s cabinet—and certain other functions, in particular all licensing functions, including taxi licensing, and responsibility for appointing the authority’s three statutory officers, the chief executive, the chief finance officer and the monitoring officer.
The authority being required under the direction and oversight of commissioners to prepare and implement improvement and action plans in order to deliver rapid and sustainable improvements in governance, leadership, culture, the exercise of the overview and scrutiny functions and in the performance of services; every six months the authority must report progress to me and my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary.
An improvement panel or panels, as the commissioners agree, being put in place to hold the authority publicly to account for the progress it makes on securing future compliance with the best value duty and securing that its children’s social care functions are performed to the required standard.
The authority being required to cease to pay special responsibility allowances to members of its executive while they have no functions to exercise.
The commissioner team will comprise a lead commissioner; a commissioner with a full time “managing director” role, primarily to address the issues of ineffective officer leadership until a new chief executive is appointed; a children’s social care commissioner having particular responsibilities to secure improvement in the authority’s children’s social care functions; and two or more supporting commissioners.
I have nominated Sir Derek Myers to be the lead commissioner. Stella Manzie CBE will take the role of the managing director commissioner, and Malcolm Newsam will be nominated as children’s social care commissioner. Mary Ney and Julie Kenny CBE will be nominated as supporting commissioners.
The council will be required to comply with any instructions of the commissioners in relation to the exercise of those functions for which the commissioners are responsible, and to provide the commissioners at its expense with such services, amenities and administrative support as the commissioners may reasonably require, and with access to the council’s premises, documents, and to any employee or member as appears to the commissioners to be necessary.
The directions will remain in force until 31 March 2019 unless I consider it appropriate to amend or revoke them at an earlier date. I expect that there will be a phased roll back of powers to the authority as and when there can be confidence that the authority could exercise a function in compliance with the best value duty, and in the case of children’s social care, to the required standard. To this end the authority, under the direction of the commissioners, will be required every three months to review and report to me any functions which it is considered would be appropriate to be rolled back to the authority. If I agree I will then make the necessary amending direction.
It has also been suggested that the governance of the authority could be improved—made more transparent and accountable—if it were changed to the committee system. Before taking any steps to implement such a change, I will be inviting the commissioners views as to what they see would be the most effective and efficient form of governance for the authority. I am also open to representations from the public.
Though it is a difficult decision to undertake such a broad central intervention, I am clear that these exceptional circumstances, in which the people of Rotherham have been so profoundly let down by their authority, call for such action. I am confident that the measures which I and my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary are taking today will rejuvenate and improve local governance in Rotherham, restoring the faith local people can have in their council.
Louise Casey’s report also describes how a small youth project, Risky Business, developed a ground breaking approach to reaching out to victims of child sexual exploitation and to collecting evidence about perpetrators, until the misguided and inappropriate decisions of the council resulted in the closure of the Risky Business service. The report concludes that the critical work undertaken by Risky Business “is now missing from Rotherham”. This should not continue, and historical victims of child sexual exploitation should be given the help they need. So, accordingly, subject to being provided with an appropriate business case demonstrating value for money, I am prepared to make available £250,000 over the next two financial years for a Risky Business-style service to be established.
I am placing a copy of the documents associated with these announcements in the Library of the House and on my Department’s website.
[HCWS313]
Investigations into Allegations of Abuse in Children's Homes and Schools
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
This is a statement regarding investigations relating to Jimmy Savile and a number of children’s homes and schools in England.
On 27 March 2014 the then Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), informed the House about the transfer of information received by the Department for Education relating to Jimmy Savile and several children’s homes and schools in England, dating back to the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. This information was passed to the appropriate organisations for further investigation.
I can today inform the House that investigations have been completed by the relevant local authority, institution or legacy organisation and their individual reports are being published today.
None of the investigations have been able to reach firm conclusions about whether the alleged abuse took place or not. Although many of them say the informant was credible, the lack of corroborating evidence has prevented them from reaching a definitive conclusion. The investigating organisations are publishing a report of their findings today and links to their individual websites where the reports can be found are included at the end of this statement.
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff was appointed to provide independent oversight and quality assurance of the process and she has now produced a report covering a total of 14 investigations. The report “Independent oversight of investigations into matters relating to Jimmy Savile at schools and children’s homes” has been published today and is available at: http://www.gov.uk
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff concluded in her report that:
All the investigations reviewed into matters relating to Jimmy Savile have been conducted in an appropriate and robust fashion and that the resulting reports should be published.
All the investigations found that policy and practice has developed significantly in the schools and children’s homes since the time of alleged incidents. This is not as a result of Savile’s activities but because of the greater awareness of safeguarding risks that has developed over the last few decades.
The risk of a paedophile having unrestricted access to children, as Savile apparently had, is now substantially reduced.
I would like to thank Lucy Scott-Moncrieff for her assurance that the investigations were conducted in an appropriate and robust fashion.
Child abuse is an abhorrent crime whenever it occurs and whoever the perpetrator. All victims have a right to expect that allegations of abuse, no matter how much time has passed, will be investigated professionally and appropriately. I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to all the victims, survivors and witnesses for their invaluable assistance that has required them to relive distressing events in their life. These investigations would not have been possible without their co-operation.
Links to relevant websites for access to investigation reports:
Action for Children at: http://www.actionforchildren.org. uk/savilereport
Banardo’s at: http://www.barnardos.org.uk/ jsinvestigationfinalreport.pdf
Bournemouth Borough Council at: www.bournemouth. gov.uk/yewtree
Devon County Council at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/js-colleton-lodge-report.pdf http://www.devon.gov.uk/childrenfamilies
Gloucestershire County Council at: www.gloucestershire. gov.uk/saville-investigation-report
Henshaws Society for blind people at: http://henshaws. org.uk/resources/for-professionals/operation-yewtree
Hounslow Council at: http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/report-on-investigation
Leeds City Council at: http://www.leeds.gov.uk/ opendata/Pages/Savile-investigation.aspx
London Borough of Tower Hamlets at: http://www. childrenandfamiliestrust.co.uk/the-lscb
Manchester City Council at: www.manchester.gov.uk/savilereport
Nottinghamshire County Council at: http://www. nottinghamshire.gov.uk/caring/childrenstrust/pathwav-to-provision/mash
Nottingham City Council at: http://www.nottinghamcity. gov.uk/29395
Sevenoaks School at: http://www.sevenoaksschool.org/press-gallery
Southwark Council at: www.southwark.gov.uk/ holliesreport
[HCWS305]
PFI Academies
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
Today, I will lay before both Houses a minute setting out the revised details of the contingent liability created by the provision of indemnities to local authorities where schools in private finance initiative (PFI) contracts become academies. Both Houses were previously notified of this indemnity by a parliamentary minute laid on 13 July 2010. The contingent liability has increased since 2010 due to the rapid expansion of the academies programme and a more streamlined PFI academy conversion process.
As a result of our plan for education we now have a million more pupils in good or outstanding schools than in 2010. The academies programme has been crucial to this, helping to transform thousands of historically poor schools across the country.
No expenditure has ever arisen under this indemnity, in respect of the 164 PFI academies to date. The likelihood of any of the indemnity being realised is very low and would only be realised in relation to an individual PFI contract. The overall PFI liability has not risen. The perceived increase is because of a redistribution of schools from local authorities to the Department as the academies programme grows in popularity.
The continuation of this contingent liability means that my Department will provide indemnities to local authorities when PFI schools become academies. Local authorities will not, therefore, be left with bills arising from the actions of an academy trust over which the authority has no control.
This will give more schools the opportunity to join the 164 PFI academies already open and enjoy the benefits that academy status brings.
[HCWS317]
Hong Kong (Sino-British Joint Declaration)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at: www.gov.uk/government/ organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office. The report covers the period from 1 July to 31 December 2104. I commend the report to the House.
It is also available online at: http://parliament.uk/writtenstatements
[HCWS307]
End-of-Life Care
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
The independently led review of choice in end-of-life care has published its advice to Government today. I commissioned this review in July 2014 to look into how quality and experience for people approaching the end of life can be improved by expanding choice. The review was chaired by Claire Henry MBE, chief executive of the National Council of Palliative Care.
This Government are committed to ensuring that people nearing the end of their lives get high quality, compassionate care which is focused on their individual needs and preferences.
I welcome the review’s advice, which proposes that a “national choice offer” for everyone in need of end-of-life care should be in place by 2020 and sets out the actions needed to deliver this. As the review rightly notes, many people in England already receive good end-of-life care, focused on their choices, and I want to pay tribute to everyone involved in this care, both staff and carers.
The review’s advice has outlined a series of actions to ensure that everyone receives good care at this important point in their lives. This advice covers:
Early identification of people who are approaching the end of life.
Greater use of:
advance care planning to record people’s choices and preferences; and
electronic systems which enable records to be shared among all those involved in the person’s care and allow people to access and update their own records.
24/7 care for people being cared for outside hospital.
A named senior clinician with overall responsibility for the delivery of good care for each person approaching the end of life.
Enabling family members and those important to the individual to be involved in discussions about care preferences and ensuring carers have support.
Training and work force numbers to ensure that staff are supported to deliver good care.
The steps that health and social care organisations can take to create the right conditions to improve choice, including guidance for commissioners, working with the voluntary sector—in particular hospices—and robust metrics to measure improvements.
The review advises how more people can be cared for in their own home, as this is a key choice for many people approaching the end of their lives. It sets out the savings that more out-of-hospital care can achieve in acute care, as well as the additional investment needed in community health and social care services.
The Government will work with organisations in the health and care system to consider this advice and enable a full response later this year.
In the meantime, I can say that we fully support the review’s vision that every person should receive care in line with their choices and preferences, and we urge local health and care organisations to work together to ensure that this is achieved for as many people as possible.
In particular, we recognise that interoperable electronic health records play a central role in ensuring that people’s preferences and choices are recorded and shared with all involved in their care. Examples from across the country have shown that where these systems exist they can deliver real benefits to people at the end of life and form an important part of the culture change needed to deliver choice and person-centred care.
To help this happen, the Government accept the review’s advice that each person approaching the end of life should have a fully interoperable electronic health record, and should be able to access and add to their own records. This is in line with the ambition set out for all patients in the “NHS Five Year Forward View”.
I would like to thank the chair and the review’s programme board for their hard work and commitment. Finally, I would also like to thank all the contributors to the review, and in particular the people who responded to the review’s public engagement exercise.
A copy of “What’s important to me: A Review of Choice in End-of-life care” is available in the Library. Copies are also available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications? departments%5b%5d=department-of-health
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/writtenstatements
[HCWS301]
R v. “Mouncher and Others' Trial” (Investigation)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I have decided to call for an independent, QC-led investigation into the collapse of the R v. “Mouncher and others” 2011 trial.
Stephen Miller, John and Ronald Actie, Yusef Abdullahi and Anthony Paris were wrongfully prosecuted and stood trial in 1990 for the murder of Lynette White in 1988. Stephen Miller, Yusef Abdullahi and Anthony Paris were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, while John and Ronald Actie were acquitted. Ronald Actie and Yusef Abdullahi are deceased. The three surviving victims of the miscarriage of justice, Stephen Miller, John Actie and Anthony Paris, are the claimants in this case.
The 2011 trial (R v. “Mouncher and others”) of police officers for offences connected with the 1990 trial, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury, collapsed.
I have asked Richard Horwell QC to carry out this investigation and he has agreed. Mr Horwell is an excellent QC with experience of both prosecution and defence work. He is currently counsel for the Metropolitan Police Service in the Litvinenko inquiry.
He will be supported by a junior barrister, Patrick Hill, from the same chambers, to assist with the groundwork involved.
The investigation team has agreed the terms of reference with the three surviving victims of the miscarriage of justice and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House. The investigation will begin on 2 March 2015 and will aim to complete its findings by summer 2015. The team will report to me and I intend to publish the investigation’s report.
The purpose of the investigation is to understand how the collapse of the 2011 trial came about, covering all questions of resources, performance and conduct which were not addressed by the previous investigations. In particular, it will explore:
The reasons why leading counsel for the Crown lost confidence in the disclosure process and the prosecution was therefore abandoned.
Whether 227 boxes of documents were overlooked and the contents not considered for the purposes of disclosure in the prosecution.
The investigation team is calling for evidence to be submitted to the investigation for consideration alongside the significant amount of material to be made available by South Wales police. Evidence should be sent to operationmouncher@3rblaw.com
I am grateful to the chief constable of South Wales police for the support he has offered to the investigation.
[HCWS312]
Fees under Licensing Act 2003
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)
This Government strongly support the vital contribution that responsible businesses, including local pubs, hotels, restaurants and community premises make to our economy and to their communities.
We are committed to freeing up local communities to tackle alcohol-fuelled harms and took swift action in 2011 to overhaul the Licensing Act 2003 to make it easier for licensing authorities and the police to deal with problem premises.
Through public consultation, the Government have listened to the concerns of businesses and community groups and decided not to introduce locally set licensing fees at this time.
The consultation focused on the proposed regime for locally set fees under the 2003 Act. The proposals included the proposed caps on each fee and whether or not fee levels should vary for different kinds of premises or should be the same for all premises. There were 681 responses to the consultation. Around a quarter of the responses were from local government and almost all of the remainder were from fee payers, such as individuals and small businesses in the licensed trade and representatives of community and village halls. Fee payers were strongly opposed to locally set fees and concerned that fees would rise significantly without justification. Many were particularly critical of the evidence base.
Alongside the public consultation, the Government sought evidence from local government about licensing costs. The importance of this cost survey was emphasised by the Government in the ministerial foreword and at consultation events, which were well attended by representatives of licensing authorities. However, only 20 of the 350 licensing authorities responded to the request for information about their costs. This followed a similar, pre-consultation exercise to which only 17 authorities provided full responses. The evidence presents a limited and contradictory picture of the relationship between licensing authority costs and income. The insufficient evidence means that the Government are not in a position to determine the details of the proposed new fees regime or predict its consequences with confidence.
Therefore, having carefully considered the concerns of the licensed trade and the evidence provided by local government, the Government have decided not to proceed with the implementation of locally set fees. Instead, we will invite the Local Government Association to provide better evidence of licensing authorities’ costs.
As well as locally set fees, the consultation sought views on whether there should be a single payment date for annual fees, which are currently payable on the anniversary of the day the licence was granted. The majority of both fee payers and local government opposed this change. The Government have listened to their views and decided to consider further an alternative approach, proposed during the consultation events, under which licence holders can nominate their own payment date, if they wish, by notifying the relevant licensing authority, rather than introducing a universal date. This change will particularly benefit businesses that hold multiple licences, such as a chain of pubs, without imposing unnecessary change on small businesses and community premises.
Copies of the Government’s response to the consultation, including the details of 2003 Act, and a breakdown of consultation responses, will be placed in the Library of the House and published on the gov.uk website: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/locally-set-licensing-fees
[HCWS308]
Equality Act 2010
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I have made an authorisation under paragraph 17(4)(a) of schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010, the Equality (Consideration of Immigration Applications and Removal Directions) Authorisation 2015. This enables the Home Office to give greater scrutiny or priority to particular nationalities in carrying out entry clearance, border control, immigration casework in the country and removals functions.
The authorisation allows the Home Office to target its resources effectively in managing UK immigration controls. It uses statistical and intelligence-based evidence to identify the nationalities that pose the greatest risk to immigration controls and it permits Home Office staff to give greater scrutiny to those nationalities when making decisions.
This authorisation came into force today. It replaces the Equality (Transit Visa, Entry Clearance, Leave to Enter, Examination of Passengers and Removal Directions) Authorisation 2011, which has been revoked. The authorisation is made under the nationality exception for immigration functions contained in the Equality Act 2010. The nationalities covered by the authorisation will be reviewed each quarter by the Home Office and submitted for ministerial approval.
I have made an equivalent authorisation for Northern Ireland under section 20C of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. This authorisation also came into force today.
I am placing a copy of the authorisations in the Library of the House.
[HCWS309]
Home Office 2014-15 Funding
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Home Office is seeking an advance of £275 million in 2014-15 from the Contingencies Fund under category D of the supply estimates guidance manual to meet its cash funding obligations. The cash advance from the Contingencies Fund is the only mechanism through which the Home Office can meet its financial obligations in March ahead of the conclusion of the supplementary process.
The Home Office has come under significant and sustained cash funding pressure towards the end of the 2014-15 financial year. A number of core and policing pressures have contributed to this. The Department pays out a large proportion of its monthly cash requirement—predominantly police related—within the first week of the month. This leads to a funding shortfall at the start of March, until the additional funds secured through the supplementary become available towards the end of the month. Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £66,400,000 and additional cash of £208,600,000 is being sought within a supplementary estimate for the Home Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £275 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS315]
Immigration Act Commencement and Changes in Immigration Rules
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Today is another significant milestone in bringing the reforms in the Immigration Act 2014 into force. We are finishing the task of sweeping away the remains of the excessive number of rights of appeal and implementing the new scheme to stop sham marriages being used to circumvent immigration controls.
On 24 November I announced our plans to implement from 2 March 2015 the main provisions in the Act that tackle sham marriage and civil partnership. Today’s commencement order, together with the secondary legislation we have already laid before Parliament, will bring the new scheme into force from that date. The Act 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.
Last October we started the phased implementation of the new immigration appeals system. The old system was a costly and time-consuming way to correct simple case work errors which could be resolved by a request to the Home Office to review the decision. Instead of appeals, the new system provides a system of administrative review through which case work errors will be corrected within 28 days. By 6 April 2015 the new appeals system will be fully in place.
Also on 6 April 2015 new provisions will come into force that enable children of unmarried British fathers born before 2006 to register as British citizens, correcting a historical anomaly in our nationality law.
The Immigration Act continues to prove itself as a radical new tool to tackle immigration abuse. Over 300 foreign criminals have now been deported who before this legislation existed would have had rights of appeal delaying their removal. Over 5,000 driving licences have been revoked from migrants with no right to be in the United Kingdom. Banks are now checking the immigration status of prospective customers and landlord checks are being phased in, starting in the west midlands, since last December.
I am also making other changes to the immigration rules.
I am laying a new set of immigration rules for visitors. The new visitor rules will reduce the number of visitor routes from 15 to four, removing duplication and complexity in the system, and will make the immigration rules for visitors clearer and more accessible for applicants and decision-makers.
One of the main delays in removing and deporting persons with no right to be in the United Kingdom is the time taken to obtain a travel document from the relevant consular authorities. To address that I am making changes to require an original, valid passport, travel document or national identity card as a requirement in most cases for a valid application for leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain from a person in the UK without refugee status or humanitarian protection.
To ensure our processes are robust I am imposing a requirement on migrants, if requested to do so, to attend an interview or provide documentation, to show they still meet the requirements of the rules. I am also taking a power to enable us to require an applicant for entry clearance to provide a criminal record certificate from the country in which they have been living for the past 10 years. We plan to roll out this requirement on a phased basis.
I am also making a number of changes to the points-based system, including implementing changes to the shortage occupation list recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee and updating salary thresholds for tier 2 workers.
The rules include a number of other policy changes which are described in more detail in the explanatory memorandum published with the statement of changes.
[HCWS311]
Syrian Nationals (Immigration Concession)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I am today announcing a further renewal of concessions to the immigration rules for Syrian nationals lawfully in the UK.
In light of the ongoing violent conflict in Syria it has been decided that the Home Office should continue to operate some discretion to enable Syrians legally in the UK to extend their stay here.
Syrians in the UK with valid leave (or leave which has expired within the last 28 days) in specified visa categories will continue to be able to apply to extend their stay in that visa category, or switch into a different specified category from within the UK (with some restrictions) rather than being required to return home first. Those applying will still need to meet the requirements of the relevant visa category, pay the appropriate fee, and adhere to the normal conditions of that category—no access to public funds, for example. If a required document is not accessible due to the civil unrest in Syria the Home Office may apply its discretion and the requirement to provide that document may be waived where appropriate.
These concessions will remain in force until 28 February 2016. The Government continue to monitor the situation in Syria closely in order to ensure our response is appropriate and that any emerging risks are addressed.
I am placing a copy of the authorisation for this concession in the Library of the House.
[HCWS310]
Prison Service Pay Review Body (Appointment)
(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)
I am pleased to announce that the Prime Minister has appointed Nicholas Caton as a member of the Prison Service Pay Review Body for three years, commencing 26 November 2014. The appointment has been conducted in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ code of practice on appointments to public bodies.
[HCWS300]
Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My noble friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy (Lord Faulks QC) has made the following written ministerial statement:
“The Government have made a priority of addressing the high costs of civil litigation in England and Wales. To that end, Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 reforms the operation of no win no fee conditional fee agreements. Those reforms came into effect generally in April 2013, but were delayed until April 2015 in respect of insolvency proceedings (Official Report, 24 May 2012: column 94 WS). This delay was to give insolvency practitioners and other interested parties time to prepare for and adapt to the changes. However, the Government now agrees that more time is needed.
The Government will therefore delay commencing sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act 2012 for insolvency proceedings for the time being. Accordingly, no win no fee agreements in insolvency proceedings will continue for the time being to operate on a pre-LASPO Act basis with any conditional fee agreement success fees and after the event insurance premiums remaining recoverable from the losing party.
We will consider the appropriate way forward for insolvency proceedings and will set out further details later in the year.”
[HCWS303]
Northern Ireland Security Situation
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
This is the seventh statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland and the final regular statement of this Parliament. It covers the threat from domestic terrorism in Northern Ireland, rather than from international terrorism, which members will be aware is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who updates the House separately.
A number of small, disparate but dangerous groupings of dissident republican terrorists continue with their attempts to undermine Northern Ireland’s democratic institutions through the use of violence. However, because of the tireless efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), working in conjunction with MI5, An Garda Siochana (AGS) and Army ammunition technical officers, the overwhelming majority of Northern Ireland’s population are able to go about their daily lives untroubled by terrorism. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the PSNI and all its security partners for their outstanding work.
Continued vigilance is, however, essential. The threat level in Northern Ireland and Great Britain from Northern Ireland related terrorism remains unchanged since my last statement to Parliament in October 2014. The threat to Northern Ireland is SEVERE (an attack is highly likely) while the threat to Great Britain is MODERATE (an attack is possible but not likely). All threat levels are kept under constant review.
There were twenty two national security attacks in 2014 and there has been one so far in 2015. PSNI and prison officers as well as members of the armed forces continue to be the principal targets for dissident republican terrorists and the threat to life persists. A number of these violent groupings continue to attack, or aspire to carry out attacks, including the so-called “new” IRA, Oglaigh na hEireann (ONH) and factions of the continuity IRA (CIRA).
Since October 2014 when I last reported on the security situation in Northern Ireland, PSNI officers have been subject to violent attack on five separate occasions. In two particularly serious incidents violent dissidents set up booby trapped explosive devices in Strabane and Londonderry and then attempted to lure in PSNI officers by making bogus crime reports. Although the devices were intended to target responding PSNI officers, they could easily have been triggered by passers-by or even by children playing. Thankfully, both devices were made safe by Army ammunition technical officers before anyone was injured.
Two further attempts to murder PSNI officers undertaking their duties were made in Londonderry and Belfast in November. In Londonderry, terrorists detonated an improvised explosive device in a residential area of the city as a police patrol vehicle passed by, while in north Belfast an explosive device was fired at a stationary PSNI vehicle. Fortunately, the occupants of both vehicles escaped uninjured but both attacks could easily have resulted in fatalities or serious casualties. In a fifth incident an explosive device was sent to the Chief Constable at police headquarters in Belfast.
Dissident republicans continue to engage in brutal punishment shootings as a means to try to exert fear and control within local communities.
Hoax devices have been deployed without any regard for the impact they have on the welfare of the community, including elderly residents, children and workers. These shameful incidents can cause significant disruption to local people and to businesses.
Dissident republican prisoners in Maghaberry continue to threaten, and to try to intimidate, staff and contractors as they seek to carry out their work. This Government fully support the Department of Justice and the Northern Ireland Prison Service as they respond to this wholly unacceptable activity and I pay tribute to all prison officers for the difficult job that they carry out.
Although risks endure, it is important to highlight the excellent progress that has been made in disrupting terrorist activity and bringing dissident republicans to justice. In October 2014 a weapons hide was uncovered on a farm in County Fermanagh. It was found to contain five complete explosive devices, parts for further devices, a firearm and mortar components. In November, a potential shooting attack was averted when the PSNI arrested a man in possession of a sub-machine gun in Belfast. Also in November, a total of fifteen men were arrested following a long-running investigation into dissident republican activity in Newry, County Down. Of those arrested, ten were charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 and remanded in custody.
In the Republic of Ireland, An Garda Siochana (AGS) has also had success in combating the threat. A weapons cache discovered in Dublin was found to contain an assault rifle, automatic pistols, ammunition and a significant quantity of bomb-making equipment that could have been intended for use in attacks in Northern Ireland. Two men were arrested in December in possession of improvised incendiary devices probably destined for use in Northern Ireland.
The close working relationship between PSNI and AGS, and their joint efforts both north and south of the border, has led to considerable success in combating the threat from dissident republican terrorists over the last six months. I am confident that both police services will do all that they can to build on this through 2015 as they make progress with a number of ongoing investigations. This work is painstaking and lengthy but there is a steadfast commitment to bringing the terrorists to justice on both sides of the border.
In my last statement I commented on in-fighting within loyalist paramilitary organisations. This has persisted in recent months and understandably remains a cause for concern for the wider community. There is no place in Northern Ireland for individuals or organisations that seek to exert fear, control or intimidation. The PSNI have assured me that they are doing all that they can to apprehend those responsible for violent and criminal acts.
As in previous reporting periods, there are individuals associated with loyalist paramilitary groups that are involved in serious criminality. However, overall, we continue to assess that the collective leaderships of the principal loyalist paramilitary groups, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), remain committed to their ceasefires.
The Government’s Strategic Approach
The Government are clear that terrorism will not succeed in Northern Ireland; democracy and consent will always prevail. Tackling terrorism remains a tier one priority—the highest priority for Government. We will do all that we can to support the PSNI to counter the threat as part of broader efforts by this Government to tackle terrorism, wherever it originates or whatever form it takes.
This Government have already provided additional security funding to PSNI over a five-year period amounting to £231 million. This is despite the overall spending reductions needed to deal with the deficit and the competing resource needs resulting from international terrorism. In addition, the inclusion in the financial package of Stormont House agreement of an undertaking by the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that police funding is protected from significant reductions will help to ensure that the PSNI remains able to tackle the threat effectively.
Our strategic approach has also involved working closely with our colleagues in the devolved authorities and our partners in the Republic of Ireland on a range of issues. This co operation greatly strengthens efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland.
We continue to build a united, complementary approach to security and politics that leaves no space for violent dissident republicans. We recognise the continuing link between political and security stability. Political progress has been made this year, for example with the Stormont House agreement, but challenges undoubtedly lie ahead.
Other strategic and political challenges, distinct from the threat from dissident republican groupings, require ongoing and concerted action to ensure Northern Ireland continues to thrive.
For instance public disorder is disruptive and distressing for the communities affected, damages Northern Ireland's reputation abroad, and can expose police officers to risk of attack from dissident republicans. Northern Ireland enjoyed the most peaceful parading season for a number of years in 2014. Those involved in parading or protests need to do all they can to ensure this continues.
Conclusion
Suppressing the threat from violent dissident republicans is a difficult and, in many cases, dangerous task. Despite a challenging working environment, there have been notable successes in recent months. This is the result of the considerable effort, expertise, co-operation and resolve. But continued vigilance is needed. It is clear that these violent groupings retain lethal intent and will seek whatever opportunity they can to target the police officers and others who help to keep families, businesses and communities across Northern Ireland safe. The support of the public and their assistance and patience in response to security alerts is both invaluable and admirable.
With every attack that is mounted and the many more that are foiled, the PSNI and its security partners become more knowledgeable, resilient and able to tackle the threat and bring perpetrators to justice. Our commitment to Northern Ireland and to securing a peaceful, stable and prosperous future will not waver. We remain focused on supporting the work that continues on a daily basis to combat terrorism and ensure that people can continue to go about their daily lives safe from attack.
[HCWS304]
Intelligence and Security Committee Report on the Murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby (Government Response)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament on the intelligence relating to the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby was published on 25 November 2014. The Government’s thoughts remain with the family and friends of Fusilier Lee Rigby. The Government wish to reiterate their thanks to the Committee for their comprehensive report. The Government have considered the Committee’s detailed conclusions and recommendations.
I have today laid the Government’s response to this report before the House and copies are available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS306]
Grand Committee
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Georgia) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Georgia) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to the EU definition of treaties association agreement orders for Moldova and Ukraine.
Today we are considering three draft orders that relate to association agreements between the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, and three countries: namely, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. The purpose of these draft orders is to declare the agreements to be EU treaties, as defined under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. The draft orders we debate today are a necessary step towards UK ratification of these agreements.
Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have all chosen to pursue closer ties with the European Union. These countries have decided of their own free will to sign association agreements in order to support their own reform programmes and to seek closer political association and economic integration with the European Union. We fully support the sovereign choices of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine and strongly believe that no third country should have a veto over their decisions.
These association agreements, with their deep and comprehensive free trade areas, are wide ranging. They provide strong mechanisms through which to deliver security, democracy and prosperity. They commit Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine to deep and meaningful reforms, to align more closely their legislation to EU norms, focusing on support to core reforms, including economic recovery and growth, good governance, improved respect for rule of law, and human rights. They will allow for the closer integration of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine with the EU and will promote increased prosperity and stability in the European neighbourhood. That is not only in the interests of those three countries, but is clearly in the interest of the EU, including the United Kingdom.
The ratification of these three agreements is not an end in itself. They form part of a process to drive forward continuous reform in all three countries. The European Commission will prepare annual progress reports to reflect each country’s strengths and highlight areas for improvement. The scope and nature of the agreements are similar. That is why we are considering the draft orders together today. However, we should bear in mind that each country faces different pressures and has its own distinct priorities for its relationship with the EU.
The first order before us today, which I formally moved, relates to Georgia. Georgia has watched closely as events have unfolded in Ukraine. Both the Georgian Government and public have drawn parallels with the 2008 conflict with Russia. The Georgian Government are extremely concerned about the situation in Ukraine and its implications for their country, and have lobbied EU member states actively to ratify Georgia’s association agreement.
We remain clear, however, about the importance of Georgia continuing with reforms and fulfilling its commitments for signature of its agreement. Strengthened respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law are part of the process of moving closer to the EU. While not without setbacks, Georgia’s progress in the areas of democratisation and economic reform over the last 10 years has been impressive. The agreement will further help to encourage Georgia to drive forward with genuine commitment and energy the reforms necessary for the country’s long-term security and prosperity.
The European path has widespread support across Georgian society and the country’s main political parties. Since Georgia’s parliamentary and presidential elections in 2012 and 2013, which witnessed the first peaceful transfer of power in Georgia—a rarity in the former Soviet space—the Georgian coalition Government have remained committed to and have continued on the pro-EU trajectory set by the previous Government.
The wider south Caucasus region is of strategic importance to the UK and the EU. Continued stability in this region is also essential for the UK’s prosperity and energy security goals. It is therefore strongly in our interests that Georgia continues along its EU path. Since the brief Russia-Georgia war in 2008, the EU has played an important role in conflict resolution through the EU special representative for the south Caucasus and EU monitoring mission that provides an effective monitoring presence along the administrative boundary lines between Georgia and its breakaway regions. Closer political association and greater economic integration into the EU is the most effective way to promote reform and modernisation in Georgia, as well as contributing to conflict resolution.
I turn to the order relating to Moldova. Moldova’s parliamentary elections of 30 November 2014 illustrate Moldova’s continued commitment to democracy. A new coalition Government were appointed by the Moldovan Parliament on 18 February. We hope that they will govern in an inclusive and accountable manner and make early progress with the implementation of Moldova’s association agreement. It will be important to maintain, even speed up, the progress that Moldova has made since 2009 in administrative reform, independence of the judiciary, combating discrimination, and ensuring that democratic processes and respect for human rights are more deeply embedded in Moldovan society and more able to resist pressure from destabilising outside forces.
The protracted conflict in Transnistria remains unresolved, largely because of the malign role of Russia. Despite attempts by the European institutions, EU member states and the Government of Moldova, the de facto authorities in Tiraspol refused to engage meaningfully in negotiations over the association agreement. Nevertheless, an increasing share—now more than half—of Transnistrian exports go to the EU. Many businesses in the Transnistria breakaway region have a strong interest in positive relations with Chisinau and the EU, and could provide a positive influence for change.
Before I progress to the order which relates to Ukraine, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I update it on the latest situation there, before saying more about the Ukraine association agreement. This is not a debate about the situation in Ukraine, but I appreciate that this is a moving picture, and Ministers have a duty to inform the House.
As the Committee will know, an agreement on a ceasefire was reached in Minsk on 12 February. It includes provisions embodied in an original ceasefire agreement also agreed in Minsk in September 2014. These measures include the withdrawal of heavy weapons to agreed distances from the line of contact, and the withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, military equipment and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine. The 12 February agreement also envisages fresh elections under Ukrainian law in the breakaway, separatist-held areas and for constitutional reform to bring a more decentralised system of government in Ukraine.
The Minsk agreements were endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2202 on 17 February. This underlines the need for all signatory parties to implement their obligations. This resolution will allow the Security Council to monitor that closely.
There must be a particular focus on ensuring that Russia and the separatists honour their commitments. In the weeks that preceded the Minsk agreement of 12 February, Russia stepped up military support to the separatists. It transferred heavy weaponry and maintains hundreds of regular soldiers, including special forces, in Ukraine. Even after the ceasefire came into effect on 15 February, separatist and Russian forces continued to mount attacks on Ukrainian positions, including in the town of Debaltseve, an important road and rail hub, which finally fell on 18 February.
The consequences of Russia’s actions in Ukraine have been devastating. Since fighting started, we have seen more than 5,000 dead, tens of thousands injured and more than 1.5 million people forced to take refuge elsewhere. It is Russia, through its support for the separatists, which is responsible for this and Russia which must be held to account. As the Prime Minister made clear at the European Council on 12 February, Europe must send a clear message to President Putin that until Russia changes its behaviour, sanctions will remain in place. Russia must recognise that Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity should be respected and that Ukraine should be allowed to make its own sovereign decisions. The association agreement is just such a sovereign decision.
For Ukraine, the association agreement represents a very clear public commitment, by both the EU and Ukraine, to a deep relationship and close co-operation and to the continuation of much needed deep-rooted reforms. Although the provisional application of the deep and comprehensive free trade area has been postponed to 1 January 2016, the provisional application of important areas such as the rule of law and the fight against crime and corruption came into force on 1 November 2014.
The proposal to delay, at the request of President Poroshenko, the provisional application of the deep and comprehensive free trade area of the association agreement until 1 January 2016 was done in the spirit of peacebuilding, giving Ukraine and Russia time to discuss their economic relationship. The proposal offered a pragmatic solution to address Russia’s stated concerns about the deep and comprehensive free trade area, while leaving the text unchanged. In the mean time, the EU will continue the application of autonomous trade measures for the benefit of Ukraine until the end of 2015, granting Ukrainian exporters continued preferential access to EU markets without waiting for the trade provisions under the association agreement to enter into force.
These association agreements will be supported by continuing financial and technical support from the European Union on strengthening the rule of law, advancing judicial reforms, fighting corruption, ensuring respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and strengthening democratic institutions. The EU provides funding to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova under the European Neighbourhood Instrument. The Commission currently plans to allocate at the minimum €2.1 billion and, depending on the pace of reform, could allocate up to €2.6 billion to support Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine between 2014 and 2020. This is a significant increase on the previous period for all three countries.
In conclusion, we firmly believe that the implementation of the association agreements will bring mutual benefits to Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and to the EU. We should all be clear, however, that this will not happen overnight. It is a complex region—we have all noticed that and debated it. There are no easy solutions to the crisis in Ukraine. Georgia and Moldova both have protracted conflicts and disputed territories within their borders. The association agreements have the potential to have a positive impact in the region and on these conflicts as Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine become more economically successful and politically stable. But we, along with the EU and other partners, will need to stay closely involved to ensure that these agreements fulfil that potential and bring maximum benefits to the region, which is in all our interests. I commend the draft orders to the Committee and I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, all of us will be grateful to my noble friend for her presentation of these orders. As outlined, the association agreements are intended to deepen political and economic relations between these states and other parties.
Neither Georgia, Moldova nor Ukraine is a member of the European Union; however, all three are members of the Council of Europe and its 47 states’ affiliation. By the Council of Europe, the three states are already held to account for meeting obligations. This occurs through its Parliament, through monitoring mechanisms—for example, CPT, ECRI and FCNM—and at the Court in Strasbourg.
Clearly, we want to avoid double handling or reinventing the wheel unnecessarily. This would occur if a branch of the European Union or some other improvised European process should try to set up its own rule of law mechanism for monitoring and deployment—not least if such should be attempted in connection with the association agreements that we are considering.
Can my noble friend assure us that such double handling is not envisaged and will not occur; and that, instead, today’s association agreements can therefore progress constructively and creatively, and be facilitated by Council of Europe structures that are already in place?
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the orders, and I am sure that we are all grateful to her for bringing us up to date on the situation in Ukraine. I should say at the outset that I support the orders and the fact that the European Union has entered into these association agreements with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.
These countries have two things in common: first, they are victims of territorial disputes and, secondly, all have sought a European and westward-looking future. Ukraine is, of course, in the forefront of the news today, and the dispute over Crimea and part of eastern Ukraine sadly seems likely to be added to the list of frozen conflicts, joining those in South Ossetia, Abkhazia in Georgia, and Transnistria in Moldova.
I have just come back from the meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, where discussion about the situation in Ukraine dominated proceedings. However, deep concerns were also expressed about Russia’s intentions in respect of Moldova and Georgia—and the Baltic states, which are outside the area we are discussing. We must do everything we can to anticipate Russian intentions towards these states and not allow the dissident parts to provide the excuse for Russia to undermine the rest of the country seeking a different, European and democratic future. We have already seen Armenia turn its face against an association agreement.
This afternoon is not the place to go into these situations in detail but, while I entirely agree that Russia should not have a veto over the future of any sovereign state, it is important that the position of the European Union and our Government is clear—namely, that although the agreements are a welcome step to inclusion of these countries in Europe, there can be no question of accession to the European Union while these territorial disputes exist. Unless we make that clear, we stand the risk of dashing the hopes of many citizens in those countries, and that can lead only to disillusionment with the European Union and the West in general.
Nevertheless, we should adopt the agreements with enthusiasm and offer as much assistance and economic help as possible to buttress the sometimes fragile democracies that exist in these countries. The agreements are with each of the three countries and the Governments of those countries do not recognise the independence of or the occupation of part of their respective states. It may be an academic point, but the agreements make no reference to these facts. My noble friend referred to businesses in Transnistria; are we quite satisfied that the benefits of these agreements cannot be claimed by businesses— which are no doubt very inventive as to where goods are produced and subsequently exported from—which are in fact based in these disputed territories? If that is considered to be too fanciful, are we in any circumstances under the agreements able to differentiate between the three sovereign states and their Governments and the areas over which they have no control and are in dispute?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her helpful introduction and explanation of the situation. I spent many years making EU law, but perhaps not so much time implementing it, and therefore I am not familiar with this process. Before moving on to other things, perhaps I could ask about the draft Explanatory Memorandum. It explains that one of the effects of the order, declaring that the agreement is to be regarded as an EU treaty under the ECA 1972, is that certain rights and obligations under the agreement automatically become law in the United Kingdom and then subordinate legislation can be made to give effect to the provisions of the agreement. I am not clear which rights and obligations automatically become law. It may be that the noble Baroness can take me aside at some point and explain how all this works, and that will clear my confusion.
My more general point is to strongly welcome these association agreements. I agree with everything the noble Baroness has said about the prospect of not only greater prosperity for the citizens of these three countries, but also greater security for the European Union, and I agree that the prospect of better energy security is a factor in that discussion.
I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the role of the Council of Europe. It is important that the roles of the EU and the Council of Europe should be complementary. It is fair to say that the EU has much greater resources than the Council of Europe; we know that the Council is always stretched for money, partly because its member states do not give it enough. They should not trip over each other. At one point there was a tendency for the EU to sort of push aside the Council of Europe, which is not a clever idea. The EU needs to come in as a complementary body, and of course it has another role to play in terms of the economic and trade relationship. However, for the rule of law, fighting corruption and an independent judiciary, obviously we have the whole Strasbourg package—aquis, if you like—and that is essentially what the EU wants to implement. There should not be any institutional jealousy between the two organisations. Sometimes during my time as a Member of the European Parliament, there was evidence of a bit of that. After all, the EU pinched the flag of the Council of Europe. However, it is important that the two should work together so as to add value to each other.
I welcome what the Minister said about the provisions on the rule of law and the fight against corruption which have been in force since last November. I should like to stress the importance of that. If we look at the history of countries acceding to the EU, although I know that this is not about accession, it is arguable that not enough was done in these areas before they were admitted to the European Union and there have been continuing problems in the existing member states. More must be done. We really need to front-load this issue. You cannot have a flourishing economy or property rights without an independent judiciary. It is almost more important even than democracy, in a sense. Certainly, some drew that conclusion from the western Balkans. You cannot have economic reform, as I say, without a strong independent judicial system.
I agree with the Minister that, while we must not overstate it, these association agreements have the potential to have a beneficial effect on the prospect of dealing with the conflicts because the people in the breakaway regions would be able to see the benefits of participating in a deep relationship with the EU and would want a slice of the action. But the association agreements of themselves are not going to solve the conflicts.
I welcome what the Minister had to say in going slightly outside the scope of these orders to update us on the situation as regards Ukraine. In that context, I am extremely shocked to read today that the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr Anastasiades, on a visit to Moscow, has formalised an agreement for Russian warships to use Cypriot military bases and has also spoken against EU policy on Ukraine. We know that there is press commentary on the difficulty of keeping together a common EU policy on sanctions and the prospect of tightening sanctions on Russia. There were worries about Greece. There have been worries about Hungary, of course, which I mentioned in the House the other day. Mr Orban hosted President Putin the other day. I personally find this the most extraordinary disloyalty by EU member states towards a common EU policy on Russia. I hope that some very candid words are being shared around the European Council table with some of our member states.
I know we have just a short procedure here so I will not go on. These association agreements are extremely welcome. Perhaps from smaller acorns big things will grow. One day, perhaps, one or more of these countries will be eligible to join the European Union. This is not the time and there is no guarantee of that. Personally, I hope that it might be possible for at least some of them and this at least leaves the door open. But as the Minister said, it is their sovereign choice what relationship they want with the EU. All parties in the UK have always supported the process of enlargement and the European Neighbourhood Policy, because it is not just for benefit of those countries; it is for our security.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few words. I was in Georgia last July, just after the association agreement was signed, and I cannot underestimate the euphoria that there was, but of course I was among Ministers and people negotiating the agreement. The Georgian Orthodox Church is not exactly of the same mind and I think it may lead them all downhill.
I note from the Explanatory Memorandum that the impact is very modest on the UK economy. The figure of £0.6 million is quoted. Perhaps the Minister could reassure me that this really is the bottom end of the range and that Georgia, if the situation remains stable, can expect a gradual improvement. I would also like to be reassured that there has been no further development on the Russian front in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is not a stable Government—there has already been a change of Minister since we were there—but I am very pleased to read in press reports of the solidarity there is between Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia. They were, for example, at the celebration of the centenary events of the Maidan in Kiev. The Georgian President was invited, and I know that there has been a lot of exchange. I do not think that these association agreements need disturb the Russians unduly. We have moved on from last year and must all expect greater prosperity to follow from them.
I was on the European Union Committee which produced the report on Ukraine and Russia recently. I very much hope the Government will respond to it swiftly, because it will give more of us an urgent opportunity to discuss the situation.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the measured and moderate way in which she spoke about these agreements. She will recall that, in a previous life, she appointed me as one of our delegates to the Council of Europe. Since that time, I have managed to become the chairman of the sub-committee on the application of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, where I am privileged to have a Georgian as my vice-chair. I want to take up the point that has been made about not getting too much crossover between the legitimate job of the European Court of Human Rights and that of the European Commission and its annual report.
I speak from long experience of the European Parliament, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, does. The Commission loves to stray well beyond its remit into giving its opinion on many things in the world and is likely to do so. Through the Committee of Ministers mechanism at the Council of Europe, we should be able to ensure that there is some sort of balance and that we do not get into a position where they are both looking at the same thing. There is quite a clear job to do, and I am sure that resources are scarce. I spent 10 years on the liaison committee between the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. There was constant jealousy in the Council of Europe at our budget-raising powers and the fact that the Parliament could raise its own budget, whereas the Council of Europe of course had to negotiate its. None the less, no one has doubted that the European Court of Human Rights has not only the competence but the skill to give the requisite opinions and judgments on human rights issues. We need to be careful that those two are not mixed up.
One common factor of course with all three agreements is that they relate to the scenes of frozen conflicts—Ukraine is, sadly, now in that category of frozen conflict. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, made the point that areas of frozen conflict could leak into the association agreements. I have to tell your Lordships that they can. I was in Moldova, not recently but not that long ago, and it was quite clear that it is part of Moldovan policy to try and bring Transnistria back into the body and that anything that can be done to pursue that aim is done, including encouraging it to export through Moldova itself. So we have to be careful there. We also have to be careful of the integration between Moldova and Romania. There are certain people in Bucharest who see Moldova as being little different from Wales, in terms of it being a country on the fringe that has self-government but which is basically still part of us. We need to keep an eye on that.
We also have to be careful about how the agreement is implemented. The beginning of the recent crisis in Ukraine spun out of the botched way in which the European Union handled the association agreement. That is how it is to my mind, although I know that that is not a universal view. We did not handle it as cleverly as we could have. We have ended up with a president in exile, although I notice that within the past few days, former President Yanukovych has made statements to the effect that he is thinking about going back, so we need to be careful about how we implement this. I am not saying that we should not sign and implement the association agreement, but we should not use it to antagonise—that is the danger.
I do not know whether the Minister met the Georgians who were here a few days ago, but it was quite clear that part of Georgian foreign policy, not unnaturally, is to try and use favourable reflections from Britain and western Europe in its constant battle against Russia and the countries that surround it. Georgia is a rather special case because it neighbours Turkey. The others are very much more in the heart of Europe.
My final point is that if we are going to have peace on this frontier in the end, we need a comprehensive agreement and settlement with Russia. There are too many potential conflicts: look at Latvia and the Russian population there. My own priority, for what it is worth, is that the Baltic states are covered by Article 5, and we must make sure that they stay at the top of our list before we take on any other commitments that we cannot honour. That is crucial. We should not get ourselves into a position where we are giving guarantees or understandings that we know in our own heart we cannot honour. I think that, more or less, we have gone as far as we can. I agree with the President of the European Commission that the time is not right for the extension of Community membership. We have probably bitten off more than we can chew; we certainly do not have the capacity for any more.
Historically, Britain has always been in favour of extending Community membership. One group of people has said that as good members of the European movement—which I am, too—we want to extend the benefits of Europe across Europe. But there is another school of thought, among the anti-European group, which has said that the more we can get in, the nearer we can bring it to collapse. That group also has a point. We have now got to a tipping point where we need to concentrate on integrating the European Union and its near abroad, in a sensible manner, to the not-so near abroad beyond it, whose countries are certainly not candidates for membership in anyone’s cognisance at the moment. These orders are part of that process.
I welcome the orders and I hope that they will be implemented and monitored with the moderation that the Minister’s speech has indicated. I look forward to us giving them our support.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for her clear explanation of the orders. I do not intend to say very much on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. We support the orders and are happy to do so today. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. There is a degree of expertise in the Committee that will make this debate look important when it is considered by others outside Parliament.
My first point is one that the Minister mentioned. The countries involved in these association agreements have to have free choice as to whether to reach such agreements, but the opposite is also true. No country should be forced to enter into such an association agreement, but on the other hand, nor should any free and sovereign state be pressured into not doing so, whether by force of arms or by other forms of intimidation. We are therefore content that the countries that we are talking about today are in the position that they find themselves in with regard to these association agreements.
Of course, as the Minister said, our debate takes place against the background of the unfolding situation in Ukraine, and I thank her for keeping us up to date with the position there. The House has debated the extremely critical situation in Ukraine many times in various forms, and will undoubtedly do so again. I hope it does so soon, not least so that the report that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned—The EU and Russia: Before and Beyond the Crisis in Ukraine, published by the European Union Committee, on which he sat and which received a lot of media publicity earlier this week—can be debated, too.
Today’s Motions are not a reason for holding another debate on Ukraine this afternoon, although the comments that have been made about Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia have been extremely helpful, for me at least, in setting the background to where we are. The other two countries, Moldova and Georgia, as has been made clear, have considerable difficulties of their own. They have parallels, but their situations are of course different from the critical one we all face in Ukraine at present.
On Ukraine, we all hope that the ceasefire agreed in Minsk a fortnight ago now on 12 February, which was due to begin on 15 February, 11 days ago, can be properly implemented. Can the Minister comment on today’s reports, which have not necessarily been confirmed, that both the pro-Russian rebels and the Ukrainian army may be starting to withdraw heavy weapons? Apparently, as of 1 pm, Ukrainian military forces had suffered no fatalities in the previous 48 hours, although several soldiers have apparently been wounded in that time span. A buffer zone of at least 50 kilometres has to be created and monitored by the OSCE, so I was particularly interested by what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, had to say about his recent meeting at the OSCE. Can the Minister comment on those matters?
Some have claimed—the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, came close to it—that the association agreement between the EU and Ukraine has been something of a provocation, at least in part, in terms of the proxy war in eastern Ukraine. The argument goes—the noble Lord put it moderately and well—that the EU, in negotiating such an agreement, sort of poked the bear with a stick, which is one way of putting it, and that signing such an agreement was an act of recklessness by the EU. We do not agree with that analysis. When the House of Commons debated these matters last December, there was a general consensus that this was not the case. The EU association agreement with Ukraine was not rushed in any way. It was not a surprise or a provocation. As I understand it, it had been under discussion for seven years and, interestingly, had been supported by the previous pro-Russian leadership of Ukraine under the last president, to whom the noble Lord referred.
The whole point of such agreements is to give a country access to the European market in exchange for reforms that encourage a democratic, honest and legally robust framework for that country’s future. The point of these agreements is to give access to European markets in exchange for reforms. Given Ukraine’s economic and corruption problems, reforms in the direction of transparency, the rule of law and proper democratic accountability are of great importance. That is the path the present Ukrainian Government want to pursue, but they will of course need considerable help.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am grateful for the support that all noble Lords have given to this order and, I hope, by implication to the other two orders that have been debated with it. In particular, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, about the demonstration of experience and expertise by Peers, whether they be members of the Council of Europe or have served as Members of the European Parliament, or indeed have been long-term Members of this House and have participated in our Select Committee work. It is important that this House is able to demonstrate that sort of expertise.
It is important that we heard from the Opposition their strong support for this process whereby sovereign countries are able to make their own decisions about where their future may lie, and to do so in a constructive way. All those three countries need to pursue these objectives in a constructive manner. I agree with every single word uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, today, and I will address the two questions that he posed.
The people of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have made a clear choice for a future closely aligned with the EU. I will tackle head-on the questions that were put about whether or not the EU botched, as my noble friend Lord Balfe put it—rather inelegantly, perhaps—the negotiations over the association agreement with Ukraine. It is not the EU that has caused this crisis. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, pointed out, negotiations with Ukraine started as long ago as 2007 and Yanukovych was certainly part of them, with support from the Ukraine Government of which he was the head. It was really only when at the beginning of last year Russia woke up to the fact that the implications of this might be something that it did not like—as other noble Lords have pointed out, Russia appears to have the view that it still has the right to control countries that are in fact sovereign but which perhaps used to be within its remit—that Yanukovych seemed to take a different point of view and we entered into the period of Euromaidan and the demonstrations by the people of Ukraine, who said, “We want this association agreement. We want a closer association with the EU. That is where our future lies, and you as the leader of our Government should take notice of us”. It was his failure to take notice of the will of the people, of an elected Government, that meant that he fled the country and has not yet returned. Whether he seeks to return is a matter for him. I am not too sure quite what the Kiev Government would think of that but that is his decision.
Therefore, I am clear that Ukraine has taken a decision that is right for a sovereign Government to take and that the EU has taken a measured course. Indeed, in opening I made it clear that President Poroshenko has asked us to delay the implementation of the deep and comprehensive free trade areas specifically, so that negotiations can continue and so that Russia can become more accustomed to what the implications might be for it—to try to allay suspicions. Overall, with regard to Georgia and Moldova, I will say also that the ambition with their agreements is the same as that for Ukraine. They are aiming to deepen their political and economic relations with the EU and to integrate them gradually into the largest single market in the world.
Several noble Lords raised the question of integration with the EU: how, when, should they, or should they not? It is quite right, as my noble friend Lord Balfe said, that there was at one time a particularly large expansion in the number of accession countries to the EU. According to the EU treaties, any European state which respects the EU’s values and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union—that is a matter of fact in the treaties. However, I say now, as I have said in the past, that the UK Government support the Eastern Partnership countries—at the moment, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine; we just referred to the association agreements with the latter three—as possible EU countries in the future. The stress is on “the future”, because, as other noble Lords have pointed out, it is important that those three countries meet the necessary criteria. Other noble Lords here have painted a picture of life in those countries that shows that they have a long way to go before they have an independent judiciary, human rights, and a way of tackling corruption, which they need before they can come into the category of accession countries. I am aware that there is no current consensus on the potential candidacy of those countries among the member states. However, it is right that those countries should be able to look at the European treaties and consider that they can work towards that. It is up to them whether they reach the standards, and up to the current members as to whether they will then welcome them into the EU.
The association agreements we have considered today are of course not ends in themselves—that is something that my noble friend Lady Ludford referred to and which I will come to in a moment. Much work needs to be done on domestic reforms across all three countries, and the EU is providing assistance on strengthening the rule of law, advancing judicial reforms, fighting corruption, ensuring respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and strengthening democratic institutions. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that we play a prominent role in that and will continue to do so. In opening I gave some information about the amount of money—significant sums of euros—that will be going to those countries to assist them in the future. We will have a role, certainly, in giving advice on the humanitarian issues through DfID. I will certainly contribute my views on human rights to many; for example, at the meeting of the Human Rights Council in Geneva next week. We will all as Ministers and officials play an important part in ensuring that those three countries are aware of and can work towards the standards they need to achieve if they are properly to implement the association agreements and ultimately work towards membership of the European Union if that is what their Governments continue to wish to do.
Therefore, all that will take time and money—I refer to questions from noble Lords and my noble friends with regard to that. One of the main points was put very clearly: that we must be sure that we have complementarity between the work of the European Union and that of the Council of Europe. My noble friend, whom I reappointed to the Council of Europe, is sitting here. One of the things that must impress us all is that when the delegations go to the Council of Europe, it is the Members of this House who keep it going, do the work and the chairing and who are the rapporteurs. I am certainly very proud of that.
I assure my noble friends Lord Balfe, Lady Ludford and Lord Dundee that there is a complementarity and not a crossover. As my noble friend Lady Ludford said, it is not a competition. It is important that there is no double-handling, as my noble friend Lord Dundee said, and that we do not want to reinvent the wheel. The association agreements can proceed constructively and do something that the Council of Europe cannot, which is important. They give hope of a closer political and economic future for these countries, which only the European Union can provide. That complementarity must be key to the successful progress of these countries when they apply the benefits, as I hope they will be, of these association agreements.
Looking forward again, both my noble friends Lord Bowness and Lord Balfe raised the issue of frozen conflicts—Georgia and Moldova, and now of course the question about what happens with the eastern areas of Ukraine. The three association agreements extend to all sovereign lands, even if one does not have control over parts of one’s sovereign territory. The agreements extend to areas of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine that are currently outwith the effective control of the sovereign Governments of those three countries, although the provisions of the agreements will not of course in practice apply to those territories until such time as the Governments of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine can secure compliance with their requirements.
The provisions for the deep and comprehensive free trade areas require the Governments of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine to transpose and enforce EU standards in a number of sectors, including phytosanitary standards. That is important, otherwise trade will simply not be trusted by other partners. However, effective enforcement is not currently possible in the breakaway regions. Moldovan companies currently export to the EU using a system of autonomous trade preferences, to which Transnistrian companies also have access. The EU has extended the system of autonomous trade preferences to Moldova as a whole until the end of 2015, ensuring that those Transnistrian businesses will not immediately lose their current access to the single market. In answer to the question asked by my noble friend, the EU will need to reflect on how to handle this issue after the end of 2015. He raised a crucial point. At the same time, it should give the Transnistrians food for thought, given that over half of Transnistrian exports now go to the EU.
My noble friend Lady Ludford asked specifically about the procedural aspect, referring in particular to the Explanatory Memorandum, and which obligations are implemented and how. The European Communities Act 1972 provides the mechanism for implementing in UK law our obligations under an EU treaty, which is what the agreements become under these orders. That is the way in which the provisions of the agreement are given direct effect in UK law. Not every provision in the agreement would need to be the subject of legislation, but where we need legislation, which some parts may do, the order gives provision to that effect in UK law. This is about providing that kind of consistency.
My noble friend Lady Ludford also raised the important point about our view of the position of other EU member states with regard to sanctions and to the issue of Russian influence. EU member states have various degrees of economic and political interaction with Russia. We have seen that because of the energy aspect, let alone because of anything else. Despite this, the EU has developed a package of robust sanctions. As far as I am aware from the discussions that have been happening as recently as yesterday, the unanimity on that still holds and there is a determination about that. However, my noble friend is right to say that we need to be watchful and to show that the EU remains united. Russia needs to understand that, particularly before we reach the European Council on 20 March, when one would expect the current sanctions to be rolled over. If there are any breaches of the ceasefire, that would of course be taken into consideration and we should be ready for further sanctions at that point. The impact on Russia should be clear.
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Moldova) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Moldova) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Ukraine) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That the Grand Commitee do consider the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Ukraine) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Shared Parental Leave and Leave Curtailment (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Popat
That the Grand Committee do consider the Shared Parental Leave and Leave Curtailment (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, shared parental leave is important because it modernises outdated assumptions that the mother is always a child’s primary carer, even though over a quarter of women now earn more than their partner and earnings levels for men and women under 30 are approximately equal, which is significantly different from the 1970s. It enables fathers to be more involved in caring for their child, which brings a basket of positive benefits to the child and the family; it gives families choice about how they care for their child in the year following birth or adoption; and it enables both the mother and the father to combine working and family life and maintain their attachment to the labour market, ensuring that the best talent pool is available to employers.
Noble Lords will be aware of the lengthy legislative processes to deliver shared parental leave, and of the thorough debates that we have had on the subject. The Children and Families Act 2014 provided the necessary powers to make regulations, and a suite of regulations was debated in both Houses in the autumn on curtailment of maternity and adoption leave, on shared parental leave and pay, and on changes to the maternity and adoption regulations—including adoptions from overseas—and to regulations extending adoption leave and pay to intended parents in surrogacy. Other regulations were also laid before Parliament but were not required to be debated.
I am pleased to be able to say that with these amending regulations we conclude the long legislative road. In summary, the effect of the regulations that we are debating today is to clarify the drafting in the regulations being amended, as well as correcting some drafting errors. I regret the need to take up more of the Committee’s time to debate amending regulations, but they will remove ambiguity and errors that have been identified in the legislative framework that implements shared parental leave. It is a regrettable fact that errors creep in, despite the extensive measures that we have in place to eliminate them.
The adoption provisions for shared parental leave do not come into force until April, so they will come into force in their amended form. The provisions for birth parents have come into force, and we intend to draw the attention of interested parties to the changes. However, we think it unlikely that any individual parent or employer will be disadvantaged by the fact that the legislation was not perfect from the outset.
Noble Lords will be aware that large-scale take-up of shared parental leave requires significant culture change, and that will take time. The Government have taken steps to communicate the new policy to parents and employers. ACAS guidance for employers and working parents on the new arrangements is available on its website. Government guidance is available on the government website, GOV.UK.
We have publicised shared parental leave extensively, using cost-effective, targeted marketing which delivers better value for money than an expensive big splash. Digital activity is at the heart of the Government’s communications strategy for shared parental leave, and targeted digital advertising has been running from the beginning of September and will continue until April 2015. We have been targeting mothers since the autumn and we are reaching out to fathers through digital media that appeal to fathers, and through positive role models for men, such as the recent campaign led by the England rugby player Ben Foden, who is shortly to become a father for the second time. We have also been running a public relations and press campaign through mother and baby magazines and consumer outlets, as well as targeting broadcast magazine shows. As the project to deliver shared parental leave in this Parliament draws to a conclusion, I hope that noble Lords will support these amending regulations.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I do not intend to detain us long on this, because it is important that we get it right. It is lucky that we have a bit of leeway between now and April. I guess that, given the nature of these corrections, it will not make any real difference to the communications that we have had so far because, as the Minister said, this is the new environment. I applaud the Government for the various communications channels that they have tried. I was trying to think not only of the mother and baby magazines but of what other, more male-oriented magazines might alert fathers. I think that the approach is good. Using digital media is also good but it will not encompass everybody. If the Government could give some more thought to those who are not necessarily as plugged in to cyberspace as we would like, that might be useful. Other than making those comments, I am happy to support the amending regulations.
Lord Popat
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his positive comments. I am glad that these regulations complete the legal framework for shared parental leave and pay. I commend them to the Committee.
Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 17) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Popat
That the Grand Committee do consider the Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 17) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure the payment of stamp taxes on shares in relation to company takeovers by amending the Companies Act to prevent companies from using reduction of share capital provisions as part of a scheme of arrangement to facilitate a takeover. These reforms were announced in the Autumn Statement and are part of measures to protect the UK stamp duty base and ensure that businesses make a fair tax contribution.
The use of schemes of arrangement to facilitate company takeovers is not new but is becoming increasingly common. The increasing use of one form of scheme of arrangement for takeovers, often referred to as cancellation schemes of arrangement, has prompted the Government to take action now. In contrast to other forms of company takeover, cancellation schemes of arrangement do not incur a stamp tax liability. That is because stamp tax is chargeable on the transfer of shares from one party to another but not on fresh issues of shares. Cancellation schemes of arrangement involve the company that is the target of the takeover cancelling its shares, using the provisions in Part 17 of the Companies Act to reduce its share capital, and then issuing fresh shares to the acquiring company.
The Government believe that all takeovers should be treated equally in stamp tax terms. However, EU law—specifically the capital duties directive—prohibits the charging of tax on the issuing of new shares. Therefore these reforms amend Section 641 of the Companies Act to prevent a company from reducing its share capital through the use of a cancellation scheme of arrangement to facilitate its takeover. Of course, it will still be possible to effect a takeover using a transfer scheme of arrangement or contractual offer. Both these methods achieve the same overall outcome—the takeover of a company or merger of two companies— but stamp taxes are payable. It will also be possible to continue to use cancellation schemes of arrangement outside the takeover context, such as intragroup restructuring, de-mergers, rescheduling debt or returns of share capital.
We have acted quickly to bring forward these regulations after the announcement in the Autumn Statement, consulting informally with relevant experts and stakeholders in the legal and tax professions, as well as shareholder groups. We did so to reduce the risk of companies accelerating their takeover plans so as not to be impacted by the legislation. None the less, we appreciate that it would be unfair to apply the change to takeovers and mergers already in progress. As such, these reforms do not apply where the bidder has made a firm intention to make an offer—in accordance with the takeover code, or if the terms of the offer have been agreed, where not subject to the takeover code—before this instrument comes into force.
In terms of costs to business, apart from the requirement to pay stamp tax at 0.5% of the value of the consideration paid for the shares, there will be only relatively small one-off familiarisation costs for companies that are parties to a takeover or merger, and potentially their shareholders and creditors. These small costs will also apply to the intermediary community, such as legal firms and advisers specialising in takeovers and schemes of arrangement. Compared with the wider costs involved in a takeover, such as the costs associated with the actual integration of the businesses concerned, these costs are likely to be small.
These wider costs are detailed in our information and impact note, published alongside the draft SI. We believe that the small costs to business that may result from this measure are justifiable in the context of ensuring that businesses make a fair tax contribution and, in particular, that stamp tax on shares is payable whatever method is used to effect a takeover. Furthermore, we believe that these reforms will not impact significantly on the level of takeover activity in the UK. Those takeovers that make commercial sense will still take place. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. It was a quite complex technical analysis and I will boil it down to the simple question that will exercise most people’s minds. Are we confident that these regulations, as drafted, will not give rise to some evasion or avoidance scheme that will ensure that companies do not pay the stamp duty they are obliged to pay? At the end of the day, I suspect that that will be the acid test, or one of them. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that question but, other than that, we support the proposal.
Lord Popat
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his support on this important legislation. Although it sounds complicated, it is straightforward. All we are asking is that companies that take over and acquire the entire share capital of a target company should pay their fair share of stamp duty. There were, effectively, many ways of avoiding this in the past and very few transactions were taking place. Lately, however, we have seen the number of transactions increasing. It is therefore only right that companies that take over other companies pay their fair share of stamp duty on the sale of the shares. It is a very small sum: one half of 1%. I thank the noble Lord for his support and commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Before the noble Lord sits down, I can see something coming from the back office, so to speak. I hope that that will provide some reassurance on my question.
Lord Popat
The position is no different from what I have just said. The regulations mean that, for new takeovers of UK companies, stamp duty will be payable on takeover. In other words, the cancellation scheme is no longer applicable. It will have to be a straightforward purchase—a transaction to acquire those shares. Hence, those companies have to pay their fair share of stamp duty.
Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Grand Committee do consider the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee considers the draft Industrial Training Levy Orders 2015. There are two orders before us today, one for the Construction Industry Training Board and another for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board. The purpose of these orders is to seek authority for the Construction Industry Training Board—referred to as the CITB—and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board—referred to as the ECITB—to continue to impose a levy on employers in the industries they cover.
Established under the Industrial Training Act 1982, the core activity of the CITB and the ECITB is to invest levy money in skills training. This investment develops the skills of the existing workforce and helps attract new entrants into these industries through the provision of training grants and other services. I think we all agree that skills are central to creating a strong, sustainable and balanced economy. The Government are committed to ensuring that skills provision meets the needs of both employers and learners. Although government helps set the framework for success, it is employers who equip the workforce with the skills that they need.
The CITB and the ECITB are employer-led and have a central role in training the workforce in their respective industries. They provide a wide range of services, which include the setting of occupational standards, developing vocational qualifications, delivering apprenticeships and offering direct grants to employers who carry out training. In doing all this, the Government look to the CITB and the ECITB to minimise bureaucracy and to ensure that support to employers is relevant and accessible.
The majority of employers in the construction industry and the engineering construction industry continue to support a statutory framework for training. The orders that we are considering today will enable these statutory levy arrangements to continue. The Industrial Training Act 1982 permits an industry training board to raise a levy on employers so that the costs of training are shared more evenly across the industry. The orders will give effect to proposals submitted to the Secretary of State for levies to be collected by the CITB in 2015, 2016 and 2017 and by the ECITB in 2016, 2017 and 2018.
The affirmative resolution procedure is required under the Act because both proposals involve the imposition of a levy in excess of 1% of payroll on some classes of employer. In each case, the levies are based on employers’ payrolls and their use of subcontracted labour. For both boards, the proposals involve levy rates in excess of 0.2% with no exemption, other than for small firms. In such cases, the Act requires that a levy order can be made only if the proposals have the support of the majority of employers who together are likely to pay the majority of the levy. The Secretary of State is satisfied that this condition has been met.
The Act also requires that both boards include proposals for exempting small employers from the levy. These orders therefore provide that small firms are exempt if their total emoluments are below a certain threshold that the industry considers to be appropriate. Those firms that are exempt from paying the levy can still benefit from grants and other support from the boards.
For the CITB, the levy rate for PAYE employees will remain at 0.5% of payroll for 2015, 2016 and 2017. The levy rate on labour-only subcontractors will remain at 1.5% for the first two levy periods—2015 and 2016—only. For the third levy period, in 2017, the labour-only subcontractor rate will be replaced by a levy on payments employers make to net-paid subcontractors made through the HMRC construction industry scheme. The levy rate for net-paid subcontractors will be 1.25% for 2017. This change was agreed by the industry and greatly simplifies administration by using existing data that firms already supply to HMRC. Employers whose total wage costs are less than £80,000 will still not have to pay the levy. Employers whose total wage costs are between £80,000 and £100,000 will have a 50% reduction in their levy liability for 2015 and 2016. For 2017, as part of the changes being introduced, employers with total wage costs of between £80,000 and £400,000 will have a 50% reduction in their levy liability. Of all the employers which are considered leviable by the CITB, it is expected that more than 50% will be exempt from paying the levy.
For the ECITB, the levy rate for site employees will remain at 1.5% of total payroll, plus net expenditure on subcontract labour. Employers who spend less than £275,000 on site employees will not have to pay that part of the levy. The rate in respect of off-site employees, often referred to as head office employees, will remain at 0.18% of total payroll, plus net expenditure on subcontract labour. Employers who spend less than £1 million in respect of off-site employees will not have to pay that part of the levy. Of all the establishments that are considered to be leviable by the ECITB, it is expected that around 35% will be exempt from paying the levy. For the CITB, the proposals are expected to raise around £520 million in levy income over three years. For the ECITB, the proposals are expected to raise around £90 million in levy income over three years.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, as the author of a report on the construction industry, in particular fatalities in the construction industry, I spent some time on the area of training and skills uplifting, and met people from the CITB. It is important to place on record how very important the levies are to the particular industries and how very pleased I am that there is cross-party acceptance of the continuation of the levies.
I see that there has been some mild redistribution, or that it will at least take effect in 2017. That is good news. One thing I found in my report was that although the CITB work was very good—that is the area that I know best, rather than the ECITB—there was very little redistribution of the income. It is all very well to say that small companies that are exempt from the levy can still apply for grants, but it is the sheer logistics of sparing members of their workforce to go away and train that causes one of the most difficult problems for small companies. We need to consider ways in which we can persuade companies to take on apprentices, but in the confidence that apprentices will be able to find employment afterwards. With or without the levy, I still think that we are falling down on guaranteeing jobs in some of these companies, even if it means an element of government subsidy for a year or so. I am making a plea for more redistribution.
The Minister referred to deficiency in skill levels. I agree entirely that it would be even worse than it is now if we did not have these levies. I do not think that we can be particularly proud—I am not making a party-political point; this is a problem that has spanned Governments—given the skills shortage in this country, which has been a major problem. The fact that we are importing bricks and bricklayers says quite a lot about the nature of construction in this country. That short-termism is highly damaging to our economy. The fact that we allow so many underskilled and unskilled people on to sites explains, I think, some of the lower levels of productivity that we have. We need to look at the deficiency in skill levels. Some very good work is being done here, but it really is not solving the problem in major areas in our construction industry.
I ought to finish on a positive note. I thoroughly welcome any continuation of the levies, any changes that make life better for the smaller companies and, incidentally, any changes that mean HMRC will have a closer eye on some of the activities in some of the subcontracting areas.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, in principle I, too, welcome the changes in the levy for the CITB and the ECITB. I have a number of questions to put to the Minister, whom I thank for the introduction.
I believe that there is a triennial review taking place. One should know the fate of that, because it is important. We need to be sure that the way in which the levy is organised does not mean that it is at odds with the way in which the CITB is developing.
We have two main concerns about the change in the third year of the levy period. The impact assessment discusses this. I hope the Minister will elaborate a bit further on any mitigating steps to be put in place. The first concern is that the nature of the construction sector is very much that of a subcontracting model. In many respects, prime companies often squeeze the margins of their subcontractors. How will that be addressed? The impact assessment states that a potential effect is the passing on of the costs of the levy from main contractors to subcontractors. That is a common practice outside the existing system and it reduces the legitimacy for employers if they do not pay levies on payments to their own subcontractors. I would welcome the Minister addressing that.
We are particularly concerned about the potential with the change in the third year for the greater use of umbrella companies and labour agencies. That is a real problem for the construction sector. Trade unions such as the Union of Construction Allied Trades & Technicians and others have rightly highlighted the fact that it undermines the efficiency, operation and fairness of the construction sector. This measure could help to increase that usage. What will the Minister do to mitigate that?
My noble friend Lady Donaghy anticipated me—I, too, will refer to the fact that there is a savage irony that despite the levy we still have a shortage in basic but essential skills such as bricklaying. We ought to be looking at how well this scheme does in attracting young people into the industry—especially young women—pointing out that these are good skills and the pay can be good in the right circumstances. We have some concerns about what the industry is doing to improve on that.
In relation to the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, we know that there is a large demand for new engineering jobs. We have a significant skills shortage in this sector. EngineeringUK states in its latest report:
“Filling the demand for new engineering jobs will generate an additional £27 billion per year for the UK economy from 2022 … To meet projected employer demand the number of engineering apprentices and graduates entering the industry will need to double … Engineering companies will need 182,000 people per year with engineering skills in the decade to 2022 but there is a current annual shortfall of 55,000 skilled workers”.
Do we believe that with the levy as it is currently structured the industry is going to meet that challenge? It is a big challenge and it is a very important one. Is the levy being used innovatively; for example, to go into schools to encourage young people, especially girls, to study things such as GCSE physics? The levy might often be used for people who are entering the industry at the age of 18, 19 or 20 but is it being used more innovatively to ensure that we encourage people to go into these sectors at an early enough age?
Those are the general questions that we have. We support the principle of the levy and the way it is being restructured but we have concerns about the construction industry and the engineering construction industry being able to meet the challenge of skills demand in these important sectors.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their supportive comments—albeit not exclusively supportive, as they have a number of concerns that in many ways we all share. I agree with the noble Baroness that this is not necessarily a party-political point. Skills and training are very important in all industries, but particularly these industries, which are largely project-based and have subcontracted workforces, and it is very easy for firms not to have the strong incentive to train if their workforces are subcontracted. Skills are also essential to increasing the productivity of this country, which is a problem.
I will move to some of the specific points made by noble Lords; I now have them in the wrong order. The noble Baroness mentioned the deficiencies in skill levels. I agree that there are challenges in increasing the capacity of the workforce, particularly to meet the demand for homebuilding and infrastructure projects. However, as part of the Government’s industrial strategy, we are working in partnership with the construction sector to address the skills shortages and help people gain the skills required. We and the CITB recognise the challenges to increasing the capacity of the workforce. The important thing about doing it through the CITB is that it is industry-led. The Government have a role to play, but the CITB is run by the industry and has the pretty weighty and strong support of the industry to do those things; for example, health and safety is an important area that the CITB can look at and manage to increase.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned the triennial review, which is currently under consideration by the Government. I recognise that there is some frustration about the time it has taken—I think it is about 19 months since it was first announced in July 2013. It is important that we give consideration to that, and the review has consulted with employers and stakeholders. The findings of the review will be published in due course, but I will be quite honest with the noble Lord: I do not think that will be before the election.
The noble Lord made a point about the shortage of skills at less than the most advanced level; for example, bricks and bricklayers, which, as I mentioned, are important in the housebuilding industry. Of course, those skills fluctuate more sharply in construction than in other industries. It is a priority for the new board and the CITB Council to look at the skills demands and react accordingly. The new board of eight members, five of whom are women—which is substantially smaller than the previous board of, I think, 20 members—is designed to have a more focused approach to delivery than the previous one. However, it is accountable to the council, which has a larger number of employer representatives on board.
On the point about umbrella organisations and labour agencies in construction—and if this does not answer the noble Lord’s question, I will be happy to write to him—subcontracting is a feature of these industries, and a main reason for having a levy. The changes we are making to the Construction Industry Training Board levy in 2017 will mean that the levy covers labour agencies. If companies are wholly or mainly engaged in the activities of the industries, they are then liable to the levy, and this applies to all companies. We will be introducing them in 2017 to give companies time to prepare, and of course the CITB is providing guidance.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I welcome some of the points that the noble Lord has made. However, my experience from participating in the Lords outreach programme and talking to 15, 16 and 17 year-olds is that schools are still focused on pushing everyone into the academic stream. That is the route. When you ask young people what they know about apprenticeships, you are lucky if even one of them puts their hand up. Schools that I have been to have admitted that they have been deficient. Under the legislation, schools are supposed to give comprehensive careers guidance, which embraces vocational aspects as well as academic ones. In many cases, they are not meeting that requirement. Again, I welcome what the CITB is doing but it needs to up its game on that. There really should not be a school in the country that does not experience the CITB’s roadshow. It ought to have a comprehensive programme.
My final point is one that I have made on many occasions but which I think is still relevant. We should reflect on what we managed to do in two key projects, the Olympic Games and Crossrail. For those contracts, we insisted that employers had to show what they were doing on training and the number of apprentices they would be prepared to take on. In a way, I think that Crossrail is the best example. Although the Olympics were quite good in that they generated around 300 apprenticeships, Crossrail has made sure that nearly all of the subcontractors in the supply chain also employ apprentices over a wide range of different skills, whether in administration, accountancy or the more normal engineering skills. It would be very welcome if the Minister would respond to those points.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree that apprenticeships are key. They are, in fact, at the heart of the CITB’s business. It acts as a managing agency for the delivery of a large proportion of apprenticeships in construction. Currently, there are about 18,000 young people on CITB-supported apprenticeship programmes. As noble Lords will know, it has been a feature of the Government’s programme to concentrate on apprenticeships, and not just in construction. The CITB also develops specialist apprenticeship programmes through the National Construction College.
As far as engineering construction is concerned, the apprenticeship programme recruits young people to the industry and supports employers and accredited training providers to provide training to young people. It supports about 3,000 apprentices every year. There are 60 engineering apprentices on site in the construction industry per thousand employees, compared to the average in England of 20 per thousand. Basically, I agree with the noble Lord. The CITB is focusing on that and will continue to do so.
The proposals before the Committee relate to the construction and the engineering construction industries. It continues to be the collective view of employers in each of these industries that training should be funded through a statutory levy system in order to secure a sufficient pool of skilled labour. In summary, these levies are particularly appropriate for an industry that involves a lot of project work with subcontracted labour. They have the support of the industry and do not cost the taxpayer a penny. I commend these orders to the Committee.
Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Grand Committee do consider the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
House of Lords
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Entrepreneurs’ Relief
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the economic impact of the increase in Entrepreneurs’ Relief since May 2010.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, no formal economic assessment has been made, but HMRC monitors and regularly publishes information on entrepreneurs’ relief and its take-up. The value of entrepreneurs’ relief is forecast to rise from £1.5 billion in 2010-11 to £3 billion in 2014-15. This Government have increased the lifetime limit from £2 million to £10 million and this is expected to benefit those who want to grow their business and reinvest their gains into new enterprises.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend and draw your Lordships’ attention to my declaration in the register of interests. The great success of the UK economy has not happened by chance, but by the implementation of policies designed to encourage business. As mentioned, the increase in the cap from £2 million to £10 million has had a dramatic effect in allowing and encouraging entrepreneurs to start new businesses. However, many of them have gone through this cap, which is a lifetime amount. Will the Minister consider taking away that cap and possibly the 5% limitation as well?
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Lord has pointed out, we have increased the cap fivefold. However, we believe at this point that the limit is necessary as part of the overall design of the relief and to ensure that the relief is well targeted and not open to misuse. As I said in my initial Answer, it is worth £3 billion already.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in noting the success of government policies in entrepreneurialism and enterprise, may I draw my noble friend’s attention to the Burt report, entitled Inclusive Support for Women in Enterprise, produced by Lorely Burt MP, the government ambassador for women in enterprise? It has a particularly helpful set of recommendations, not least on the work—and the possibilities for additional work—done by local enterprise partnerships. Do the Government have any plans to give the Burt report their very full consideration?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Burt report contains a whole raft of really interesting proposals, which the Government will consider. The latest figures that I have show that some 990,000 SMEs are led by women. At about 20% that is a record high, as far as I am aware.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, are the Government aware of the tremendous success of entrepreneurial endeavour—
Lord Flight
Excuse me. I apologise for my extremely embarrassing mobile phone. Is the Treasury monitoring the extent of entrepreneurial activity and success in this country? Never in my lifetime have I known such an explosion of entrepreneurship, particularly among all the new technologies, where other government measures are helping. This is a sort of Schumpeterian thing that is happening, which ensures our future. I find it quite difficult to access detailed figures—for example, on how many of the 1.5 million new companies over the last two years are new enterprises or other things. Is the Treasury monitoring the amazing thing that is happening in this country?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Treasury is keeping records and noting the number of businesses. There are a record number of private sector businesses in the country at the moment, with an increase of 760,000 compared to 2010. There is of course a whole raft of measures, from having a long-term economic plan that has kept interest rates low to much more specific measures to support small business, which is helping this phenomenal growth.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister, in praising the Government’s economic record, explain to the House why if entrepreneurship has flourished so much in this country we have one of the largest trade deficits in the world, at 6% of GDP?
Lord Newby
My Lords, we have had a trade deficit for a very considerable time. One of the reasons we have such a large deficit now is that the amount of net income from UK investments abroad has fallen dramatically, not least because a lot of foreign companies have been investing here. However, the Government have set an ambitious target for increasing exports. By common consent, UKTI is far more focused in what it is doing than it has ever been. We are seeing an increasing number of British companies exporting to an increasing number of countries.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Did I hear the Minister refer to the Government’s “long-term economic plan”? I knew that, in the other place, Conservative Members of Parliament were obliged to say that in all their speeches on every conceivable occasion but I had not realised that the implant was operating in the brains of Liberal Democrats as well. Can he confirm whether that is the case?
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister realises that there is a point in the growth of new companies, especially high-tech companies, where they have gone through the first phase but their next phase requires not a few million pounds but perhaps £100 million. In Cambridge, we have certainly lost some very successful companies to US investors at that stage. In fact, it is quite a regular occurrence. Are the Government thinking about that, and about perhaps persuading our City to fund some of these new companies and not always leave it to the Americans?
Lord Newby
Yes, my Lords, but while the problem to which the noble Lord refers is of course a long-standing one in the UK, the Government have done a number of things. One is the growth of the enterprise investment scheme, which generated investment of £1 billion in 2012-13. The seed enterprise investment scheme is another, albeit for slightly smaller firms, and some of the initiatives of the Stock Exchange on AIM and the development of the retail bond market are also designed to help fill that funding gap.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
Is my noble friend able to cool fevered brows on opposite Benches and confirm that part of that long-term economic plan is to continue the extraordinarily successful growth of job creation, which has given this country an unemployment and employment record finer than any other economy in Europe?
Lord Newby
My Lords, it is far beyond my powers to cool the fevered brows opposite, but I repeat: we have been extremely successful in terms of private sector employment. Over 2 million additional private sector jobs have been created in this Parliament, which means that we now have more people employed in the UK than ever before, and the joint-highest rate of employment.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, does the long-term economic plan, developed against a background where the Government have postponed the ability to eliminate the deficit, have as a constituent part no decision on the fundamental issue of aviation in terms of Heathrow or the third runway in the south-east? Does it also contain a commitment to continually run a low-wage economy and zero-hour contracts for an awful lot of the people who get new jobs?
Lord Newby
My Lords, growth in the UK this year is the highest in the G7. It will be, at worst, the second highest in the next year. Frankly, this is an economic position of which this Government are extremely proud.
Syrian Refugees
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they and the host states are planning to prevent Syrian refugees becoming permanent residents in those states.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords. The UK continues to call for a negotiated political transition in Syria as the only way to end the conflict and allow refugees to return home in safety. We have pledged £800 million in response to the crisis and we are working closely with host countries to support refugees in the region.
Lord Hylton (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. The whole House will know very well that many Palestinians are still stuck in the camps to which they moved in the late 1940s. Given the low capacity for absorbing Syrians into the neighbouring states, do the Government agree that maximum family reunion for Syrians, both in Europe and elsewhere, together with permanent resettlement in those countries that are open for immigration, is the best way forward?
Baroness Northover
Where an individual is accepted under the vulnerable persons scheme in the United Kingdom and is part of a family, we are already bringing the family with them as a unit to the United Kingdom. Those granted asylum status are also eligible for family reunion. Clearly, decisions by other countries depend on their own rules. The noble Lord is absolutely right to point to the huge problem in the region. That is why we have committed £800 million to help support the refugees in the region and, in particular, those countries that are hosts to them.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, while acknowledging the amount of money that we have put into tackling the difficulties facing, in particular, Lebanon and Jordan as a result of the vast number of refugees that they have taken from Syria, could the Minister remind us how many Syrian refugees we have taken into this country?
Baroness Northover
We have taken in 143 under the humanitarian protection scheme—people who, for example, have very severe medical needs—and we have taken in almost 4,000 Syrians under the asylum claims system. The noble Lord will recognise that this is a major problem and the numbers in the region are such that it is extremely important that we support the many refugees who are looking to return home.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, UNICEF estimates that the number of Syrian refugee children will reach 2.2 million in 2015. Does my noble friend agree that its help is key to the future of Syria? Will the Government therefore, in collaboration with UNICEF, do everything possible to ensure that these children are vaccinated, not only against polio and MMR but against pneumococcal disease and rotavirus?
Baroness Northover
My noble friend is right. That is why we put a great deal of emphasis on both health and education—so that there is not a lost generation. Syrian refugee children are vaccinated against polio and measles when they arrive in neighbouring countries as part of the registration process. Vaccination in those camps takes place on a routine basis; it is run by local ministries but supported by the UN and NGOs. There is constant review of which diseases need to be targeted, and at the moment we are especially concerned about the resurgence of cases of polio.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, given that, as the Minister will be aware, peace agreements in this area have been done to the people, from Sykes-Picot nearly 100 years ago onwards, what contacts are the Government making with those who are in the camps and need to have a voice in the peace settlement, and in particular with women’s groups?
Baroness Northover
The most reverend Primate is right to highlight this. There is constant contact with those in the camps, to try to engage them in moving things forward. With regard to support for women and girls, we are acutely aware of how vulnerable they are, and we have a number of programmes to help support them. As he will probably know, we are very concerned about early marriage and so on, and those who are particularly vulnerable to that. We are trying to ensure that we link up to support those girls so that that does not happen, and seeking out leaders to help protect girls and women more widely.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is in Britain’s interest to give maximum aid to Italy to help it police Europe’s somewhat porous maritime border? Regrettably, not all refugees want to return home. Some of them are ISIS implants. By coincidence, I was in contact with friends in Sicily only this morning, who say that they are becoming increasingly worried by the threats of ISIS atrocities in Sicily. What are the Government going to do to help?
Baroness Northover
It is extremely concerning to hear what the noble Lord says about Sicily; I had not heard that. It is certainly the case that the UK is working extremely closely with all our European allies on the situation of those who are seeking to come across the Mediterranean, often in incredibly dangerous and dire circumstances.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, in her first reply, my noble friend referred to the desirability of a transfer of power in Syria. Does she recognise that the most likely recipient of any transfer of power at present would be ISIS? That would be a great deal worse than the status quo, because at least the present regime in Syria, for all its faults and misbehaviour, does not slaughter Christians because they are Christians, which ISIS does. In fact, the present regime has always had a reputation for considerable religious tolerance.
Baroness Northover
In my first Answer I did not mention a transfer; I talked about a negotiated political transition in Syria. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, we are engaged with moderate groups within and around Syria, helping to ensure that they work effectively together—because it is extremely important for the future of Syria that that happens.
Health: Obesity
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Local Government Association’s report Tackling the causes and effects of obesity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the Local Government Association’s report, which provides a valuable contribution to this debate and demonstrates the contribution that local authorities can make and are making. This Government see local authorities as key to tackling obesity and other public health issues. Local communities know best how to tackle obesity, based on local understanding and need. To support this, we have given local authorities £8.2 billion of ring-fenced funding over three years for public health.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, but as the Minister will recall from his reading of the report, LEAs say they are the people to do the job but they simply do not have the cash to do it. They have had a 40% cut in their grant aid over the past five years and they do not have the money available to carry out this work. Will he look again at whether, particularly with what is happening in Manchester, some freedom might be given for people at LEA level to raise additional funding themselves?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is always scope to raise additional funding from charities and, indeed, from industry. Alongside the ring-fenced budget we have given to local authorities—it is the first time that this has been done for public health—we have a number of programmes in train which can work side by side with local authorities, such as the work going on in NHS England’s five-year forward view programme. Public Health England, in conjunction with the Local Government Association and ADASS, is commissioning work to support local authorities to take a whole-systems approach and look more widely in the way that the noble Lord has suggested. Public Health England’s Healthy Places programme is also relevant here, looking at how we can use the planning system to promote public health.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, in light of the alarming increase in type 2 diabetes, which is closely related to the incidence of obesity, what advice are the Government giving to the population at large about the dangers of overeating? When I was in clinical practice I used to advise my overweight patients to take a large dose of will power three times a day with meals.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord very eloquently makes an important point. There is no simple answer to the problem of obesity: it is multifactorial. However, in recognising that we need to communicate our messages to health experts and, indeed, members of the public—which is his central point—my department and Public Health England are leading work with a group of experts to consider how to make the Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines easier to communicate to health professionals and the public. That work is progressing well, but we do need to progress it.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I speak from personal experience. The problem of obesity is simply a matter of eating less and drinking less and that is 100% a matter of will power. It is not a matter of giving more money to local authorities, much as I understand their desire to have it.
Earl Howe
I think that we should give money to local authorities, nevertheless, but I take my noble friend’s point: overweight and obesity are a direct consequence of eating and drinking more calories and using up too few calories. That is the message that we need to get across.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, have the Government taken into account the issue of epigenetics in their advice on obesity? For example, is the Minister aware of the research by Gregory Dunn of the University of Pennsylvania which has shown that a great-grandmother can pass on imprinted genes which affect her great-grandchildren, but only the females and not the males? That argues environmental influences that we do not yet understand. Is that being factored in with the advice that the Department of Health is giving? It will be an increasingly important issue. This is not only a question of overeating; it is a very complicated problem.
Earl Howe
Yes, my Lords, that is being factored in, but I do not think that we should confuse that point with a certain sort of fatalistic approach to obesity. There are things that people can do with their lifestyle to influence their own states of health in all sorts of areas and we have to help people understand what those things are.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this report is a model of its kind? It is brief and free of waffle and it emphasises the important point that obese people do not need to increase their activity one iota in order to lose weight; all they have to do is to eat less.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister had the chance to study this morning the reports of the research from the health campaign group Action on Sugar, which demonstrates that enormous quantities of sugar are found in so-called sports and energy drinks and that these are targeted at children in particular? One particular drink produced by a well known high street grocery—
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
Yes, Sainsbury’s. It contains up to 20 teaspoons of sugar in every can—far, far over the recommended limit.
Earl Howe
Yes, my Lords, I was aware of that report. We certainly know that some energy drinks are very high in sugar. That is partly the reason why we have been so keen on making labelling work better. Public Health England is currently considering the evidence in relation to potential actions to reduce sugar intake generally. That includes a review of the evidence on fiscal measures; looking at marketing and promotions; and looking at incentives that have already been implemented internationally and at how effective they are. This is an important area.
Court Fees
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much additional money they expect to raise by increasing court fees; what they will use it for; and what is their assessment of the impact of that policy on access to justice.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks)
My Lords, we estimate that the introduction of enhanced court fees for money claims may generate around £120 million in additional income annually. There is a statutory requirement that income from enhanced fees must be used to fund an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals. For the reasons set out in the Government’s consultation response published on 16 January, we do not believe that the policy will have a negative impact on access to justice.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
Did the Minister, whose personal commitment to justice I do not for a moment doubt, notice that on Monday, when the Lord Chancellor was piously quoting Magna Carta to the Global Law Summit—
“to no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”,
Mr Grayling intoned—his unfortunate junior Minister, Mr Vara, was attempting to explain to the House of Commons that what the Government euphemistically call “enhanced court fees” are actually intended to protect access to justice? Are not these increases in court fees, ranging to more than 600% and following upon the Government’s assaults on civil legal aid and judicial review, simply the latest instances of how this Government do in fact sell, deny and delay justice, in brazen contempt of Magna Carta and the rule of law?
Lord Faulks
No, I do not accept that characterisation of the Government’s policies in general or the enhanced court fees. The Government are committed to providing effective access to justice and a good and satisfactory court system which is paid for by litigants. The qualification to our enhanced court fees is that the 90% who are below £10,000 will not pay increased court fees, and we believe that the cost of the court system should be borne by those bringing larger claims.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the Lord Chancellor told the Global Law Summit that he is incredibly proud of our legal heritage? The next time the Minister sits down with the Lord Chancellor to discuss our legal heritage, will he point out that the best way to manifest that incredible pride would be to abandon regulations that will do incredible damage to access to justice because they will require traders and businesses who want to sue for £200,000 to pay an upfront fee of £10,000, which many of them will simply be unable to afford?
Lord Faulks
On the general point, there was reference in both questions to the Global Law Summit. Many pooh-poohed this enterprise, which noble Lords may now realise attracted more than 2,000 delegates, more than 100 Ministers of Justice and Attorneys-General and representatives of more than 100 countries, all of whom came to celebrate our heritage of the rule of law. I remain an adherent to that, as I am sure other noble Lords are. Nothing about the contents of that conference in any way derogated from that principle.
As to the more specific point, there are different provisions depending on the size of the claim. As the noble Lord will know, court fees usually form a small part of the overall bill compared with lawyers’ fees, which tend to be much higher. We do not believe that the increased court fees will act as a significant inhibition on claims.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, in my time, the consent of the heads of division was required to achieve an order for court fees. That requirement has since been removed, with the result that the heads of division are now no longer in complete control, as they were then. Notwithstanding that, I was successfully judicially reviewed in a court fees order that had the consent of all the heads of division. That could also happen. What is the purpose of dealing with this matter in a way that does not require the consent of the heads of division? I assume that the Government have answered the consultation. Does the Minister have the answer ready to hand?
Lord Faulks
My noble and learned friend will know that there were two consultations regarding these proposed enhanced fees, in which the judiciary’s comments were fully taken on board by the Government and certain modifications were made to the original proposals. However, ultimately, the question of fees and the cost of the courts is a matter for the Government to decide.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as an unpaid consultant in my former solicitor’s practice. On 15 February, the Observer reported Vince Cable’s request for information about the overall decline of 80% in employment appeal tribunal applications and 90% in sex discrimination cases since the imposition of substantial fees for those applications. Can the Minister tell us what reply the Lord Chancellor has made to Vince Cable’s request for information, and to his question about the Lord Chancellor’s failure to implement a promised review? In the light of this experience, why should we accept the Government’s assurances that increasing fees by up to 600% in the civil courts will not lead to fewer claims being brought there?
Lord Faulks
The question of employment tribunal fees is very different. There were, in fact, no fees at all. As a result of a relatively modest fee, there has been a significant decline in the number of claims brought. I am sure the noble Lord would accept that some of the claims brought hitherto were somewhat on the speculative side. That no longer takes place. Furthermore, the intervention of ACAS, as from May 2014, has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of these cases getting to employment tribunals, and surely it is better that tribunals should, on the whole, be avoided. What is more, as a result of our long-term economic plan there has been a significant increase in the number of people in employment. This Government are about hiring, not firing.
House Committee Report
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That the 3rd Report from the Select Committee (Access and the use of facilities by members on leave of absence and disqualified members) (HL Paper 104) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, the House Committee reviewed the access and privileges available to non-sitting and former Members following the House’s agreement to the provisions for Members retiring under Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. A range of rules had developed over time and the Committee wanted to rationalise them.
Our report recommends that Members on leave of absence, Members who are MEPs and holders of disqualifying judicial office should no longer be provided with paper copies of parliamentary papers—they are available online—or have access to Library research facilities, but may still have access to the Library. Both provisions have a financial cost to the taxpayer, and are provided to support Member participation in the proceedings of the House. We also recommend that Members in those categories should have the same access to catering facilities as retired Members.
Finally, access privileges for the spouses and civil partners of Members in those categories—that is, Members on leave of absence, MEPs and holders of disqualifying judicial office—would no longer be extended, although they could of course still attend as guests. The spouses and civil partners of Members in those categories could also still obviously make use of the facilities of the House as guests.
If agreed today, these changes would take effect from the start of the new Parliament and the Clerk of the Parliaments would ensure that affected Members were aware of the new arrangements. I beg to move.
Referral and Investigation of Proposed Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 15 December 2014 be approved.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 24 February.
Local Government (Transparency) (Descriptions of Information) (England) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the orders and regulations laid before the House on 12, 14 and 23 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 20th and 21st Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 24 February.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 41, Schedule 1, Clauses 42 to 77, Schedule 2, Clauses 78 to 81, Schedule 3, Clauses 82 to 84, Schedule 4, Clauses 85 to 94, Schedule 5, Clauses 95 to 97, Schedule 6, Clauses 98 to 111, Schedule 7, Clause 112, Schedule 8, Clauses 113 to 126, Schedule 9, Clauses 127 to 133, Schedule 10, Clauses 134 to 144, Schedule 11, Clauses 145 to 163, Title.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (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 to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the draft Order laid before the House on 20 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 9th Report from the Constitution Committee
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, as the House well knows, on 18 September last year the people of Scotland, including tens of thousands of 16 and 17 year-olds, voted in the Scottish independence referendum and made the historic decision that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. The participation of our young people in that vote was truly historic. They showed that they were more than capable of being part of Scottish democracy when they helped their country to take the biggest decision we have faced for centuries. It demonstrated a desire to be involved in an event which would shape the future of their country.
In the run-up to the referendum, pledges were made to the people of Scotland. The three pro-union parties—the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—all made a vow to devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament, should Scotland remain within the United Kingdom, thereby ensuring that Scotland retains the best of both worlds. In keeping with that vow, the day after the referendum the Prime Minister made the announcement that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, had agreed to lead a commission to agree what those new powers should be. The commission would work with the five parties represented in the Scottish Parliament to make that determination.
The commission invited submissions from political parties, a wide range of business and civic organisations and the wider public to help guide its consideration of what further powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Following due consideration of all submissions and views garnered by the commission, on 27 November 2014 the report detailing the heads of agreement was published. That report was welcomed by this Government, and, as this House is aware, on the 22nd of last month we published the draft clauses which will make up the substance of the next Scotland Bill to implement the recommendations in that report.
However, one of the recommendations made by the commission is being taken forward separately from that Bill: the recommendation that the United Kingdom Parliament devolves the relevant powers in sufficient time to allow the Scottish Parliament to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds for the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections, should the Scottish Parliament wish to do so. That is exactly what this draft order seeks to achieve. Not to have taken this forward now, by means of this order, would have risked the Scottish Parliament having insufficient time to bring forward any subsequent legislation, should it choose to do so, to implement it and to have any necessary measures in place well in time for the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. The document to which he referred, Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement, published in January, suggested that the alterations to the franchise should require a supermajority of two-thirds in the Scottish Parliament. The order being presented today bypasses that. If it was thought appropriate to have a supermajority to change the franchise in January, why is it not thought appropriate in February?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, that point was made by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, and I will deal with it when I come to deal with the points made by the committee in its report, published earlier this week.
The draft order is made under Sections 30 and 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, the Act that set out the original devolution settlement for Scotland and that continues to demonstrate that devolution is remarkably resilient and flexible. Several Section 30 and Section 63 orders have been made under that Act and, even with the new upcoming Bill, we do not expect that to change. Where a need for change is identified and agreed, those changes will be made by the most appropriate means.
By virtue of Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998—which I shall refer to as the 1998 Act—this draft order will give the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate to reduce the minimum voting age to 16 at elections to the Scottish Parliament and to Scottish local government elections. The Scottish Parliament will also be given the power to legislate to make provision about the registration of electors in order to give effect to any such reduction in the minimum voting age. However, I wish to be clear that the draft order itself does not actually reduce the minimum voting age to 16 at both of these elections. Rather, it paves the way, by conferring the necessary legislative competence on the Scottish Parliament, to make the necessary legislation to achieve this, should it choose to do so.
Section 63 of the 1998 Act allows for an Order in Council to provide for any functions, so far as they are exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in or as regards Scotland, to be exercisable by the Scottish Ministers concurrently with the Minister of the Crown. This draft order will give the Scottish Ministers the ability to exercise certain functions relating to the individual electoral registration digital service—which I shall refer to as the digital service—in or as regards Scotland, when giving effect to provision reducing the minimum voting age to 16 in Scottish Parliament or Scottish local government elections or both. Provision relating to the use of the digital service for applications for registration, or for verifying information contained in applications for registration, is otherwise reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament.
The draft order will also have the effect that, if the Scottish Ministers exercise the functions given to them in relation to the digital service, in certain cases the requirement to consult the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, and to publish reports prepared by the Electoral Commission, will apply to the Scottish Ministers. I would like to make it clear that the Scottish Ministers will be able to exercise these functions given to them by virtue of this draft order concurrently with UK Ministers and subject to the agreement of a Minister of the Crown.
I appreciate that concerns about the draft order have been raised by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, and I turn to these now. A question was raised about the propriety of using Section 30 of the 1998 Act to make this change. As I have already stated, several orders have been made under Section 30 since 1999, and it is right that they should have been. Section 30 is a tailor-made power for altering, by an Order in Council, the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament without the need for primary legislation. Section 30 orders, as they are known, are part of the agreed process set out in the 1998 Act. That Act, including that particular process, was fully scrutinised, and the Section 30 process approved, by this Parliament. Therefore, the use of a Section 30 order is an entirely appropriate way to take forward this matter.
Again, I remind your Lordships that it would not have been possible, in the time available, to deliver this important aspect of the Smith commission agreement if the provisions had been contained in a Bill to be brought forward after the next general election. Any consequent legislation brought forward by the Scottish Parliament to reduce the voting age to 16 for Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections will be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament in the normal way.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the committee queried whether or not it was appropriate that this order does not include the supermajority procedure requirement. The order delivers the recommendation in the Smith commission which was agreed by all five political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament. Paragraph 25 of the agreement states that the Scottish Parliament should be given the power to legislate to enable 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in time for the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections should it choose to do so. The five parties represented in the Scottish Parliament which agreed this issue during the Smith process will therefore be responsible for bringing forward this change in that Parliament, should they choose to do so. This is a question not even of consensus but of unanimity. I am advised that earlier this morning the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee of the Scottish Parliament unanimously recommended that the Scottish Parliament approve this order. No other change to the operation and structure of the Scottish Parliament has that political consensus at the present time.
These are matters for future Scottish Parliaments to debate and any such change will, as my noble friend pointed out, be subject to a supermajority provision. However, we are talking about a recommendation that came forward from the Smith commission which commands unanimous support within the Scottish Parliament. We therefore believe it is not necessary to include a supermajority provision in the current order.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble and learned friend is saying to the House that the reason that no supermajority provision is required is because it was a recommendation from the Smith commission. However, this document, An Enduring Settlement, which was the Government’s response to the Smith commission, said that there should be a supermajority for changes to the franchise or important constitutional changes. He has not explained why he has changed the Government’s position in a matter of weeks.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the Government’s position has not changed. My noble friend will have heard that I said in my first paragraph in moving this order that it was laid before the House on 20 January 2015. That was before these clauses were published. It was always clear that there was not going to be a supermajority requirement for the order, which is on a proposal that commands unanimous support in the Scottish Parliament. There are further technical issues. The clause that deals with the supermajority is somewhat complex and would have led to unnecessary complexity in an order for which there is unanimous agreement that it should go forward.
I do not believe that it was ever the intention that this order would require the supermajority provision. To have done so might have led to accusations that we were going back on something that had been agreed. It was announced early on, before the clauses were published, that we would proceed by way of a Section 30 order to meet not only the spirit but the specific recommendation of the Smith commission that this part of the agreement should be taken forward ahead of the Bill to implement other aspects of it.
It is noted in the Constitution Committee’s report that the change made by this order does not directly affect the franchise for UK general elections, European parliamentary elections or local government elections beyond Scotland. Therefore the order has no direct constitutional implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. I emphasise that the power to set the franchise for voting in United Kingdom parliamentary elections will remain with this Parliament. It is not the Government’s policy to do that—indeed, it would be impossible—for the next general election in the four or five weeks that are left.
While the committee raises concerns that any reduction in the voting age in Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections may lead to pressure to extend the franchise for other elections, this is not exactly a new debate. Indeed, some parties represented in your Lordships’ House and one of the parties in the coalition—my own—believe that there should be a change in the franchise: it is not a new debate. During the debate on the order in the House of Commons, this was seen to be a positive development. While there may not be a consensus in this Parliament at the present time for changing the franchise for general elections, I am sure the debate will continue.
Rather than devolve only the powers necessary to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to participate in the 2016 and subsequent Scottish Parliament elections, as the committee pointed out the draft order devolves the power to enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate to lower the voting age to 16 in time for the 2017 local government elections in Scotland if it so desires. I can hear a Member saying that this was not in the Smith report. I was just going to explain why it is being done, albeit that it was not in that report. It is another very sensible, practical thing and the Government should be given credit when they do such things. The draft order does, indeed, go further than is specified in the Smith report but in terms of timing only. Unlike with Scottish Parliament elections, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, did not specify the timescales within which the Scottish Parliament should be given the power to enable 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in local government elections. However, the commission did recommend that:
“The Scottish Parliament will have all powers in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland”.
The order clearly does not go beyond that overall recommendation.
Including the power to enable 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in Scottish local government elections in this order was felt to be beneficial and practical for two reasons. First, there is an issue of timing. If the Scottish Parliament wished to take forward such legislation, then the timing of the forthcoming Scotland Bill would make it very challenging to devolve the necessary powers in sufficient time for the Scottish Parliament, in turn, to legislate in time for the Scottish local elections in May 2017 without breaching normal electoral guidelines. Secondly, the franchise for the Scottish Parliament election is currently the same as that for the local government franchise and the former is set by reference to the latter.
Devolving only the legislative competence to reduce the minimum voting age for Scottish parliamentary elections would have meant that the Scottish Parliament would have needed to separate the Scottish Parliament franchise from the local government franchise. That would have introduced unnecessary complications into the registration system. In the absence of a strong policy reason to make the two franchises different, there seems no reason to separate them when all it would bring is unnecessary cost and complication for electoral administrators and potential confusion for electors.
Finally, the committee raised the issue of data protection and individual electoral registration, particularly in connection with individuals under the age of majority. Enacting provisions to protect the data of the prospective young voters is part of the implementation of the order. The Scottish Parliament is well aware of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 and, generally, to adequately safeguard the information provided for, and used in, the process of registering electors. Further, as already mentioned, this draft order will give the Scottish Ministers the ability to exercise certain functions relating to the digital service. I can assure noble Lords that all information used by this system is treated appropriately and is adequately protected. The service is the name given to the series of interlocking digital systems which allow applications to register as an elector to be made online and for the personal information given by applicants to be verified against government data. It comprises the online application service, the secure environment which receives and directs data, secure connections to electoral registration officers and to the Department for Work and Pensions, the DWP processing environment and the interface with electoral registration officers’ election management software.
The other place approved this draft order on 2 February. If the approval of this House and the Scottish Parliament are also secured, then the order will go forward for consideration by Her Majesty in Council. When the order comes into force, the Scottish Parliament will have the legislative competence to bring forward the legislation necessary to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in all Scottish Parliament, Scottish local government elections or both. The United Kingdom Government have fast-tracked devolving the power for this as an exception to the rest of the Smith package so it can be in place in time for 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections and the 2017 Scottish local government elections. It is my understanding that the Scottish Government intend to introduce this legislation, to lower the voting age, in the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible once this order has been made by the Privy Council. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for setting out the arguments which the Government advance on behalf of this order. I am not entirely persuaded by the force of those arguments and I shall come to that in the course of my speech. However, the main thrust of what I will address is the constitutional aspect of bringing forward this measure in an order of this kind. My noble and learned friend referred to the fact that several Section 30 orders have been used. That does not, in itself, make it right. What matters is the content of the orders and the circumstances in which they are presented.
I am concerned partly with the substance of what is proposed but mainly with the procedures from which the order has emerged. Your Lordship’s Constitution Committee is conducting an inquiry and will in due course publish a report on the draft clauses published to enact the recommendations of the Smith commission. As my noble and learned friend said, the policy enshrined in this order has been brought forward in advance of that so we have issued a short report on it which we published at the start of this week in the hope of assisting the debate. I say in passing that haste is the hallmark of bad law in matters constitutional. This whole process has been redolent of haste.
Our first concern has been the failure of the Government directly to address the constitutional implications of this proposal—or, indeed, the draft clauses to implement the whole of the Smith commission’s recommendations—either in a Command Paper or in the draft Explanatory Memorandum for the order. The changes to the voting age in Scotland have no direct effect on the franchise of other UK elections, as my noble and learned friend said, but there are clear indications that they set a trend. The Wales Act 2014 provides for the reduction of the voting age to 16 in any referendum on tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly. In evidence to our committee, the Secretary of State for Scotland said he thought it “unthinkable” that the franchise for the UK general election of 2020 would not include 16 and 17 year-olds. What a contrast that slide towards a new policy across the United Kingdom is to the procedure followed in the late 1960s, when the age was reduced from the age of 21 to 18 only after two separate commissions had reported, one into electoral law and the other into the age of majority. Consider the contrast also with the Republic of Ireland, where a constitutional convention discussed the issue in 2013. A referendum on whether there should be a reduction to the age of 16 is to be held.
This change in the voting age is highly unusual, looked at across the globe. Internationally, 171 countries have a voting age of 18. Three have an age of 17: Indonesia, Sudan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Four have 16: Brazil, Austria, Nicaragua and Cuba. One, Iran, has 15. A larger handful, including Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan and Tonga, have ages around the 20 to 21 mark. We in the United Kingdom propose to enable Scotland to do this without adequate recent consultations, with no White Paper or debate in Parliament, just an unamendable piece of secondary legislation which prevents effective scrutiny. I do not think that that is an appropriate way to proceed with constitutional legislation of this kind—legislation, be it noted, that goes beyond the Smith commission recommendations, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth pointed out, by including local government elections as well as Scottish Parliament elections. Again, there has been no consultation on that or proper parliamentary consideration.
One of the proposals that I do welcome in the draft clauses, to which my noble friend Lord Forsyth again referred and which are not before us today, is draft Clause 4, which will provide that future change to electoral law in Scotland will need a two-thirds majority in the Scottish Parliament. That is an important point of principle which I welcome, but if that is to be introduced shortly, why not now, for this significant change to the voting age being proposed? It really is not good enough simply to say, “Because it was in the Smith commission proposals”. Those proposals were not the basis of parliamentary consideration either. We will now be presented with draft clauses, which have not yet had any scrutiny whatever.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Notwithstanding whether noble Lords are wedded to a supermajority or opposed to the 16 age-limit threshold for voting, can the noble Lord do a better job of explaining the Government’s transition during the last few months than the Minister did? The only reason I heard for not having a supermajority was the unanimity in the Scottish Parliament. That seems to completely undermine the argument against having it. If there is such unanimity, a supermajority would not in any way preclude the possibility of that passing. Can the noble Lord explain why the Government’s position appeared to change from January to February, and back again from February to March?
Lord Lang of Monkton
My responsibility is not to explain the Government’s position; my responsibility is to hold the Government to account. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s contribution, which does a great deal in that direction, and I am sure that my noble and learned friend will wish to return to this matter in his reply to the debate.
Another issue on which your Lordships are expected to be swept along is the important one of data protection, to which my noble and learned friend referred, and the implications of including details of minors in a public document such as the electoral register. I heard what my noble and learned friend said, and I accept that attempts are being made to take this matter seriously and reduce the risk that might arise. But again, that is a matter that should have parliamentary scrutiny.
Individual electoral registration means that more personal data will be collected and held by registration officers than happened under the old household registration system. Most young people about to turn 16 will probably apply for registration as attainers, at which time they probably will not yet have received their national insurance number, which is the primary means of verification. The examination, acceptance and storage of alternative proofs of identity will need the most careful thought and reassurance. None of this has had the kind of parliamentary scrutiny that the Committee stage of a Bill would provide—although I do welcome what my noble and learned friend said about the attention being given to the matter.
There have been many false dawns with earlier consultations on a reduction in the voting age. None has led to a firm conclusion in support of it. In 1998 the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee decided not to recommend a change. In 1999 the Howarth working party on electoral procedures reached the same conclusion. In December that year, in proceedings on what was to become the Representation of the People Act 2000, an amendment to reduce the age from 18 to 16 was rejected by an overwhelming majority.
As for the merits of the case for younger voting, of course we want young people to take an interest in our democratic process and in the issues of the day, and to start to develop their political beliefs. But if giving them the vote at 16 would achieve that, why does the 18 to 21 age group have the lowest turnout rate of all at general elections? It is not getting the vote earlier that matters, but attaining sufficient intellectual maturity and involvement in the issues that will affect their lives which will begin to engage them. Then, when they do get the vote, they will value it and be more likely to use it.
I mentioned the number of reports that came out in the early years of this century. People addressed the issue, and some of them left the door open. But broadly they all agreed, as successive Governments have done, that the present position should remain in place. In 2003 the Electoral Commission reached that conclusion as well.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble friend for the excellent report his committee has produced. Did the committee consider why, if it was proposed to reduce the age of the franchise and give the right to vote at 16, it was not also proposed that people should be able to stand as candidates at 16?
Lord Lang of Monkton
Again, my noble friend makes an extremely relevant point. The relationship between voting age and the age of majority has not been adequately considered, either. I hope that this will emerge in the course of the debate. I do not wish to take up too much of the House’s time, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I am sure that other noble Lords will wish to explore further the pros and cons of that change. The burden of my message to your Lordships today is simply to state that the appropriate parliamentary processes for a constitutional change of this kind have not been properly observed—and that is something that should not pass without comment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is a short measure, but one that I believe will have a very positive impact on our democracy—across the United Kingdom as a whole, but most particularly in the relationship between the Members of the Scottish Parliament and local authorities in Scotland and the people who elect them, and on how politicians respond to the desires of voters when they are elected.
On the assumption that the Scottish Parliament will vote to use the power once it has been transferred, for the first time in these islands parliamentarians will be elected by people aged 16 and over. That will mean that in elections to the Scottish Parliament and local authorities, not only will 16 and 17 year-olds be taught about citizenship and informed in schools and colleges about the processes of democracy, but they will be active citizens themselves. They will be enfranchised, and they will be participants. That is right and proper, and a considerable and positive step.
MSPs will no longer see 16 and 17 year-olds simply as people for whom services are provided in schools or colleges, or by councils and elsewhere; they will have to consider them as voters—not only as the receivers of services but as people who will have a direct say in how those services are shaped and delivered. They will become part of the democratic relationship between those who are elected and those to whom they are accountable. That is important and this proposal is a first step towards that.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Would my noble friend like to comment on a point that has already been made: namely, that if 16 year-olds have the right to vote, should they not also have the right to stand as candidates? Will he give his views on that?
Lord Purvis of Tweed
There are two aspects to that. The first is the desire of young people themselves. For many years a consistent theme in campaigns to give people the vote at 16 is that participating in the democratic process does not automatically assume that exactly the same process should apply to those who are elected to Parliament to make these decisions. That comes from young people themselves. Secondly, the age of majority is not necessarily applied consistently as regards young people’s rights and responsibilities. For example, different approaches are taken as regards the minimum age at which one can drink alcohol, drive, join the military or buy knives. Today, we are discussing the specific issue of the enfranchisement of 16 and 17 year-olds. The age of majority and whether young people of 15, 16 and upwards should be granted other rights and responsibilities is quite rightly an area which we continue to debate—and which young people themselves continue to debate. I see that my noble friend is itching to intervene and I am delighted to give way.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble friend, but is he really arguing that 16 year-olds in Scotland should not be trusted to buy a packet of cigarettes but should be trusted to decide the future Government of the country?
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am saying that there are differences in the rights and responsibilities of young people, and for those aged under 21, in these islands. In many instances the decisions made on why those rights and responsibilities differ for different ages are taken on their own merits. For example, decisions on the age at which one has the legal right to drive, join the Armed Forces or, indeed, buy articles that could potentially be used as weapons are taken on their own merits. Likewise, the proposal that 16 and 17 year-olds should also have the vote should be taken on its own merits.
I agree that there has not always been consensus on this issue among the political parties. When I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the Liberal Democrats worked hard with our Labour coalition partners to persuade them of the merits of this proposal, and we have done the same with our partners in this coalition. However, as my noble and learned friend indicated, there is now a settled consensus among the parties in the Scottish Parliament representing the whole spectrum of political view that this is the way forward.
I need not rehearse the arguments further about the merits of 16 and 17 year-olds voting, because to some extent the best evidence that I can provide was presented by the young people themselves in the referendum in Scotland. Those of us who took part in debates on the referendum will know that some of the best and most profound points in terms of perspective, responsibility and maturity were made by 16 and 17 year-olds who participated in them. Of course, that was a binary decision about the future of the country but there is no doubt in my mind that it demonstrated absolutely that not only can 16 and 17 year-olds be trusted to decide how they elect their representatives but it is important that we should now enshrine that in law.
My noble friend Lord Lang referred to turnout. He is quite right: the Electoral Commission’s assessment of the referendum in Scotland showed that the turnout of 16 and 17 year-olds was 75%. The rate dropped for those aged between 18 and 24 before it started to pick up for those aged 25 to 34 and those above 35. If I follow his rationale that democratic participation should start early and then develop, the best way of enhancing 18 to 24 year-olds’ participation in democratic elections is to enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds, as the evidence on turnout suggests that that will indeed be the case. Therefore, this delivers an agreement. The agreement is unanimous and I am delighted to support it.
My noble friend raised two final points on the committee report in which I was quite interested. First, I do not accept that a possible concern that other parts of the UK may have a desire to follow Scotland should be used as a negative to delay this. That other parts of the UK will learn from Scotland’s experiences should be seen as positive. I have no doubt that the Welsh experience that he cited was a result of people seeing the way in which 16 and 17 year-olds participated within Scotland in the referendum.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, my question did not concern the merits of a supermajority; I went out of my way to say that notwithstanding whether you were for or against it. My question was about the apparent transition from one position to a second and then to a third one. Since the noble Lord, Lord Lang, understandably refused to take responsibility for explaining the Government’s journey in that direction, perhaps the noble Lord can explain it. That was my question; it was not about the merits of the supermajority.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
It is only an apparent change. The noble Lord considers it one, but in fact there is no change. The Smith commission and indeed the introductory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, are perfectly clear on the powers to be extended to the Scottish Parliament over the franchise, as part of other aspects. The draft clauses accurately reflect the ongoing view in paragraph 27 rather than paragraph 25 of the continuation of the supermajority. In the measure that we have in front of us today—this instrument—and in the draft clauses that Parliament will be debating after the general election, there is no change, as far as I see, in the Government’s position. The noble Lord may not agree with that, but that is my view.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
It is not about whether I agree with the merits of it; it is about the objective, factual position. I was not referring to the Smith commission. I was referring to the Government’s publication in response to the Smith commission. The noble Lord may say that it is apparently at odds with the legislation; I think that it is. I am not questioning the merits of the case that he is putting; I am just trying to get an explanation on why there has been an apparent change three times in three months.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I was referring, in my answer to the noble Lord’s previous intervention, to the heads of agreement of the Smith commission, in paragraphs 25 and 27, and, in annexe A, to draft Clause 4 on page 93, which brings into effect the recommendations of the Smith commission. This clause also brings into effect a recommendation of the Smith commission, which is to move, on the basis of unanimity in the Smith commission, to the delivery of this power for 16 and 17-year olds, so that the Parliament will have that authority in advance of the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. There is no difference in that position on the Government’s part, apparent or otherwise, as far as I see it.
Finally, I joined my party at the age of 16. One of my reasons for doing so was because of the position that my party had to empower 16 year-olds to take part in parliamentary elections. I am delighted that this Government have acted on the unanimity of political views in the Scottish Parliament to deliver this, and that is why I will be delighted if this goes through Parliament today.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is that he must have been quite an extraordinary 16-year old if at that age he was thinking of joining the Liberal Democrats because it was going to reduce the franchise age to 16. I have to say that when I was 16, I thought that I was a socialist, but I grew out of that after a while.
I am participating in this debate not to argue the merits or otherwise of whether people should have the vote at 16, but because I think that the process by which this is being achieved is absolutely lamentable. We began our proceedings this morning by discussing whether former Members and MEPs should have access to the facilities—the restaurants and bars—of this place. I sat here thinking that this place is presenting itself to the outside world as if it was some kind of club, rather than a House of Parliament. This debate, and the way that the Government have dealt with the matter, shows that we are being treated as a kind of club and not as a second House of Parliament with particular responsibilities for constitutional matters.
We have here an excellent report from the Constitution Committee. My noble friend Lord Lang has explained the reservations which have been drawn to the attention of the House by the committee, but the Government propose to charge on regardless. I have the highest regard for my noble and learned friend the Minister, but even he was struggling to make bricks out of this particular straw. He suggested that there was not really a commitment that contradicted the terms. Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement was published in January 2015 as Command Paper 8990. It has a foreword signed by the right honourable Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the right honourable David Cameron, the Prime Minister, which states that it is their response to the Smith commission proposals. On page 17, it states:
“To provide an adequate check on Scottish Parliament legislation changing the franchise”,
which is what we are discussing,
“the electoral system or the number of constituency and regional members for the Scottish Parliament, UK legislation will require such legislation to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the Scottish Parliament”.
Is this not UK legislation? Are we not discussing the franchise? What do those words mean if they do not mean what I say they mean? My noble and learned friend is being Humpty Dumpty. Words, it appears, for this Government mean whatever they believe them to mean and not what they say. This was a document presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister only a few weeks ago. We are entitled to ask why this change has been made.
As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, pointed out, my noble and learned friend made a contradictory statement. He said that we are not having a supermajority because there is consensus that it should happen. As the noble Lord pointed out, if there is consensus, what is the problem with having a supermajority? My noble and learned friend did not make clear whether that supermajority is still required. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that there was consensus. Suppose that there was a majority in the Scottish Parliament that, having had a bad experience with the franchise set at 16, wanted to change it from 16 to 18. Would that require a supermajority, or has that provision simply been dropped? If the answer to my question is, yes, it would require a supermajority, is it not going to look a bit ridiculous to tell the Scottish Parliament that it can change the age to 16 but it needs a supermajority to change it back to where it was?
I am really dismayed that matters of this kind should be being dealt with by orders and regulations, which effectively prevents this House or, indeed, the other place, from making any amendments or changes and having any debate.
That brings me to my next point, which my noble and learned friend acknowledged. Included in the order is a proposal that the franchise should be extended to local government. There was nothing in Smith about that. There is nothing in this document that I can see—I stand to be corrected about that. It has come from nowhere for the sake of convenience. Therefore, the idea that we extend the franchise for local government, which may or may not be a good idea, has not been subject to proper scrutiny. No one in Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom has had an opportunity to discuss the merits of it: there has been no consultation. As my noble friend Lord Lang pointed out—and has pointed out in the excellent report from the Constitution Committee of this House, which has had to be rushed out in order to meet this timetable, ahead of discussing the draft clauses to which this apparently relates—it is an extraordinary way of doing business.
In the early 1960s, as has already been mentioned, when we changed the franchise from 21 to 18, we did it after having two commissions. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, may take credit for it, as a Labour Government did this. The Labour Government in those days were very concerned about consultation and constitutional propriety and there were two separate commissions created to look at this before the change was made. One was on the age of majority, which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was struggling with. How can it be right to have an age of majority that is different to the age of the franchise? We end up with the absurd position that 16 year-olds are not allowed to go and buy a pint of beer, to buy a packet of cigarettes, or to drive a car; but they are allowed to decide the future Government of their country. They are almost certainly not paying income tax or other taxes apart from indirect taxes; they will not even have a national insurance number when they are required to go on the register, because they will be 15. The national insurance number system, as the Constitution Committee report points out, is the means by which we check the identity of voters for the voters’ roll, so how is that going to work? There is nothing that I can see in the explanatory material provided by the Minister to explain any of this or to deal with the issue of whether 16 year-olds should be able to stand as candidates.
I happen to believe that, if you have the right to vote, you should have the right to stand. It is true that there has been a difference in the past. When I was at St Andrews University with the late Robert Jones—who was in the other place as the Member for West Hertfordshire and died rather prematurely—he stood as a student in St Andrews. He promptly got himself made chairman of the planning committee and started to block the principle of the plans of St Andrews for the expansion of the university, which caused a degree of consternation. It was argued then that a student should not be able to be on the council deciding these matters, but at the time people accepted that if you had the right to vote and participate in the election you should be able to stand as a candidate. This is illustrated by this House: the reason why Members of this House do not have a vote at the forthcoming general election is that we are our own representatives in Parliament. That is the constitutional theory. Therefore, if you are able to vote in the election, it seems to me that you should be able to stand and put forward your views. This is completely muddled.
What on earth are this Government doing? They seem to be making up constitutional change as they go along. They seem to be doing it under electoral pressure from the Scottish Nationalists, and—do you know what?—it does not seem to be working. Ladbrokes will give you very good odds on the SNP winning more than 39 seats in the forthcoming general election. You would not have got these odds before we made this foolish vow in the last minutes of the referendum campaign. This process of appeasement and making it up as you go along is creating instability in our country and feeding those who wish to break our United Kingdom. These are facts.
I have bored the Minister to death on this subject; I have spoken on it before and I warned him that if we introduced the opportunity for 16 year-olds to vote, then it would be argued that other parts of the United Kingdom should get the same. What do we have from this Government on the position in respect of Wales? Do we have a similar provision for the Welsh Assembly? Apparently not: we have a provision that 16 year-olds in Wales might get the vote in order to vote in a referendum on tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly. Where is the logic of that? You would get to vote on tax-raising powers as a 16 year-old when you may not have to pay them but not get to vote for the Members of the Welsh Assembly. However, if you move north of the border you would get the opportunity to vote for the Scottish Parliament because there is consensus among the political parties about this. Why is there a consensus in Scotland? What about England?
What are this Government doing in bringing forward measures based on the Smith commission, which had a narrow remit? Its remit was to consider what was right for Scotland. It did not look at the rest of the United Kingdom or the implications for it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My noble friend is seriously misinformed on this matter. If he looks at the Smith commission’s report, he will see the principles that guided the commission, which included “no detriment” to other parts of the United Kingdom. That was one of the principles which all parties to the Smith commission agreed to and which informed the proposals with which it came forward. He is absolutely wrong to say that there was no regard to other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In which case, why on earth are we still retaining the Barnett formula and allowing Scotland to raise its own tax, if the principle was that there was “no detriment” to the rest of the United Kingdom? There was no representation from anyone from the rest of the United Kingdom; it was the political parties in Scotland looking at the position in Scotland.
My noble and learned friend, who is a very clever lawyer, is making a quite separate point. You can look at what is in the interests of Scotland in such a way that it creates no detriment to the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is not the same thing as looking at the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and considering the knock-on implications. That is a matter for this House and, more particularly, the other place but they are being given no opportunity to debate and consider it. In the case of the changes to local government there has been no opportunity for anyone in Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament or anywhere else to consider that.
I return to my point. We had the Smith commission looking at Scotland. Then we had this ludicrous vow made in the last few days of the campaign—after I and many other people had voted, because many people voted by post. It was done without consultation with the party leaders in Scotland, hence the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland resigned and described her party as being treated like a branch office. Our leader Ruth Davidson, who did such an excellent job in the referendum campaign, was not consulted. This was three privy counsellors on the phone, cooking up a scheme. We have not had that style of government, where privy counsellors could consult each other and create legislative change of this kind, since the days of Wolf Hall. We should be very concerned indeed by the way in which this matter has been done and brought forward.
Then we had the childish timetable where the Government were required to respond from September by St Andrew’s Night, and then from St Andrew’s Night we had to have draft clauses by Burns Night. This is pantomime politics. Not only did we have these draft clauses by Burns Night but, a week later, we had the architect—the hero—of saving the union, Gordon Brown, telling us all that what he had produced and agreed by Burns Night was no longer satisfactory and that we needed to do something else. This is riding for trouble. We should consider constitutional matters carefully and they should carry consensus. We should consider the implications for the United Kingdom as a whole. It should never be driven by political expediency or short-term political consideration.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am enjoying my noble friend’s contribution but, with regard to symbolism, I wonder which has the richer symbolism in what he is referring to. Is it David Cameron not consulting Ruth Davidson in advance of making that joint statement with the other leaders of the UK parties or, in some form of symbolic suggestion, moving the Stone of Scone up to Scotland in 1996 to cross the River Tweed with great fanfare?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sure the House will get cross with me if I go on much longer but, as the noble Lord has raised the Stone of Scone, the reason that I persuaded the Prime Minister, who in turn persuaded Her Majesty the Queen, that the stone should be returned to Scotland—and the reason it came up as an issue—had nothing whatever to do with any symbolism.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I shall tell noble Lords the truth of the matter. I do not know if it has been made public before. The reason it happened was that the registrar wished to release the papers in connection with the theft of the Stone of Scone on Christmas Eve in the 1950s, which showed that the then Conservative Secretary of State was then in favour of returning the Stone of Scone to Scotland. It was not returned because at that time Scottish nationalist elements were blowing up postboxes because they had EIIR on them, not EIR, and the then Government decided that to return it at that time would be to give encouragement to those lawless courses. I realised full well that people such as my noble friend Lord Purvis, when those papers were released, would immediately start a campaign and therefore reconsidered the merits of returning the Stone of Scone, on the basis that a treaty, the treaty of Northampton, was signed by the English that promised to do so. As Secretary of State, I felt that, after about 600 years, I ought to maintain the rule of law. It certainly was not a stunt. Given the trouble we were in in 1996 politically, if my noble friend thinks that I thought that returning the Stone of Scone would make one whit of difference, he underestimates my intelligence.
I say to this Government: this constitutional tinkering absolutely has to stop. Look at us—the House of Commons, the other place, went down the other evening at 6 pm. Have we not learnt from the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill? Have we not learnt from the Recall of MPs Bill, which I have been involved in? We have had several debates where I have said, “This is not going to happen. If someone gets into trouble, their party will withdraw the whip and they will not be able to stand”. Very sadly—most unfortunately, I think—Sir Malcolm Rifkind now finds himself with the whip being withdrawn within 12 hours, before any report is given. The whip is taken away from him and he cannot stand. This is coming from a Government who are telling us that Members who get into trouble have the right to face the electorate and the electorate will decide.
This kind of constitutional stuff, which is about partnerships between parties and trying to seize political advantage, was started by Tony Blair and it absolutely has to stop. I very much regret that this House can do nothing about it because of the way that the Government have approached it.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, can we assume that the noble Lord is agreeing with the idea of having a constitutional commission and convention that would look at the whole of the British constitution before deciding any of these issues?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he knows, I do favour that. I believe that the Liberals favour having a constitutional convention and the Labour Party favour having a constitutional convention. Perhaps if we called it something else—let us call it a constitutional convocation or a bright idea—perhaps then we could get a consensus. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord: these things need to be considered; they need to carry wholehearted agreement; and, of course, with each step along the road that is made without thinking of the long-term consequences, it becomes even more difficult to unravel and create a proper settlement. So I entirely agree. On that note of consensus, I hope I have persuaded the Minister to withdraw this ridiculous order.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend will be astonished to hear that I agree with him on one of the main points that he has been making. However, it is about time that somebody from another part of the United Kingdom commented on my noble friend’s very proper regard for the consequences that he has identified for other parts. I am a fellow Celt, but I cannot pretend to be speaking on behalf of Scotland. He is of course correct that this is not something that can simply be left across the border. We would not be speaking about it in your Lordships’ House if it did not have wider implications.
I want to return—this is why I felt the need to speak—to the Constitution Committee’s report, particularly to the contribution of the chairman, my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton. The critical sentence in the report is the warning about this potentially piecemeal and incremental approach to changing the voting age. What the committee should have gone on to do—this is the missing sentence, if I may humbly submit this to members of the committee and its chairman—was say that the Government should have picked up my Private Member’s Bill, the Voting Age (Comprehensive Reduction) Bill of the previous Session, which received a Second Reading in your Lordships’ House with encouragement from Members on all sides.
I thought that the Minister very neatly put on one side the implications of this order for other parts of the UK, as I will come back to in a moment. Obviously, it is unacceptable in the UK that the critical foundation stone of our representative democracy—the franchise—should be quite different in different parts of our United Kingdom. If Scotland had decided to separate from the other nations of this country, this could have been a discrete issue for the Scottish Parliament, but it is not, they did not and therefore it is of relevance to us all. As my noble friend has indicated very effectively, there has already been a very practical demonstration of the maturity of young people in the Scottish referendum campaign. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Cormack is here because it was he who gave a practical example during the previous debate of the way in which his granddaughter took a very active and well informed part in the debates.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I apologise for intervening—I missed the first part of this debate—but I must make it plain that, although I have the highest regard for my granddaughter’s intelligence, I do not believe in votes at 16, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Forsyth cogently made in one of the best speeches I have heard in this House for a very long time.
Lord Tyler
I also enjoy my noble friend’s speeches, whether or not I agree with them, because he takes us back to Wolf Hall and other Tudor examples of the behaviour of Governments. In this case, we can look at more recent history. It is not true, as was implied by the Constitution Committee and my noble friends, that this matter suddenly appeared on the political agenda; that is simply not true.
I shall take just one example. I am amazed that no one else in your Lordships’ House seems to have read the excellent Youth Select Committee report from last autumn, published soon after the example that we were given in Scotland, which was very properly given some extra credence by Mr Speaker in the other place. In that report, the very cogent argument for reducing the age of the franchise to 16 is set out in great detail, answering a lot of the points that have already been made in your Lordships’ House. Also, as my noble friend Lord Purvis said, at the end of their secondary school experience with citizenship, in the parental circumstances that they are likely still to be in, young people are much more engaged in the issues that affect them than they are when they go off to work or higher education at 17 or 18. That is why, interestingly, the turnout in Scotland was better among the 16 and 17 year-olds than it was among the 18 to 24 year-olds. Not only that, and I do not know whether everyone in your Lordships’ House will agree with this, but they also voted by a majority to remain in the United Kingdom, while middle-aged men—I emphasise “men”—voted by a majority to separate. It was young people who saw with maturity the advantages of remaining in the United Kingdom.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, would like to hear views from people in other parts of the United Kingdom on the implications of this order. He is right: there are implications. You cannot compartmentalise the United Kingdom and have such drastically different franchises in different parts of it. Of course, Scotland has its own law, and we understand that there are differences and nuances, but the one area that brings everybody together is elections to our national parliament and elections to the European Parliament, and below that we have other tiers. It seems utterly unsupportable in the long term that we have this pick-and-mix process where you have a franchise here for this, a franchise here for that, and a franchise here for somewhere else. It is just nonsense.
Without getting into the merits of the voting at 16 issue—a debate I am very happy to get into and certainly some of the arguments are meritorious and others need consideration—the methodology that has been adopted in this case is indefensible. Since 2012, and, indeed, even long before that, the Government have got Scotland completely wrong. The question was wrong and the timing was wrong. We are reacting to the tyranny of populism and nobody is thinking this through. If Alex Salmond got up and said, “15 years old”, we would be saying 15 years old today. He got his question, which was the wrong question, and everything he wanted. The logic is that if we do that, everything will go away. It will not.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I just want to add something that he omitted. I refer to the exclusion of 800,000 Scottish people living in the same state from having a vote on the future of the country. It was an absolute disgrace and must never be allowed to happen again. If you want a historic reason for it, I point to the very reason for devolution, which was to recognise the distinct background on philosophy, culture and politics of the nations of the United Kingdom. The difference between Scotland and England has been that sovereignty in England lies in Parliament before the Crown, but for eight centuries sovereignty in Scotland has lain with the Scottish people, not the people in Scotland, but the Scottish people. Therefore, to exclude 800,000 Scots from a vote on the future of their country was not only a political expedient to gain advantage but was contrary to everything that lies intrinsically in the basic difference in politics between Scotland and England.
Lord Empey
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, has a very strong argument to make. The irony was that citizens from other parts of the European Union who happened to be registered in Scotland had a vote, even though they were not remotely in any sense Scottish. That seems to be another inconsistency.
The truth is that this order is a symptom of a fundamental flaw and malaise in the constitutional approach of our current Government. While this Government have done so many good things, the one area where they have been at their worst has been in dealing with constitutional matters. We have had one flaw after another. Some of us sat for years trying to work out a constitutional way forward for our own part of the United Kingdom. You cannot make this stuff up on the back of a fag packet and expect to have a system that will be respected in the long term.
The Minister made a point about the Smith commission and doing nothing to demerit the other parts of the United Kingdom. I understand that the clause was within the remit. However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is irrefutable. Something such as this cannot be done in Scotland without implications for the rest of us. It is impossible. What will happen now? We will have a dog’s dinner of a franchise, which will apply in certain places. We have now invented a Welsh model, which is going to change things. How on earth can we say to 16 year-olds in Brighton, Belleek or Aberystwyth that people of their age in Scotland are fit to make a huge constitutional decision but those 16 year-olds are unfit to elect their local parish councillor? It is not sustainable and we all know that.
In many respects, I understand the panic that enveloped our leaders when they were a few days out from the referendum. One could see why. They saw things going down the drain, and there was a reaction of “We’ve got to do something to stop this”. There is no doubt that the right honourable Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath did have an influence, but he came on to the scene and basically bounced the leaders into these vows. He is now going on to part two of them, which takes us into an even deeper jungle.
I understand what the Minister is doing here but he must understand—he does understand because he is a very clever person—that this series of constitutional inconsistencies is unsupportable. It would not be possible to go out and argue this case in front of an audience and expect to be treated with respect as people would know that it had not been thought through and whether one calls it a commission or a constitutional convention it needs to have a sensible time limit. It cannot be seen to be put on to the long finger. We need to sit down and look at all of this. It is one awful mess. I am really distressed about it because I can see what is going to happen. We must not distinguish between our young people. Young people from those regions come together in universities or in further education or technical colleges. They mix with one another and they meet each other. We cannot have a situation where one young person is at one level and is treated as being at that level, while another person is treated as being at a different level. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that cannot be sustained.
I seriously suggest that the Minister should say to his colleagues—I am sure that he has tried to do so—that this blunderbuss, inconsistent approach which we have adopted will do permanent damage to our country. It will create constitutional chaos. We are making things up as we go along. Far from assuaging the rabid appetite of Scottish nationalism, this is feeding it. People can see that the more they shout for this, the more they get. It is not rocket science; it is Pavlov’s dog. It is the same thing. They shout and they roar, and they get a feed, and they do it again. Why would they not do it? That is the question I ask myself.
I have lived surrounded by people who also wanted different constitutional outcomes but who went to the use of force. Force did work for them to a very large extent until eventually we managed to pull the community together to face them down. We will not solve this problem by feeding it and running away from it. It has to be confronted and the arguments for the union must be put in a coherent and consistent manner. We will not maintain the union by producing measures which serve only to prove how hopeless the union must be if it needs such a mishmash of a constitutional mechanism. This will not be the last of it.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, it seems to me that at times in this debate we have drifted some distance from the core issue of the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015. What we have here today is quite a narrow technical measure that focuses on the change that will potentially be introduced to give votes to 16 and 17 year-olds in Scottish Parliament elections and in Scottish local government elections. As I understand it, all the parties in this Chamber, in the House of Commons and in Scotland support that move. Therefore, this is about practical, simple and straightforward politics.
Frankly, I do not care how many times the Government have changed their position from one document or from one day to the next. Sometimes in this House we very much welcome a change of position from the Government as long as they get to a good position, and surely that is the core issue here. I think that on this they have reached a practical, sensible, progressive and positive way forward. To be frank, having read the document, I am no great fan of supermajorities. I do not know how many other noble Lords recall that my noble friend Lord Forsyth spoke out against supermajorities. A supermajority is not something that I particularly wish to see. As I understand it, it was agreed as a compromise as part of the tough negotiations under the Smith commission that the Labour Party, as well as the other parties, was very much involved with. The other parties were not necessarily pushing for that supermajority. Regardless of that, let us come back to the issue. This is a simple, straightforward—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am not sure whether the noble Lord is speaking for himself or for the Liberal party, but when he says that he is not that keen on supermajorities—a view that I share—does he think that that should apply to the other things, other than the franchise, which at the moment, according to the Government, would be covered by a supermajority?
Lord Stephen
I am simply explaining my personal position, which is that of being sceptical about the need for supermajorities. However, they are not unique and if, as part of achieving consensus on the way forward on some of these issues, that was the position adopted by Smith, I could understand the background and the reasons for it.
Coming back to the issue in hand today, I think that this is a much more straightforward measure than we have reflected in our debate. The danger is that it will look as though we are dragging our heels and that we are a bunch of elderly dinosaurs who really do not want this to happen. That is a real concern. The debate is one thing but the suggestion in the headlines in the press that it will lead to, and in the political discussion in Scotland, will be that 16 and 17 year-olds do not have—what was the phrase used earlier?—“intellectual maturity”. Sometimes you could debate whether 30 year-olds, 50 year-olds or 70, 80 or 90 year-olds have intellectual maturity. I hope that that is a debate that we will never have, and I hope it is not an issue that we will focus on in terms of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. Some of them have incredible intellectual maturity and a real interest in political issues. I say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that I think they could make very good local councillors or Members of the Scottish Parliament.
I recall that when I was elected at the age of 22 I was the youngest councillor in Scotland. That felt very young at the time. You could be 18 when you voted but under the then Conservative Administration you had to be 21 before you could stand. I stood and was elected. I always used to argue that it would be very bad if all parliamentarians were 21 or 22 years old but that it was very good that some of them were young people, and I would argue the same today. I would argue to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds because I think that if you can get married and have children, join the Armed Forces and pay taxes, you should be entitled to a vote. It is a simple, practical and straightforward measure, and it represents constitutional change. I support the idea of a constitutional convention. Constitutional change in this country can be difficult to achieve, so I say, “Grab it when you can and build on it”. I think that we will build on it and that votes for 16 and 17 year-olds will come for all the rest of the United Kingdom in all elections.
However, it is not uncommon to have a different franchise for different elections. We have it already with EU elections compared with local government elections, UK elections and Scottish Parliament or Assembly elections. Different people have a different entitlement to be on the register. It is a different situation from that of age but it is a different register and a different entitlement. Similarly, in Scotland I would argue that far more important than a move to introduce votes for 16 and 17 year-olds was the move by the Scottish Parliament to introduce fair votes by introducing proportional representation for local government. That change was never introduced in the rest of the UK, although I hope that one day it will be. However, that is the sort of progressive constitutional change that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues want to see right across the United Kingdom.
So let us vote for change. Let us try to implement change, making it coherent, well thought out constitutional change that is not piecemeal. Sadly, my experience of politics in this country is that change tends to be far too piecemeal, and it often tends to be long delayed and not very progressive.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
When I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, in 1973 I introduced proportional representation in the reform of local government there, and I am glad that Scotland has followed our example.
Lord Stephen
I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, also wants to come in.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lest he unwittingly feeds the very headlines that he seems to fear so much, I want to make plain the burden of those of us who have questioned the measure today—and questioned it in terms of asking for an explanation, which is the essence of accountability. We were not saying that 16 and 17 year-olds lack the capacity or the maturity to vote; we were saying that it was a gross inconsistency to provide those people with the ability to vote for the future of a country but to exclude them from the ambit of intelligence when it came to buying cigarettes or driving. We said that it was incoherent to give them the vote in one part of this country but to deny them the franchise in other parts of the country. In other words, far from arguing that 16 and 17 year-olds were not capable, we questioned why they were capable of this—which many of us, including me, support—but not given access to the many other things that they are capable of doing. I hope that that undermines any anticipatory headlines. Finally, we should not be making policy on the basis of what we think the tabloids will write tomorrow.
Lord Stephen
I am not suggesting that we do. I have supported this measure since becoming a councillor at the age of 22. I have taken part in many debates on the issue and have heard many people challenge the position for the reason mentioned in today’s debate—that of intellectual maturity. It is a charge that I would like to rebut. The number of young people who were involved in the referendum debate in a constructive and positive way—not all of whom by any means supported Scottish independence—and who took a very mature, well thought out and well researched view on the matter underscored the importance of this issue. It also underscored why most Peers today, I hope, support this extension of the franchise. To make it consistent, it should be an extension across the UK, and the sooner that can happen, the better.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord has characterised us as being opposed to votes for 16 year-olds. For myself, I think that the genie is out of the bottle. We will need to have votes for 16 year-olds throughout the United Kingdom, and I would expect the coalition Government to come forward with proposals to that effect, having had a proper consultation period and having considered what the age of majority should be. The noble Lord has been very eloquent but can he deal with this point? It is not a unionist position to do this on a piecemeal basis. Also, if he is right about 16 year-olds, as I am sure he is, what on earth are we doing stopping them buying a packet of cigarettes or buying a drink?
Lord Stephen
I agree that there is great logic in the argument that has already been put forward in the exchange with my noble friend Lord Purvis about the age of consent, the age for voting, the age for driving, the age for marrying and the age for watching a film with an 18 certificate. We should be reviewing these things, but I am making a practical point. There is a strong argument for much greater consistency and I firmly believe that today’s measure can be part of driving that argument forward and can be the beginning of further change for the rest of the UK. That is why I think that today’s moves are very important. It is almost as if we have flushed out the position of some noble Lords that they do, in fact, support the extension of the franchise to the age of 16, and I warmly welcome that. As Peers and as politicians, we should spend more time engaging with young people, encouraging them and being positive about them. Too often in politics we tend to demonise young people and do them down, and that is a concern of mine.
I finish by paying tribute to Lord Mackie of Benshie, who, sadly, passed away last week. He had an incredible war record. Without people like him, the democracy that we have today simply would not exist. He had an incredible track record both in the House of Commons and in this House. My recollection of him is as a mentor. I got involved in politics at a very young age. I was 22 when I was first elected to the council, and very quickly after that I got involved in campaigning with Lord Mackie of Benshie, who was the president of the Scottish Liberal Party. He was a big influence in my life. I have no idea what his views on these issues would be and I do not pretend to set down his opinion, but I am sure he would be delighted that we are debating this issue and trying to engage more young people in politics, because that is what he did with me. He was very much a mentor, a counsellor and somebody who inspired my place in politics; and each of us can have that role for other young people. The tenor of the debate that we have on these issues is very important. That is why I believe that this Motion should go forward for approval.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, I have listened with tremendous interest to this debate and with the utmost appreciation for the wonderful exposition of the unionist case from my noble friend Lord Forsyth. One point above all has been borne in upon me: the absolute need for a consistent voting age throughout our country. It is a question of deep principle. Surely that is what we need to settle. Against that background, would it not be appropriate for the Government to withdraw this order, to secure—although, of course, it cannot come immediately—a proper parliamentary decision on the voting age? That should surely come first. That point will stay with me above all from this tremendously enjoyable and important debate.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, let me come to the aid of the Government. I have really enjoyed the debate and want it to go on longer, but I think we might be getting to the time when we are pushing our luck. I will be relying very heavily on the speech made by Margaret Curran in the other place: a brilliant exposition of the Labour Party position on this issue and on this methodology. I understand the concerns raised about the methodology and I will deal with that later in what I have got to say.
As Margaret Curran said, it is worth remembering that the referendum was decisive in what it decided: to stay within the union. It was also decisive in looking for change. Here I must say that it is easy for people to demonise and insult Gordon Brown, but he is a giant of the international stage, a giant of the Westminster stage and a giant of the Scottish stage, and people who nark away are pygmies in comparison. He came forward almost single-handedly at a time when the future of our country as a member of the United Kingdom was in doubt. It is easy to deride some of his actions, but I am one of those who take the view that, had it not been for the highly significant intervention of Gordon Brown, the outcome of the referendum may not have been so decisive. The call for change is certainly there. That referendum resulted in a degree of consensus on new powers for Scotland, coalescing around the Smith commission.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He seems to be making the case that there was no last-minute panic with the so-called vow in Scotland. I do not know how he can possibly make that case, because many of the 16 year-olds—and others, like me—had already voted by post when the so-called vow was published. The vow was not even called a vow by the privy counsellors concerned. This was an antic by the editor of the Daily Record, who put the declaration on the front page and called it a vow, and it was done in the last 48 hours of the campaign. If that is not panic, I do not know what the definition of “panic” is.
Lord McAvoy
The noble Lord referred to the Daily Record. In a previous life he was not so keen on quoting the Daily Record when it called for his resignation over various matters.
This is about not only the vow but the conduct of Gordon Brown in leading the Better Together campaign in public meetings. He was accompanied by Ruth Davidson—she performed brilliantly as well and sat on the same platform as him—and the message got through to the Scottish public. The thoughts of Gordon Brown—not the thoughts of Chairman Mao—and his attitude to Scottish independence and a more powerful Scottish Parliament will go down in history. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may not like it but certainly he will be viewed as the architect of that.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I do not wish to contradict anything my noble friend has said but perhaps we should clarify the difference. My noble friend said that there was no panic in Scotland. I think what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to was panic in London. Both may be right.
I intervene to mention Alistair Darling and many other people who spent a great deal of time over a long period when things were difficult. We should put on record our appreciation for the man who led the campaign.
Lord McAvoy
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan. I was coming to the Better Together campaign, but Gordon Brown was specifically mentioned and that is why I led with offering my thanks and congratulations to him.
Lord Lexden
Given that there has been considerable comment about Gordon Brown, does the noble Lord endorse his latest requests for movement beyond the Smith commission? Does he endorse Mr Brown’s latest utterances?
Lord McAvoy
I have not studied them in detail so I am not quite sure. However, we are dealing with this measure today.
On my noble friend Lord Reid’s point, Alistair Darling led the campaign, Jim Murphy went round the country with his Irn-Bru crates and a large number of other people were also involved. One of the hidden powers behind the transformation of the Better Together campaign was my honourable friend Frank Roy, MP for Motherwell and Wishaw, whose training in the Whips’ Office came through in spades and he certainly helped to deliver. I hope that completes the panoply of people I have to thank for the result.
I have mentioned Ruth Davidson—she was fine—and I am trying to think of a Liberal I can mention, but I will move on.
Lord McAvoy
Charles Kennedy, yes; what a time it was for Charles—a former member of the SDP, but there we are.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On the subject of Gordon Brown, does the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, agree with his repudiation of the Smith commission’s proposals that the Scottish Parliament should have power to levy income tax?
Lord McAvoy
This is not about what Gordon Brown says now. I cannot deal with a matter that Gordon Brown has no influence on other than within the referendum campaign. What was said in the Smith commission is agreed. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will send me these alleged quotes from Gordon Brown and let us move on. I remind the House that it was the disparaging remarks about Gordon Brown from the Benches opposite that inspired my defence of him. I will always come to his defence.
My noble friend Lord Reid is right: there may have been panic in London—I am not party to the higher echelons of power in London—but in the political parties in Scotland there was no panic. There were the strident calls of the SNP and its negative reaction to the referendum result, but that was it.
It is quite clear that the changes proposed in this order are welcome in Scotland. I am Scottish and involved in Scotland and I know that the order is welcome, and it is right that the Secretary of State has brought it forward. As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, has done the House a service by raising these issues and allowing the Minister to respond to them. I make it absolutely clear—even if it invites further interventions—that we are fully behind this order. It reflects the Smith commission recommendations and the requests in Scotland that we should do this, and it is right that the Scottish Parliament should have the power to do so. It is also right and logical that the Scottish Parliament should be given the power to alter the franchise for local government elections.
I hope that we can move forward with consensus and use the consensus that exists in Scotland. Everyone knows that relations between the Labour Party and the Liberals have not always been consensual; the Conservative Party has certainly never been too consensual —especially when the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was Scottish Secretary, but I will not dwell on his guilty past—but the consensus is there. Without any doubt we fully support the order and wish to place that on record.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this robust and good natured debate. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may have got a lot of things out of his system about the vow and so on, but I suspect that, when we come back after the election, at the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill which will bring forward the clauses, we will have a reprise of his speech and there will be even more things for him to get his teeth into.
The debate has ranged widely, from Wolf Hall, to the Stone of Destiny, to the roll of honour of those who took part in supporting the no campaign during the referendum. A number of important points have been made—for example, the one put succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, in his intervention on my noble friend Lord Stephen. There are inconsistencies in the things you can do at 15, 16, 17 and 18. You can get married and join the Armed Forces at 16, but the ages for driving and buying cigarettes are different. The order is not about ironing out these inconsistencies. An overview of the differences is for another time and another place; it is not what this order is about.
There was a degree of consensus around your Lordships’ House on the merits of a constitutional convention or convocation, which included the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Maxton, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who pointed out that my own party supported it. It is not going to happen this side of the general election—it cannot practically be set up in the next three or four weeks—but, post-election, it is almost inevitable in some form. It will involve not only the political parties but civic communities, which is important, but that is for the other side of the election. It has happened before. In the debate we had in October after the referendum, views from different parts of the United Kingdom and from different parties were expressed about the importance of a constitutional convention.
One of the other themes was the thin end of the wedge, as it may be called. If voting at 16 happens in Scotland at the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections, it may well happen elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Tyler made clear why he hopes that will be the case. With due respect to noble Lords who do not wish to see votes at 16, I could take technical shelter behind the fact that the order does not legislate for votes at 16 in Scotland for the Scottish Parliament; rather it confers the powers for the Scottish Parliament to do so. However, given that the Scottish Parliament has made it clear that it will do so I shall not hide behind the order, but it is important to remember technically what it does.
.
My noble friend Lord Stephen made the point that we have debated important issues, including the vow. It is quite clear that my noble friend Lord Forsyth does not like how we got here. I voted no, in spite of the vow, not because of it. I voted no because I wanted Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom and I am delighted that we got the very convincing outcome to the referendum that we did. At the time, it was said that a vote for no was not a vote for no change. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, reflected that when he referred to the speech made by Mrs Margaret Curran in the other place. I will come on to the process in a moment.
Lord Maxton
I wondered whether the Minister voted by post before the vow, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I did.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Yes, I did. I voted out of sheer conviction that the right thing to do was maintain Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Stephen asked us to do a reality check on what we are about here. This is taking forward recommendations from the Smith commission. The Smith agreement is important, not least because it was endorsed by five political parties in the Scottish Parliament. Looking back, the Scottish Constitutional Convention engaged many parts of civic society in Scotland but, in terms of political parties, it included only the Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party. It did not include two large parties: the Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party. The Calman commission, the recommendations of which led to the Scotland Act 2012, engaged the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as others, but it did not engage the Scottish National Party. Here we have an agreement that has been fed into by representatives of five parties, including the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble friend. How on earth can he say it included the Scottish National Party, which repudiated it as soon as it was published?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It is important to remember that the commission involved the Scottish National Party, which signed up to it. We are seeking, with this order, to implement one of the parts of that agreement. I have not heard anyone in this debate query whether we should be following this course. No one has acknowledged or faced up to the fact that, if this was done by primary legislation in a Bill after the general election, it would be almost impossible to do all the work required to get 16 and 17 year-olds onto the roll between Royal Assent—at the end of this year or even at the beginning of the next—and the election in May 2016. It was, therefore, necessary to do it by a Section 30 order. That order is what gave the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate for the referendum itself. No one has gainsaid that this is an appropriate way to honour the Smith agreement.
My noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Lang talked about some of the important data protection issues. My noble friend acknowledged that we are seeking to put in place some ways to take care of these. The order will allow the Scottish Government to set up their own system of identity checking for 14 and 15 year-old attainers and it will be for them to decide how this will be put into effect. I repeat what I said in my opening remarks: the Scottish Government are familiar with the Data Protection Act and must abide by data protection legislation. I recall that this important issue was raised when the legislation for the referendum was being drawn up. I have not since heard any complaints that proper procedures were not put in place to address these important issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth spoke of an apparent inconsistency on the question of supermajority. As my noble friend Lord Stephen pointed out, it does not matter so long as you get to the end result and it is the right one. My noble friend Lord Forsyth quoted from page 17 of the command paper. That quote—which is in a box—is from the Smith commission agreement. The agreement itself does not suggest that there should be a supermajority for this one measure of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds and I do not recall anyone doing so. I know the logic that my noble friend Lord Lang and his committee pointed to, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced very early on that we would deal separately with the power to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds and no one has suggested that the supermajority should apply to that. The Government’s position has not changed on that at any time.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble friend. I may be mistaken, but I thought that the Government published draft clauses that provided for a supermajority in these circumstances, in line with the Smith commission proposals. I thought I had asked him, at the Dispatch Box, why on earth we were introducing the alien concept of supermajorities and that the Government had defended it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
There is provision in the draft clauses for supermajorities covering a range of matters. The Smith commission recommended this but, so far as I can see, no one has ever suggested that it did so with regard to the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. The recommendation regarding extending the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections to 16 and 17 year-olds was a very separate one and we have proceeded on that basis. There has not been any switch in position, as has been suggested. As I indicated earlier, to include such a provision in the current order would involve detailed consideration on how to amend very key sections of the Scotland Act. For example, thought would have to be given to how the role of the Presiding Officer would be affected by this in deciding whether the provision is applicable and the relationship that the provision would have to the limits of the Parliament to make law. Given that there was never any dubiety about it, the better course was for the order to be in the simple form in which it is presented to your Lordships’ House today.
I fully acknowledge that it was not part of the recommendation that local government should be taken forward now. However, it makes good sense for practical purposes. The franchise for local government elections in Scotland is the same as that for Scottish parliamentary elections. I rather suspect that, if the Government had not done this, someone on the Constitution Committee might have said, “This is what you get if you legislate in haste. Does the Minister not appreciate that the franchise for local government is linked to the franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections? It will lead to considerable additional cost if they are separated”. It is a very practical thing to do and the timing is important. If this were to wait until primary legislation went through both Houses of Parliament and got Royal Assent, there would still need to be legislation done by the Scottish Parliament if it chose to. It would be very challenging to get that done, without breaking some of the timing rules, before the Scottish local elections in 2017.
I listened carefully to my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Lang. My noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned the referendum experience in a number of respects. Neither of my noble friends referred to the fact that 16 and 17 year-olds voted in the referendum on 18 September. I am not going to join those who thought that the whole referendum campaign was a great festival of democracy. Some of it was not very nice at all. Some noble Lords will recall messages that were not nice being tweeted and read out in our debates. However, people of all parties thought that the engagement of 16 and 17 year-olds worked. Schools held hustings and there was an opportunity for 16 and 17 year-olds to ask proper questions of MPs and MSPs from different sides. There was a turnout of 75%. If we have that turnout among those aged over 18—or 90, or whatever—in the forthcoming general election, it will be a significant improvement on 2010. Young people were not only involved and engaged: they turned out and may have set a lesson to the rest of us about how people might engage.
Therefore, the Smith commission agreement on this particular recommendation did not just come out of the air. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, it is not as though, had Alex Salmond said, “Give us 15”, it would have been 15. I do not think it would have been; it was for 16 and 17 year-olds. The Smith commission was informed by that experience and by how those people had engaged.
It would be very odd if a number of people who could have voted, and possibly did vote, in the referendum were not allowed to vote in the 2016 election—as they would not be if this change does not take place. This agreement came forward and the Government, with the support of the Opposition, said that they would wish to see it happen. If we were suddenly to renege on that promise, the damage would be incalculable. It would be said that this is just the first of many other things that we would renege on. We are therefore asking the House to approve an order that transfers legislative competence and to do something that all parties in Scotland have asked for. As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, it is welcome in Scotland. We should not stand in the way of that. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15 January be approved.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, after that short interlude we come to what is clearly the most fascinating business of the day. I assure the Opposition that, as far as I am aware, these are the last SIs concerning electoral administration to be laid before the election, so the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I will cease to have this opportunity for such regular meetings.
These measures are not part of the transition to individual electoral registration. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has a Question tabled on that in some 10 days’ time. I look forward to discussing it further. The transition is still going well, although not as well as we would like. As I announced to the House in an Answer to another Question some weeks ago, we are still putting further resources into it. I anticipate, particularly as far as young people are concerned, that the surge in registration will come in the last week before it becomes impossible to do so. Sadly, that is the way that things go.
For today, in addition to the Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, I will also speak to the Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015 and the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2015. These are being brought forward for the general election, which, as noble Lords may have noticed, will be on 7 May this year. The Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2015 is being made as a consequence of the combination of polls regulations, to which I now turn.
The regulations remove the restriction that prevents returning officers commencing the count of UK parliamentary ballot papers at combined elections—as we will have in many parts of the country in May—before verification has been completed for all ballot papers for all the polls taking place. They do this by amending provisions in the Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) Regulations 2004, which modify the parliamentary elections rules where the parliamentary election is combined with other elections—most commonly, of course, local elections, as is the case this year. The order applies the provisions in the regulations to police and crime commissioner elections where they are combined with UK parliamentary elections. If approved by Parliament, the instruments would come into effect on 7 May, the day of the general election, and would therefore apply to the counts for the general election and the May local elections, which will then be taking place.
The provisions allow counting of parliamentary ballot papers from a ballot box to take place once they have been verified and mixed with parliamentary ballot papers from another ballot box for which the ballot paper accounts have also been verified. They allow counting of postal ballot papers to take place once they have been mixed with ballot papers from at least one ballot box, for which the ballot paper accounts have been verified. By allowing the count of UK parliamentary ballot papers to proceed in this way and by allowing the count to commence before the verification process has been completed, the count of UK parliamentary ballot papers can commence sooner where there may be delays in the delivery of some ballot boxes from polling stations to the returning officer. Returning officers can thus more easily meet the requirement in the Representation of the People Act 1983 to take reasonable steps to begin counting the votes given on parliamentary ballot papers within four hours of the close of poll.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the two sets of regulations and one order before your Lordships’ House. I have no issues as such with the matters in question; I am happy to support them. It is good that the Government are making sure that the required measures are in place, that we have well designed, easily understood ballot papers and other stationery in connection with the election, that proper provision is being made for the combination of polls that will be taking place at the same time, and that how and when the counting of votes will take place, after the completion of the verification process, has been made clear.
However, on a day when there is little business for your Lordships’ House—these instruments were moved from the Moses Room to pad out the Order Paper because there was a real risk that the business in the Chamber would have closed before the Grand Committee was due to sit—I find it staggering that there is not a government Motion before the House expressing the Government’s concern about the crisis in electoral registration, and explaining what they are going to do to sort it out, and get the millions of people who are eligible but are not registered on to the electoral register.
We are light on business, and we have a crisis. On Tuesday, the Electoral Commission published a report of its analysis of the number of people who were on the electoral register on 1 December. It found that there were 2%—that is, 920,000—fewer people on the register than in the previous February and March. Who are the people most likely not to be on the register? They are people who are moving home, students and attainers—young people who are not 18 yet but will be 18 by polling day. That figure of 920,000 fewer people on the register is scandalous. This is a crisis, and rather than debate it here in your Lordships’ House on a government Motion so that we could hear what urgent action the Government were taking, we hear nothing about it, and it falls to the Opposition, on the back of regulations about election stationery, the combination of polls and how are we going to count the votes after verification, to raise these serious matters.
That is a dreadful state of affairs. I have an Oral Question down for 19 March asking the Government what action they will take to get people on the register before 20 April, and I am giving the Minister another chance to set out his plans today. We need urgent action, and we want to be reassured. It looks to me as if the Government are coasting on these matters. That is a truly dreadful state of affairs.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, that is slightly specious, if I may say so—but it does help me, because I wanted to raise one question with my noble friend. My experience is that there is no regulation relating to the right of a person who is unable to enter a particular polling booth to have the ballot paper brought out to them. I understand that it is open to the particular officer in that place to give that service.
I raise this matter because of the Assembly of Bethel. This is an organisation, rather small in its numbers, that has a particular view about what buildings its members may enter without impurity. It is an unusual view, and not one which I share, but holding it should not deny people the right to vote. In my former constituency I had a member of the Assembly of Bethel, and she was unable to enter the building because on top of it was a cross with a circle round it, and the organisation believes this to refer to the sun god rather than the Son of God. I discovered, in this very curious circumstance, that it is not even for the returning officer to insist that the ballot paper be brought out. He has to rely on the personal decision of the officer in charge of that particular polling station.
I am therefore taking this opportunity to raise what I know is an esoteric example, although it is none the worse for that—I am a believer in a bit of esotericism from time to time. People should have the right to deal with the ballot paper outside for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily just because they are in a wheelchair. Have the Government considered whether it might be an appropriate principle to say that such decisions should be governed by the local returning officer overall, rather than being left to whoever happens to be on duty as an assistant officer in a particular polling station? I do not expect my noble friend to have an immediate answer to the problems of the Assembly of Bethel, but he may be prepared to look again at whether we need to change the regulations in this regard.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, may I, too, raise a small point? I was not in my seat for the whole of the Minister’s speech but I was standing at the other end of the Chamber, so I hope I may be allowed to intervene briefly. My noble friend referred to the voting provisions for blind persons, and the ballot papers that are available for them. Is it not possible to have available in polling stations a small number of voting papers in Braille, which blind persons can have access to, so that they are more fully informed about the choices that they are making?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I first met the noble Lord, Lord Deben, rather a long time ago, but I did not realise until many years later that he was such an expert on esotericism. I shall now always think of him as an esotericist of the highest order. All I can say is that I will take his point back—it is extremely esoteric—and ask the officials to reply.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—I think that I did mention this in passing—is that devices are provided in polling stations for the visually impaired, to guide them round the ballot paper. These devices have adhesive elements that stick them in the right place on the back of the ballot paper. I have not actually seen them myself, but that is what I understand to be the case. My understanding—I shall write to the noble Lord if I am wrong—is that what is necessary is provided.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that we all recognise that electoral registration in Britain is a voluntary activity, with mild penalties for those who do not do it. It is not a necessary obligation as part of citizenship. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, would like us to have identity cards and registration would be part of that, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, would like registration—and, I think, voting too—to be compulsory. But we must recognise that part of the reason why, over the past 20 years, people have not registered—I stress that we have faced this problem for some considerable time—is the fact that they are disengaged from politics. In campaigning over the past few weekends I have found, in some areas more than in others, that we come up against a wall of, “You’re all the same”, “Politics is nothing to do with us”, “There’s no point in voting in this constituency”, and so on. I regret to say that some recent events in Westminster are likely to feed into that.
I repeat that we all, political parties as well as the Government and others, have to work extremely hard to enthuse the electorate. The Government have not yet completed all their efforts. In the week of National Voter Registration Day we managed to register nearly half a million extra people, and we will be continuing to maintain these efforts right up to the last day that people can register for voting. We have provided extra money for a number of agencies, as well as for electoral administrators in the areas of greatest need. As I said in opening the debate, we are not satisfied with the current position but we are maintaining our efforts, and we hope that by 20 April we will have as accurate and as full an electoral register as possible.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I accept that the noble Lord is as concerned about this matter as I am, and we regularly raise it, particularly in the Moses Room. However, as I said, the House is not exactly pushed for business and the election is fast coming down the track. Will the noble Lord talk to his colleagues as I do not see why the Government could not table a Motion to enable us to discuss this one evening so that he can set out the Government’s plans in full? This is a crisis and it is really serious now. I am very worried about the 20 April deadline. I do not understand why that is in force. A lot of people will not register in time. We will hear lots of dreadful stories during the election and on polling day about people who have lost their right to vote. We should do everything we possibly can to avoid that. I hope that the noble Lord will take that point back and initiate a debate on this issue before the Dissolution.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thought that I and others were keeping the House as regularly informed on this as possible. I have long since lost count of the number of Questions I have answered on individual electoral registration over the last 12 months. However, I will take the noble Lord’s suggestion back to the usual channels and we will see what we can do. I think that I have answered all the points that were raised.
Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13 January be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the draft order laid before the House on 15 January be approved.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
British Agriculture
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willoughby de Broke
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the effect of European Union regulation on British agriculture.
Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to have this short debate about farming because farming is facing something of a perfect storm at the moment. It is a storm made up of low prices, overregulation and unwarranted regulation, in many cases, from Brussels, and the imposition of a new payment scheme—the basic payment scheme—to replace the single payment scheme, but more of that a little later.
Some noble Lords may be familiar with Noel Coward’s song “There are Bad Times Just Around the Corner”, which states:
“From Colwyn Bay to Kettering they’re sobbing themselves to sleep,
The shrieks and wails in the Yorkshire Dales have even depressed the sheep;
In rather vulgar lettering a very disgruntled group have posted bills in the Cotswold hills
To prove we’re in the soup”.
I declare my interest as a member of that disgruntled group of farmers. I farm in Warwickshire and I am disgruntled because during my time in the Lords I have served on the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who is in his place, and have spoken in many debates, including debates in 1991, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2004 and 2008. I think that in nearly all those debates there were calls for reform of the common agricultural policy. I think that both Front Benches in this House have always agreed with the idea of reforming the common agricultural policy. However, what has happened after all those fine words? Where are we now? Has anything changed? Has the common agricultural policy become less bureaucratic, less centralised and less corrupt? No, it has not. Has it made farmers any more prosperous? No, it has not. Actually, things have got worse, as I will explain.
Let us look at where we are now. Dairy farming is on its knees and in many cases producers are being paid less than the cost of production. In some cases, milk is absurdly being sold at less than the price of water. I checked this out for myself in my local branch of the Co-op supermarket in Shipston-on-Stour last week and found that one litre of milk was priced at 85p, while a litre bottle of San Pellegrino water cost £1.35. Perhaps noble Lords should put San Pellegrino water on their cornflakes as it is obviously better than milk.
The beef and sheep sectors are suffering under overregulation, passports and identification schemes, many of which are unnecessary and certainly very burdensome and time-consuming for stock farmers. Arable farmers are regularly stripped of their ability to grow profitable, healthy and viable crops at a time when they are being enjoined to feed an ever increasing population, but the rules from Brussels make it more and more difficult to do that. I take the example of winter wheat. One of the big enemies of winter wheat is the black-grass weed. Over the last couple of years, the most effective black-grass herbicides have been gradually withdrawn against the advice of our own very independent and expert Advisory Committee on Pesticides and that of the previous government Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington. However, their advice does not really count. What counts is what goes on in Brussels. The ayatollahs in Brussels decide what we are going to do and we have almost no say there any more. The rules are decided by the agricultural bosses in Brussels in the Commission and are subject to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, where we are regularly outvoted. Perhaps the Minister can explain why Britain’s much trumpeted strong voice in Europe—about which we hear all the time from the Liberal Benches and the—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, who is famous for his continental courtesy. When people ask, “What did the Normans do for us?”, you have to say that, after the initial fracas at Hastings, they brought a great degree of courtesy to our debates, as we will see when the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who is legendary for his courtesy, replies to this debate.
Does the party of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, wish us to withdraw from the European Union and, if so, would we not still be subject to these terrible regulations which he has described, with only one difference—that we would no longer have any vote in what they were?
Lord Willoughby de Broke
Certainly, my party—UKIP—would definitely withdraw from the common agricultural policy. I am time limited in this debate and I do not want to go on for too long but we would have the money to pay farmers and our vote now is—
Lord Willoughby de Broke
I am very sorry but I do not want to take any more interventions. If the noble Lord wanted to speak in the debate, he should have put his name down. Farmers can survive in this country without the CAP.
As the Minister will remember, the humiliating position of having no say in what goes on in agriculture in this country was underlined last summer when the Commission, spurred on by demonstrators dressed up as bumble-bees, suspended the use of neonicotinoid seed dressings for oilseed rape and other brassicas. Yet again, our Advisory Committee on Pesticides was against this, as to their credit were the Government and the Minister. Yet again, we are being forced to enforce a policy with which we do not agree.
The rule of unintended consequences will now kick in. Large acreages of oilseed rape have been damaged. The percentages are arguable, but these acreages have certainly suffered. According to Home Grown Cereals Authority estimates, about 40,000 acres of oilseed rape last autumn had to be destroyed, abandoned or re-drilled. The consequence of that is that as oilseed rape is a major food for bees and pollinators, there will be less food for them: there will be less oilseed rape. Now that neonics are banned, farmers will use airborne sprays. They have to be put on at flowering time. This initiative by the Commission will definitely damage bees more than was the case when we had neonicotinoid seed dressings—but welcome to the EU, and have a nice day.
Next on the EU shooting-itself-in-the-foot department were genetically modified organisms. Last year the scientific adviser to the European Commission, Professor Anne Glover, was effectively sacked by the new President of the Commission, Herr Juncker. He simply abolished the post. While she was not an active supporter of GMOs, her big mistake—her misdeed—was to say that she understood that the technology is safe and used all over the world. She made the serious error of actually saying this, when she told an organisation called EurActiv:
“I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food”.
For this extreme view she was vilified and pilloried by the usual suspects: Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association. Her job was abolished.
The result of this negative, damaging and anti-scientific approach to risk-based regulation, which is what we should have in this country, is that British farmers are disadvantaged by not being able to use technologies that their rivals all over the world are using to their and to consumers’ benefits.
It gets a bit worse. Brussels has come up with a shiny new and exciting replacement for the single payment scheme. It is called the basic payment scheme, or BPS. It is even more complex and irrational than the scheme that it replaces; it sounds hard to do, but Brussels has done it. There is a whole lot of bumf in six papers that I have had that covers 160 double-side pages of print and weighs in at 1 pound and 7 ounces. It defines what a farmer is and tells us what we can do on our own land.
The critical point here is that as farmers we can no longer decide what we grow. We are now handed down a demand and requirement by the Commission that in order to get the subsidies from the BPS we must grow three separate crops. The peasantry can no longer decide what it wants to grow. Presumably we are too stupid to decide what grows best on our own land, too ignorant to grow food that the market requires, and not fit to know what sort of rotational scheme we should have. We have to be told what to do by the European Commission.
This is complete madness. Do the Government really think it right to remain in this wasteful, corrupt, mismanaged, bureaucratic and utterly hopeless organisation, when the common agricultural policy has been condemned on both sides of this House for many years with, as far as I can see, absolutely no result? We would surely be better off bringing agricultural policy back to this country. This would be better for consumers and farmers, and much better for our self-respect.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on getting time for this important debate.
In the world today we face a burgeoning population and a growing demand for food, yet EU and UK agricultural production is at best stalled and in some cases decreasing. Clearly not all is well. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that there are serious costs to UK agriculture from being in the EU. So what are the difficulties?
For the first time, the majority of the world’s population live in urban areas and for the most part understand neither farming nor the country. This will only get worse, whether we are in or out of the EU. The latest CAP reform was not fit for purpose. The three different crops for arable farms of over 30 hectares is the prime example. Decision-makers in Brussels pay too much attention to unelected, unaccountable NGOs. The so-called green lobbyists, funded in part by the taxpayer—quite wrongly in my view—are starting to do real harm. They will increasingly affect future decisions and regulations—and again, it does not matter whether we are in or out of the EU. EU regulations are far too often based on emotion and politics, not on sound science. A good example is the banning by the Commission of the neonic group of pesticides. This was a dubious decision that undoubtedly makes the lives of farmers more difficult.
The conclusion of the Anderson report on the plant-protection products regime as currently run by the Commission, commissioned by the NFU and others, makes for sober reading. It concludes that in the UK some crops, such as peas for freezing, carrots and apples, will probably not be grown in the future. The gross value added of UK agriculture will fall by about £1.6 billion per annum. There will be a drop of over 36% in farming profits, and a loss of between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs in the associated workforce. These are serious and worrying conclusions, and my noble friend must give us an answer today as to whether he agrees or disagrees with these findings.
I turn to GM crops. The EU position is not just to commit millions of the poorest to a worse diet and more starvation; it is driving research, development and production out of the EU when these are exactly what we need to boost growth and jobs. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, that the sacking by President Juncker of Anne Glover as chief scientific adviser, and the demolition of her job because of her approach to GMOs, was a huge black mark and a terrible decision.
Dr Roberto Bertollini, chief scientist and the WHO representative to the EU, said:
“Ideology and vested interests continue to dominate the public debate in Europe and elsewhere irrespective of the attempts to bring knowledge and science-based advice in the picture”.
Anne Glover’s sacking and the removal of her post was a victory for the green NGOs that sought to undermine her position and won. The result is that the future is bleaker than it should be.
Let me be fair. Good regulations do come out of the EU. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, will have welcomed the minimum apple content in cider that has led to an increase in cider-growing orchards in this country. Although EU regulations on agriculture are perhaps one of the best arguments for leaving the EU, that would be totally wrong. From time to time we are bound to have less good commissioners and Commissions, just as we have less good Governments and Ministers in the UK. One has only to look at ex-Prime Minister Blair, who failed us on many fronts and in particular gave away a large part of our rebate in return for reforms of the CAP that never happened. Getting out of the EU will not solve agriculture’s problems. It will probably make matters worse and is not wanted by most farmers, particularly those in Scotland. I know that the noble Lord is a farmer and that he wants to get out, but not all farmers do.
There has been an encouraging start by Commissioner Hogan, however, who has said many of the right things. I hope that he is more in the MacSharry mould than his predecessor. In his keynote address to the NFU conference in Birmingham two days ago, Commissioner Hogan said that he had made simplification a top priority for his work programme in 2015. He went on to say that he had launched a comprehensive screening exercise of the entire CAP to identify which sections may need simplifying. He went on to say that more than 200 Commission regulations implemented by the common market organisation will be reviewed and simplified. If 200 are being looked at, what is happening to the others? Why are they not being looked at? In what timescale will this happen? How will we hold the commissioner’s feet to the fire? He has said the right things; how will we make him perform?
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the same NFU conference highlighted many problems. She talked about the 30 hectare farming nonsense. Is that one of the reforms that Commissioner Hogan will look at, or does it fall into the category of getting at the principles of the recent CAP reform and is therefore untouchable?
The commissioner mentioned something else that is very important but which the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, did not mention at all. He rightly pointed out that not all the complaints fell at his door. With the greater flexibility produced under the CAP reforms, we need to look at our own Government and, in particular, gold-plating. I must commend Defra—in recent years, it has been considerably better than its predecessor, MAFF—but we still have problems. Let me give an example from Scotland. The debate refers to British agriculture. I know that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, will not reply to this, but as recently as 1 January this year, the Scottish Government introduced a more aggressive penalty matrix to drive the prompt reporting of cattle movements to fit with Scotland’s three-day reporting window, rather than the EU’s seven-day reporting window. That is stupid, and also detrimental to farming.
I will not let Defra get away with it completely: it might not be making new gold plates, but what about some old gold-plating? What about the 2007 regulations about the density of poultry stocking? That was way worse than what the EU had recommended but has not yet been repealed. I hope that that will be first on my noble friend’s list of things to do after today’s debate.
Let me end on a positive note. Sometimes one forgets what we do in this House. Sub-Committee D has recommended a number of things. When I was serving on it, it produced an innovation report which we sent to the Commission. A lot of that was incorporated in the CAP review. As recently as 31 January, another initiative under the European innovation partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability was taken forward. That is to be welcomed, and Sub-Committee D deserves a pat on the back. It is worth staying in there and having our feet under the table—irritating as it is at times. That is the right thing for our countryside and our farming community.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, reminded me that we have often debated these issues in this House, even in the 16 years I have been here. We always seem to come to the same conclusions. I respectfully suggest to him that the reason for that is nothing to do with Europe. It is more to do with the fact that our food system has been so broken over those years. I shall lay out a few reasons for that before turning to the question of the EU.
The food system in the UK is not working for farmers or consumers. We produce some world-famous items, such as beef, lamb, potatoes and apples, and some others that are not so often thought of, such as watercress, pears and trout. They are fabulous, health-giving food. At the other end of the scale, we have consumers who are malnourished or obese. What are they living on? They are living on processed food saturated with sugar, palm oil and salt, which is doing no good to their health. That has nothing to do with the EU; that has to do with the food system, which has broken down. That is what we have to mend. In this country, we need an overarching food strategy that covers the spectrum from what Defra covers to what the Department of Health covers. Not since the Second World War have we had that.
From the EU, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned, we have lots of good regulation. We have had regulation about water pollution, air pollution and all sorts of other things without which we would probably have never had the incentives to make those steps forward. Of course, we have also had overregulation, and the noble Earl has cut short what I had to say about that, because I, too, was going to mention my hope from what the new commissioner has said about deregulation.
I remember that a few years ago the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, was championing the cause of honest meat. With that, he had a point: it is about labelling meat so that consumers here can really see what they are buying. If, like me, he had been at the meeting of the All-Party Group on Agroecology yesterday—I must declare my interest in that I chair it—he would have heard from John Turner, who initiated the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association. It is a vibrant and growing association which ensures that we are using grass, which grows so well in the UK—probably better than anywhere else—to produce the absolute highest quality meat. The results of studies show that meat from pasture-fed animals has a higher nutritional quality than meat from animals fed on other things. That group did not mention that it is suffering from EU regulation, but it is suffering from the lack of proper, open labelling, which would make it much easier for consumers to see what they are buying.
One effect of the tabling of this debate was to make me look at UKIP’s agricultural policies. I was most surprised to see that number one on its agricultural policy list is to impose stronger controls on bush meat. Controlling bush meat, with all its health implications, is clearly very important, but that is not really a British agricultural issue. It is not in competition with beef or lamb. To mix my metaphors, it is a total red herring. That is an issue for the Home Office and border controls. The second top policy of UKIP is to support the trial culling of badgers for the control of bovine TB if veterinary opinion substantiates it. That is not original. It is common to all sides of the House so there is nothing to disagree with there. The third is that UKIP supports the principle of science before emotion on any agricultural topic. Who does not?
There is the issue of how strong the precautionary principle should be. Noble Lords have today raised the issue of neonicotinoids, which is highly important. We cannot do nothing about our pollinators dying out. There is a good argument for trying different approaches and not just allowing the continued use of neonicotinoids as a blanket solution to pests without seeing whether their use is what is causing such a dramatic fall in the number of our pollinators.
I contend that UKIP’s proposals would be an environmental disaster for farmers themselves because they suggest that pollution does not matter. Not only that, they would be a disaster for the wider community and for the food-buying public. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, made fun of the fact that the policy defines what a farmer is, but there is good reason for that. Why should CAP public money go to support the so-called slipper farmers? People who put their feet up and do nothing should not be receiving public money. It is understandable that the Commission is to try to define what a farmer is. The UK Government would join it in being anxious to ensure that public money does not go to people who should not be receiving it.
As for the effects of UKIP’s proposals economically, I will simply echo the words of Ross Murray of the CLA. He said that it was a fallacy to argue that if we opted out of Europe, British farmers could survive, let alone survive well. He said:
“If we opt out of the EU our exports will be cut to shreds and we will be completely at the mercy of the supermarkets, who will always buy on price”.
I go back to where I started with this. The food system in this country is broken, but it is not the fault of the EU. One of the big steps that this Government have taken was to bring in the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which we need to do more to strengthen. We can see that from the dairy sector, but that is a different issue. Socially, UKIP’s policies would be an utter disaster. UKIP has nothing to say about young farmers, the price of land, capital machinery investment or food quality assurance and it wants to get rid of all of these border controls and regulations. What is going to happen when we have another horsemeat scandal? Finally, UKIP seems to have nothing to say on animal welfare issues, which certainly concern the Liberal Democrats and the public, and should concern the noble Lord.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on achieving this debate. I thank him for his contribution, some of which I agree with and some of which I clearly do not. I should also declare my family farming interest and my membership of the NFU and the CLA.
I understand that farming is one of the most regulated industries. We should be working towards minimum regulation and the encouragement of good practice, only legislating where it is truly necessary. The question is: what is the problem? Has risk-assessment research been undertaken, and has sound science been implemented there? If the answers to those questions are yes, should regulation be introduced with a review planned afterwards?
I am grateful to this Government for responding to Richard Macdonald’s task force review and for the work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, chairman of the Better Regulation Executive, who looked at smart regulation. I was, like others, encouraged to read of the incoming Commissioner Juncker saying that removing unnecessary red tape was at the centre of his political agenda and that his first vice- president has been given responsibility for looking at better regulation. I do not mind whether we call it better or smart, but it needs to be looked at and I, like others, am concerned about the dismissal of the scientific officer.
In this country, the Government have been tackling the current position on regulations. The Secretary of State, the right honourable Liz Truss, speaking at the NFU conference earlier this week, said that Defra was on course to cut 80% of the guidance given to farmers over the course of this Parliament. My goodness, that would be an achievement. They will have cut some 34,000 farm inspections due to farmers who have gained earned recognition. I cannot go into this more deeply, but I know that the Minister will know about that. This has been made possible by the various assured schemes on offer to farmers, so progress is being made.
However, one cannot be complacent. Relevant regulations over the years have protected food production, the environment and animal health and welfare, and have recognised the importance of soil and water in growing crops. However, there are concerns: some have been touched on but I will reinforce them. The new cap, the greening rules and the proposed three-year crop rule—which has been introduced for farmers with more than 30 hectares of land—bring huge challenges to many farmers, particularly the smaller ones and dairy farmers, who normally grow grass and perhaps only one crop on the farm as cattle feed. Those farmers are under serious threat and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say when he comes to wind up at the end of the debate.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, the loss of plant protection products—such as herbicides, pesticides and fungicides—due to EU regulation has had an alarming effect on production. I do not know if your Lordships are aware, but since 2001, half of these products have been removed due to the overly cautious regulation principle, rather than taking into account, for example, the dose level and exposure of existing products. This risks reducing yields and exposes the crops to black-grass, which is a huge problem in the long term. Will the Minister tell us whether research is being undertaken to review bee colony numbers, now that these products have been withdrawn; or whether it was more climatic and other conditions, rather than the neonics themselves, that caused this problem? I am sure it would be a useful study if it has not been undertaken already.
Yesterday, an article in the press referred to an EU proposal that I nearly did not believe existed. It would require insurance cover for all owners of lawnmowers, golf buggies and mobile scooters that never leave private land. If they were in the public domain, it would be understandable, if slightly questionable, but these are only on private land. While I know that this comes within the remit of the Department for Transport, it obviously affects farmers as well. It brings to mind the proposal, which I think was then dropped, to restrict the driving of tractors to four hours a day. We just need to be very aware of some things that are not practical.
We need to be constantly aware of regulations that are not fit for purpose. Does the Minister agree that the EU GM regulations are not fit for purpose, either in respect of the current process or in anticipation of new crop biotechnologies, such as gene silencing and site-directed nucleases? I welcome the recent EU announcement that allows member states to take the decision on whether to grow GM crops, but there are some persistent questions that need answering within that. There are many who have reservations about GM technology. There are reports of its success in some parts of the world, but some express concerns about the effects experienced by other countries. Does the European Commission track such evidence; where does this responsibility lie; and who, if anybody, challenges the evidence that is coming forward from other parts of the world?
Food security, increasing populations, climate change and the growth of energy crops all put great pressure on agricultural land. In this country, we produce only 60% of the crops we need indigenously, which means that we are reliant on importing 40% of our food globally. That also has an effect on our balance of payments. Whether that can be sustained in the long term or not is a big question. “Backing British Farming in a Volatile World” was the title of the NFU conference held earlier this week, which recognised the challenges facing farmers today.
Another way in which agriculture across Europe can be helped is by greater co-operation and research-sharing between member states. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Caithness referred to EU Sub-Committee D, on which he and I used to sit together and on which I now, temporarily, still sit. Over recent years, we produced two reports to which I want to refer, one of which he touched on. In the summary of that report, Innovation in EU Agriculture, we stressed the importance of science and research as key elements for increasing yields, but that this knowledge and innovative changes must be put into practice on the ground for farmers to understand and take benefits from. The report stated:
“Regulation should help, not hinder. Politicians and society must not be afraid of new properly tested technologies … Benefits and risks must be clearly articulated, recognising that too cautionary an approach may pose risks to global food security”.
The other report, which we produced more recently, was called Counting the Cost of Food Waste. In that, we recognised:
“The EU has an important role to play in encouraging co-operation throughout the supply chain. It must also look at its own regulatory framework and consider where that may impede food waste prevention throughout the component parts of the supply chain”.
I guess that in this Chamber, it will not surprise its Members to hear that we waste a third of the food that we produce in this country and across Europe. If we could save and make better use of that food, there would not be so much pressure to produce more and more, while at the same time we know that we have more and more mouths to feed.
I am passionate about the way in which we in this country and across Europe can and do produce food. I believe that farmers want to be allowed to get on with it within reasonable constraints of correct regulation where it is needed. I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke.
Perhaps I might take up the point made my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who talked about healthy eating. I come back to square one: I believe that we are tending to go so much towards the nanny state. At the end of the day, it is really for us as individuals to take responsibility for what we eat, how much we eat, what we do and the exercise we take. Having said that, it is the Government’s prime responsibility to defend the nation and to feed it—and in that, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord De Mauley is the Minister at this moment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I apologise but the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was going to speak in the gap first.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
The noble Lord is on his feet. Let him stay there.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I thank the noble Lord. I intervene because the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, was unwilling to accept my interventions during his speech.
When the Minister sums up in answer to this debate, will he confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is entitled to grow whatever he likes on his rolling acres, provided that he chooses not to apply for a subsidy? It is when he fills in the forms that he becomes subject to the regulation on issues such as the three-crop rotation. If you believe in reducing the cost of the CAP, as I certainly do and as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has argued down the years, a good initial contribution would be for him to decide that he is happy to farm his land unsubsidised. It is if he applies for a subsidy from the EU that he has to play by the rules of the game.
Will the Minister also confirm that, if the UK left the EU, farm products or food from Britain would be subject to the 10% common external tariff on entering the EU that we had left, and that the regulations on food standards and quality would still have to be honoured if we were going to sell into the single market that we had left? In other words, we would still get the regulation but would have absolutely no say in the writing of the rules.
Finally, I think I am right in saying that the proportion of our GNP represented by agriculture is now a lot lower than it was in 1972, but that the cost of agricultural subsidy to this country is a lot higher. Will the Minister confirm that? He might want to consider whether that is one of the reasons why the CLA and the NFU do not agree with UKIP.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I can bring no farming expertise to this debate but what I can do is to bring memory. I well remember that, before the war, the farming industry was allowed to decline. That was a great strategic mistake. It is necessary, for strategic reasons, that we are as near self-sufficiency in this country as we possibly can be. Before the Second World War and for a long time during it, we were not self-sufficient and we suffered for that.
I happen to have been evacuated from London to a farm in Mapledurham, so I have a certain amount of experience of farming. The farmer was a member of what were then called the war agricultural committees. They had enormous powers to take over farms, if necessary, and have them run by the Government or people who they appointed. I remember going around with the farmer to some of those derelict farms. It was an absolute disgrace that farms which could have produced food were producing nothing and that their buildings and systems were completely derelict. So I know that we must not let our farming industry decline. I also believe that, for strategic reasons, we must have control of its policies. That is what we have not got under the European Union and the CAP.
Following the Second World War, the then Labour Government brought in a new agricultural Act, which treated farming probably better than it had ever been treated before. That lasted quite a long time but we can—and should—still be responsible for our own farming decisions. I understand of course that the farming industry and farmers themselves are concerned that, if we left the CAP, they would lose the subsidies without which they could not operate. However, we have to remember that we pay a net contribution to the European Union and that half of that goes to farmers. We could then use that in ways that save our own farming industry, rather than being beneficial to other farms throughout the EU.
It was correct of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, to have raised this matter. This has been an excellent debate and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, it is always timely to consider for a moment the status quo of agriculture in the EU, what is current reality and what our objectives are for UK agriculture. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for initiating this debate today and I declare my interest as a farmer receiving CAP funds.
The topic is wide ranging and all speakers have highlighted various areas for concern, but let us be careful with our conclusions. It will be no surprise that I do not share the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. All nations support their agriculture. The figures speak for themselves. In England alone, the total support from CAP payments in 2012 was just over £2 billion. That is 27% of the value of farming, which is some £7.25 billion in total. To those who say that Britain could be like Norway or Switzerland, I would suggest that they look at the comparison with agricultural subsidies in those countries: they are far higher, at 60% in Norway and more than 50% in Switzerland. I cannot see this as a likely or credible outcome for agricultural support here, should the UK leave the EU. Agricultural support would be nowhere near this level, or even at the status quo level.
Furthermore, Britain is a trading nation, which pertains in agriculture as well. EU exports would be in jeopardy. In 2013, some 105,331 tonnes of British beef went abroad, of which only 4,574 tonnes went to non-EU states. Sixty per cent of it went to Holland and Ireland. This reliance on exports to the EU would mean that UK producers still needed to comply with EU trading regulations, yet would be without influence on any future decisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has argued. What British agriculture produces is world-class and competes with any of its neighbours on quality. Britain needs to be at the table in Europe, shaping the decisions that will affect its farmers and food supply chain. The agri-food sector contributes £97.1 billion to the economy each year and supports the jobs of more than 3.5 million people.
Yet this not to deny that there are issues to address and implementations to be improved. Under this Conservative-led Government, however, the outcomes of the reformed CAP have been rather disappointing, failing to deliver simplification and failing to achieve further progress on decoupling support with a move towards a greener CAP and more profitable farming.
The Labour Party is clear that we want to see UK farming profitable, thriving and competitive. UK farming can respond to international food markets and meet global demand but at the same time protect and enhance natural resources, without a trade-off between food production and the wider issues of sustainability. The CAP has a clear role in the delivery of this and in providing resilience to enable responsible land management, recognising the public goods delivered such as mitigating flood control and providing recreation against an attractive landscape. This is why modulation from Pillar 1 payments to Pillar 2 payments of 15% from 2017 will be necessary. The next Labour Government have a clear commitment to support agriculture in the context of doing more to support the rural economy and get best value for money.
The delivery of all this through regulation is a vital area of concern to all speakers in the debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has highlighted the withdrawal of crop protection products, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Labour supports this precautionary principle, as both have spoken about, but this must be underpinned by science and be evidence based.
We recognise the contribution provided by the Crop Protection Association members, with investments of nearly £4 billion per annum globally to develop innovative solutions that support safe and sustainable food production. The process leading to the licensing of new protection products will be complex, costly and lengthy. But the process must be consistent and focus on mismanagement and evidence rather than be hazard based. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, have highlighted the report produced by farm business consultants Andersons: the impact of hazard-based regulations will curtail profitability, restrict most crops and even curtail some food altogether, with consequential job losses along the food supply chain.
Perhaps the Minister in his remarks, and in answering the questions of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, can reflect on how regulation has slipped into this, what protocols exist whereby the Government may re-examine the basis of assessments and what his Government are doing to ensure that British agriculture has the tools at its disposal to increase production and productivity, which we believe should be at the heart of policy-making.
Several noble Lords have mentioned neonicotinoids as a further example of inappropriate regulation. The studies and research on pollinators are incomplete, with insufficient data at the moment. That is why the Labour Party supports the temporary ban on neonicotinoids, for the mean time, as an appropriate response to the European Food Safety Authority’s evidence on the contribution of neonicotinoid use to pollinator decline in the UK. The ban is due to be reviewed this year.
On the subject of genetic modification of crops, once again the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, have argued that this is far from fit for purpose. We recognise the assiduousness with which ACRE—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—undertakes its assessments. The safety of citizens and consumers with the environment should be the Government’s top priority. Any decision needs to be based on scientific evidence on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, genetic modification and new agricultural biotechnologies and techniques could be a powerful tool to tackle the challenge of global food security. These technologies have the potential to put crop protection in the seed rather than in the environment.
Labour agrees that it is right that EU member states should be able to decide themselves whether to allow certain GM crops, after careful consideration and in tandem with public recognition of their acceptance. In the light of the recent decision of EU Environment Ministers to enable member state decision-making on GM crops within the EU framework, when does the Minister think the first commercial application for GM cultivation in the UK will take place, and for what products? How will the Minister take forward a balanced argument to the public, based on science and evidence, robust safety controls, responsible biosecurity and labelling?
While there are many regulations that can cause problems, the one that has perhaps received most coverage, especially as it is pervasive to cropping systems, is the three-crop rule. This is one of the criteria to be met by farmers and growers to secure 30% of their direct payment. In England, although the NFU and environmental groups alike are critical of the overall EU reform package, they have conceded that the UK Government have done the “best of a bad job”. Perhaps in his remarks, the Minister might reflect on why his department could not have done a better job. Does the Minister consider that the new Commissioner’s approach, as highlighted by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, could provide a solution in this situation? After all, this rule cuts across many businesses that have been developed to generate efficiencies and co-operative practices. What are the Government doing to mitigate unintentional consequences from this element of the package?
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned food security. This concept is often spoken about as if it is only to be assessed against self-sufficiency of production. The Labour Party believes it is more complex than that and is also a function of distribution and reducing food waste, as has been mentioned, in the face of challenges such as climate change and decarbonisation. It is also a function of social and economic policies and good governance.
The Labour Party has a strong record on food security. It was the previous Labour Administration who undertook a coherent analysis of food security in 2009-10 with the Food Matters report, the Foresight report on land use, leading to the strategic Food 2030 report—regrettably now scrapped by this Conservative-led coalition. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, had forgotten this report in her statement that there had been no such strategic analysis in the past 30 years.
Baroness Byford
I know that time is running out so I will be very brief. I had not forgotten it. I did not think it was as good as it might have been.
Lord Grantchester
I accept the comment of the noble Baroness. The UK’s confident level of food security would not last under this Government—
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I apologise to the noble Lord that the monitor has gone out, but he has reached his 10 minutes plus.
Lord Grantchester
I do apologise. May I be allowed a minute to wind up—or half a minute?
I was going to go on to reflect on our party’s approach to climate change, the global demands for food and the strategies of the CAP. I was going to conclude that the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in his opening remarks are quite wrong. The logical conclusion would be to call for a new Labour Government—after all, it is the only party with a long-term economic plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for raising a series of very important matters. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I start by declaring an interest as the owner of a farm and the beneficiary of the common agricultural policy.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has repeatedly emphasised her vision for our farming industry to be the best in the world. Indeed, at the NFU conference earlier this week, which has been much mentioned in this debate, she set out a long-term economic plan for food and farming which will ensure that this vital industry continues to grow and create jobs. One key element of this plan—making EU regulations work for British food producers, so that they can innovate and grow their businesses—is closely linked to the subject of today’s debate. As we have heard, being part of the EU brings benefits as well as challenges—regulations, in fact, on most areas of British agriculture and on the consumer. Quantifying those impacts is complex and challenging. However, noble Lords should be aware that the Government’s review of the balance of competencies between the EU and the UK, published last year, addressed these matters in great detail. Three of the reports published related directly to regulations affecting British agriculture. The consensus was strong support, including from the British farming industry, for the single market for agricultural goods, and for the EU’s powerful role in negotiating global trade deals for those goods.
Still, it is important to note that the views on more specific issues varied considerably. We have heard about several areas of division already today, so perhaps noble Lords will allow me to address some of them directly. On the common agricultural policy, we advocate a fundamental review of the current system of support payments. We want to see more emphasis on measures targeted at improving competitiveness and protecting and enhancing the natural environment. We were firm in advocating these beliefs during the CAP reform negotiations in 2013, and continue to press for further reform to reduce burdens on farmers and improve value for money. More immediately, we are committed to simplifying our own implementation of the CAP now. We are actively engaging in the latest CAP simplification agenda initiated by the European Agriculture Commissioner, Phil Hogan, of whom my noble friend Lord Caithness spoke optimistically.
Although I would never suggest that we have arrived at an acceptable CAP, I would like to give some examples of how the UK has applied pressure to improve the original proposals from the Commission. First, the original proposal did not cut the CAP budget at all, which would have been a disgrace. The final agreement cut the CAP budget by 13% in real terms.
As a result of our efforts, greening has been made less burdensome by raising eligibility criteria and adding more flexibilities. The crop diversification procedure proposals, for example, were originally for everyone with more than three hectares of arable land. Then there is the issue of ecological focus areas, which were originally to have been 7% of arable land. They have been reduced to 5% and, furthermore, nitrogen-fixing crops will now count towards the farmer’s EFA.
The original proposal for the active farmer test involved farmers’ accounts being checked to see what percentage of their income was from agriculture, which would have been hugely bureaucratic. We now have a much simpler approach based on a negative list of businesses deemed not to be farming.
Several member states argued that production quotas for sugar should continue for the whole of this CAP programme. In the end, we successfully argued to end these quotas in 2017. I am not saying that the result is good. However, we have been able to move it from terrible to bad. That is why we are maintaining the pressure.
To the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, with whom I agree on a surprising amount in this whole area, I have to say that I do not recall such effectiveness from the previous Labour Government. He asked why we had not done a better job. The answer is that we have to negotiate with the Commission and 27 other member states, but I can give him some examples of what we have done in terms of lobbying. A great deal of pressure was brought to bear by my right honourable friend Owen Paterson when he was Secretary of State, and my right honourable friend Liz Truss has retained that level of pressure. She wrote to the new Commissioner in October stating our concerns about the greening measures, and met him at November’s Agricultural Council to discuss the issue. Senior officials met their counterparts at the Commission in November, and my honourable friend George Eustice met a number of MEPs in December, January and February to raise UK concerns on greening and to encourage them to feed into the Commissioner’s CAP simplification exercise. The Secretary of State hosted a visit from Commissioner Hogan on Monday ahead of the NFU conference. They met farmers directly affected by the three-crop rule, allowing them to put their views to the Commissioner face to face. The Secretary of State is replying in very clear terms to the Commissioner’s request for suggestions on simplification.
It is not only the Commission and the Parliament with which we have engaged; at the meeting last October of the Stockholm group—consisting of senior officials from the UK, Germany, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden—simplification was high on the agenda. The UK, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Sweden signed a letter to the Commissioner in December calling for ambitious action on simplifying the CAP. And so it goes on.
As a result of all that work, Commissioner Hogan has committed to simplifying the CAP. He is currently, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, undertaking an exercise to identify areas to reduce red tape and administrative burden. In answer to my noble friend, he has committed to producing a simplification strategy by the end of the year. He wrote to all member states last month asking for ideas on how to simplify the CAP without opening up regulations, focusing on the administrative burden for farmers. We consulted with the devolved Administrations and across the UK farming industry, and the Secretary of State will be responding tomorrow, calling for more ambitious action to simplify the CAP, including extending the review of the EFA requirements for greening to include the three-crop rule by 2016. Commissioner Hogan has also committed to reviewing direct payments, which include greening, ready for the 2017 payment year. The UK will be fully engaged in pushing for the most ambitious action to simplify the CAP in Commissioner Hogan’s mid-term review in 2017 to make UK farming more competitive. We believe that the only way to simplify the CAP properly is by making changes to the regulations, hence we are calling for more ambition and providing Commissioner Hogan with suggestions that require changes to legislation.
Various questions were asked by noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Byford talked about crop diversification, specifically in the area of dairy farming. She might like to know that farmers with fewer than 10 hectares of arable land are exempt from the crop diversification requirements, and those with 10 to 30 hectares must grow at least two different crops. It is therefore stepped so, to the extent that a dairy farmer is not growing arable crops, he will not bump into those rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, referred to current pressures on dairy farmers more generally, and he is quite right. We are doing all that we can to help dairy farmers overcome current pressures. The Rural Payments Agency has paid EU direct payments to 98% of farmers more than two months ahead of schedule, and almost every first-milk farmer has been paid. We are also working on longer-term resilience. He will know that the global market for dairy products is actually growing so, provided we can make ourselves as competitive as possible, we should be able to take advantage of that. The question is how we bridge the gap until we get there, and that is something we are acutely focused on.
On pesticides, the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Grantchester, and my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lady Byford, among others, referred to neonics. The UK has consistently argued that decisions should be made on the basis of proportionate risk assessment, not an approach that rules out any conceivable risk, however improbable.
Noble Lords are right in what they say about the effects of a ban on yields. We raised these issues repeatedly with the Commission last year, and will continue to pursue the point with the new Health Commissioner. There is a review clause in the EU regulation and we will press for that to be carried out thoroughly, taking full account of costs as well as benefits. The European Commission has given an undertaking to commence a review of the science on neonicotinoids in 2015.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked about research on bees. I assure her that there is a great deal of research and monitoring on pollinators and this will continue, including under the national pollinators strategy.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Grantchester, talked about GM. I know that they would not disagree that we must ensure that all GM products for cultivation in the UK must have passed a rigorous safety assessment. As written, the EU regulatory regime could allow timely market access for safe GM products but, in practice, as we all know, most member states oppose GM and vote against the science. Over time, this has become increasingly problematic and restrictive. We have been pressing hard for positive changes in the operation of the regulations. We want a pragmatic and proportionate regime. The recently agreed cultivation proposal did not go as far as I would have liked, but it could help to unblock the EU-level approval mechanism as it will allow those member states that do not want to cultivate GM crops to restrict or ban them while allowing countries that are open to the technology to use it.
A large number of questions were raised in this debate and I do not have time to answer them all. I will respond to noble Lords in writing where I find that I have not been able to do so in the debate.
My noble friend Lord Caithness raised a really important point about gold-plating. We are committed to avoiding, where at all possible, going beyond the minimum requirements of any measures being transposed. Taking such an approach will ensure that the UK does not create unnecessary legislative burdens and place UK business at a competitive disadvantage. To ensure that we do not gold-plate, my department must satisfy the reducing regulation committee that it has identified the aims of the EU law and the relevant policies of the UK Government and how, save in absolutely exceptional circumstances, it does not go beyond the minimum requirements of the measure being transposed. The policy teams have clear guidance and, indeed, specific training on policy development and consultations to ensure that they take steps to check whether their intended policy goes beyond the minimum requirements and to provide stakeholders with maximum opportunity to engage with us on our proposals.
Several noble Lords referred to Professor Anne Glover. I regret that the Commission decided not to continue the post of EU scientific adviser. Anne Glover was, and I know will continue to be, an enormous force for good in science. She served extremely well in Brussels and we intend to work closely with the Commission to ensure that any new arrangement is well suited to the purpose, providing first-rate scientific evidence.
I fear that I am out of time. I know that a number of other important points were raised; I will do my best to summarise them in letters to noble Lords.
Jimmy Savile: NHS Investigations
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place on the investigations into the activities of Jimmy Savile in the NHS. The Statement is as follows.
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the NHS Jimmy Savile investigations.
This morning, a further 16 investigations into the activities of Savile in the NHS were published. These include the main report from Stoke Mandeville Hospital and reports from 15 other hospitals. One report relates to Johnny Savile, the older brother of Jimmy Savile. These reports have now been placed in the Library. While no system can ever be totally secure from a manipulative and deceitful predator such as Savile, we learned last year that there were clear failings in the security, culture and processes of many NHS organisations, allowing terrible abuse to continue unchecked over many years.
Some victims are, sadly, no longer with us and others continue to suffer greatly as a result of what happened. On behalf of the Government I apologised to them last June and today I repeat that apology: what happened was horrific, caused immeasurable and often permanent damage and betrayed vulnerable people who trusted us to keep them safe. We let them down. As one of the Stoke Mandeville victims said,
‘there are so many messed up lives—although people have built up lives, you have children, you make a life, it ruins everything, your relationships with another human being—the things you are supposed to have’.
Today we must show by our deeds as well as by our words that we have learned the necessary lessons.
The new reports, like those released last year, make extremely distressing reading. In total, 177 men and women have now come forward with allegations of abuse by Jimmy Savile, covering a period from 1954 to just before his death in 2011. At least 72 people who gave evidence were children at the time of the abuse, with the youngest being only five years old. The allegations included rape, assault, indecent assault and inappropriate comments or advances. Allegations were made not in one or two places but in more than 41 acute hospitals—that is almost a quarter of all NHS acute hospitals—as well as five mental health trusts and two children’s hospitals. Further investigations have happened at a children’s convalescent home, an ambulance service and a hospice. There are three new investigations under way at Humber NHS Foundation Trust, Mersey Care NHS Trust and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. Any further allegations will, of course, be investigated as serious incidents.
In addition, the Department for Education has today published 14 reports on investigations in children’s homes and education settings, and the review by Dame Janet Smith into Savile’s activities at the BBC is ongoing. These investigations have been deeply harrowing for victims but also for the investigators. I would like to put on record my thanks to everyone involved, particularly Kate Lampard and the NHS Savile legacy unit, which provided robust oversight and assurance in an incredibly difficult job.
I now turn to Stoke Mandeville, the hospital with which Savile was most closely associated. The report published today reveals shocking abuse of 60 victims that took place over more than 20 years between 1968 and 1992. From the brave victims who have come forward we know that Savile’s activities there included groping, molestation and rape of patients, staff and visitors. Victims were predominantly but not exclusively female, 20 were vulnerable patients disabled with severe spinal injuries, and one was a child as young as eight. Savile deliberately exploited these people because he understood that their reliance on specialist care they might be able to receive only at Stoke Mandeville made it even harder for them to speak up. This was calculating behaviour of the most abhorrent kind. Victims included 26 visitors and six staff. Six victims reported being raped, one as young as 11 or 12. Most victims were too frightened to come forward, but there were nine informal complaints and one made formally. None was taken seriously.
There is no suggestion that Ministers or officials knew about these activities, but accepted governance processes were not followed in the decision to allow Savile to acquire and maintain a position of authority at the hospital. In particular, Ministers made the expedient decision to use Savile not just to raise funds to redevelop Stoke Mandeville’s National Spinal Injuries Centre, but to oversee the building and running of the centre even though he had no relevant experience. Because of his celebrity and useful fundraising skills the right questions—the hard questions—simply were not asked, suspicions were not acted on and patients and staff were ignored. People were either too dazzled or too intimidated by the nation’s favourite celebrity to confront the evil predator we now know he was. Never again must the power of money or celebrity blind us to repeated, clear signals that some extremely vulnerable people were being abused.
I spoke last June about how changes to processes, policies and laws over the last 30 years have made it much less likely that a predator like Savile would be able to perpetrate these crimes today. Charity legislation is much tougher, setting out specific requirements for the auditing and examination of NHS charities’ accounts, and the safeguarding system now in place is significantly improved. The Children Act 1989, the first child sex offender register, Criminal Records Bureau checks and the Disclosure and Barring Service have all provided further protection. From 1 April, for the first time, the Care Act 2014 puts adult safeguarding on a legal footing and safeguarding adults boards will ensure that local safeguarding arrangements act to help and protect adults. We have also enshrined the right to speak up in staff contracts. We are amending the NHS constitution and have changed the law to make employers responsible if whistleblowers are harassed or bullied by fellow employees. We are also consulting on how best to implement the recommendations in Sir Robert Francis’s whistleblowing review.
However, proper policies and processes will not succeed if they do not go hand in hand with a change in culture, whereby patients and staff alike feel able to speak out with any concerns and can be confident that they will be listened to. It is particularly important that children and those with physical and mental illnesses are listened to, because they are the most vulnerable. While we are proud to live in a society in which people are innocent until proven guilty, we have a collective responsibility to investigate all serious allegations properly in a way that simply did not happen, time after time.
In the light of these disturbing reports, I also asked Kate Lampard to outline key themes across all the NHS investigations and to consider any further action that needs to be taken. She considered the extent to which Savile was a product of the culture of his time and concludes that, while he was a one-off, there are important improvements that need to be made to protect patients today. It is a thoughtful and comprehensive report, and I am today accepting in principle 13 recommendations she makes, including on access, volunteering, safeguarding, complaints and governance.
Trusts should develop policies on visits by celebrities and internet and social media access in hospitals. They should review voluntary service arrangements, safeguarding resources and the consistency of employment practices, ensuring clear executive responsibility. They should consider whether policies on the impact of volunteers on a trust’s reputation are adequate. The department, with its arm’s-length bodies, will examine: the possible development of a forum for NHS voluntary service managers; raising awareness of safeguarding referrals among NHS trust staff and volunteers; and to what extent NHS trust staff and volunteers should undergo refresher training in safeguarding.
I know some trusts which produced reports last summer have started to make improvements. One trust has already encouraged staff to raise concerns, updated the trust’s whistleblowing and complaints policy and published policy on the recruiting and management of volunteers. It is this kind of sensible, swift action that I want to see across the NHS. I have therefore asked the chief executives of Monitor and the TDA to ensure that all trusts review their current practice in three months against these recommendations and to write back to me with a summary of plans and progress at each one. These plans will be fed into the Government’s ongoing work to tackle child sexual exploitation.
One welcome practice that Kate Lampard’s report highlights is the growth in volunteering to support the work of the NHS. Overall, across the NHS we estimate that there are 78,000 volunteers, including 1,500 at just one trust, King’s in London. They do a magnificent job in improving patient care every single day throughout the NHS. We welcome this civic revolution and today need to make sure that any safeguards put in place support its further growth by helping to protect the reputation of volunteering as well as the safety of patients. Hard cases make bad law, and it would be the ultimate tragedy if Savile’s legacy was to hold back the work of the NHS’s true heroes, who give so much to their local hospital by volunteering their time. So while I agree that all volunteers working in regulated activity, typically having close or unsupervised contact with patients, should have an enhanced DBS check, I am not today accepting the recommendation that this should apply to all volunteers. As Kate Lampard acknowledges in her report, such a system may not in itself have stopped Savile. Rather, trusts should take a considered approach to checks on all volunteers, particularly using the enhanced DBS service if there is a possibility they will be asked at a future date to work closely with patients. They should also ensure that proper safeguarding procedures are in place locally as well as the DBS process, because it would be wrong to rely on the national database as a substitute for local common sense and vigilance.
The report also recommends that DBS checks are redone every three years. I believe the report is correct to say that trusts must make sure that their information on volunteers is up to date, but they can achieve this through asking volunteers to make use of the DBS update service, which enables trusts to check DBS information regularly and avoids volunteers having to go through the DBS process multiple times. We will be advising all trusts to do this.
Finally, I intend to take action in one area of great concern that the report highlights—namely, the responsibility and accountability of staff working with vulnerable people to take appropriate action when alerted to potential abuse. As the report recognises, the Government have substantially strengthened safeguarding arrangements since these dreadful events, but it is clear from these reports that there should have been a much stronger incentive on staff and managers to pass the information on so that a proper investigation happened. This is clearly unacceptable, and the Government have already said that we will consult on introducing a new requirement for mandatory reporting of abuse of children and vulnerable adults. The outcome of such a consultation must take full account of the need to avoid unintended consequences.
Let me conclude with a tribute to the victims who have had the courage to come forward. Without them, these investigations would not have been possible. It is our society’s shame that you were ignored for so long, but it is a tribute to your bravery that today we can take actions to prevent others going through the misery you have endured. As a result, our NHS will be made safer for thousands of children and vulnerable adults as we learn the uncomfortable lessons from this terrible tragedy. I commend this Statement to the House”.
That concludes the Statement, but since it was delivered in the other place, I have been advised that two passages require clarification. In repeating the Statement I said in relation to the victims at Stoke Mandeville that:
“20 were vulnerable patients disabled with severe spinal injuries”.
That should have read: “20 were vulnerable patients, some of whom were disabled with severe spinal injuries”. In addition, I said at the start that the reports that I mentioned had been placed in the Library. In fact, copies of the Stoke Mandeville and lessons-learnt reports have been placed in the Library. The remainder of the reports are available on the GOV.UK website.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading out the Statement, for early access to the two reports and for the briefing that he held this morning. The Statement rightfully acknowledges the clear failings in the security, culture and processes of many NHS organisations that meant that terrible abuse was allowed to continue unchecked over many years. As the Statement says, that abuse was horrific, caused immeasurable and often permanent damage, and betrayed the trust of vulnerable people who had reason to believe that they would be safe.
It is right for the Statement to repeat the Secretary of State’s apology made last June when the first 28 investigations into matters relating to Savile were published, and I know that I speak for the whole House when I emphasise our support for his decision to do so. I also add our gratitude and thanks to all those who have been involved in the preparation of the reports, in particular Kate Lampard and Ed Marsden for their key themes and lessons-learnt report. Through their diligence, the full scale and horror of Savile’s sickening behaviour across the NHS has been laid bare. It beggars belief that abuse on this scale, known to so many people, was allowed to go on for so long.
However, as the analysis of what happened becomes more complete, the key question and concern that will be growing in the minds of people hearing this news today is the matter of accountability and the disturbing evidence that people knew what Savile was doing but failed to act. Much of what is revealed in these reports today confirms what we already knew about a pattern of criminal behaviour in the hospitals concerned, where patients and victims were not listened to and staff felt unable or unwilling to challenge. But what changes today with the Stoke Mandeville report is that it is now no longer possible to say that although the abuse was widespread, it was not known to some of those in senior positions. Nine verbal reports and one formal complaint were made but none was acted upon.
The question why does not extend just to senior staff at the hospitals. As today’s Stoke Mandeville report says:
“From 1980 Savile’s relationship with Stoke Mandeville Hospital underwent a significant change when he was appointed by Government Ministers … to fundraise for … the new National Spinal Injuries Centre”.
As the lessons-learnt report observes:
“In appointing Savile to these roles and in allowing him the licence and free rein he had in exercising these roles ministers and/or senior civil servants either overrode or failed to observe accepted governance processes”.
That is an extremely serious finding and needs to be acted upon. While of course I do not expect the Government to respond to this today, does the Minister not accept that this finding points to the need for a more formal process of inquiry into senior people in the hospitals and at the Department of Health? This includes former Ministers who did not follow the due processes. Knowing what we do, we cannot leave this here. Victims must have accountability, and that must be our shared goal across this House.
Alongside accountability, the victims of Savile also need help now. Many people who were damaged by what happened have never recovered and continue to suffer; some victims have died. In the June Statement, the Government said they would continue to explore compensation for the victims, including the use of Savile’s estate to fund any claims. Can the Minister update the House on that work, and whether there is any value left in that estate? Will this be sufficient, or is there a need for public funding to help victims? Today’s news will again be traumatic and distressing for everyone directly affected. Can the Minister tell the House what steps are being taken to offer counselling and other support to the victims?
I turn to the lessons-learnt report. We need to stress that, while these appalling events come from a very different era, it would be a major mistake to think that they have no relevance today. As one of the report’s chilling conclusions sums up,
“the evidence we have gathered indicates that there are many elements of the Savile story that could be repeated in future”.
Even though the world was different in the 1970s and 1980s, it is impossible to read these reports without wondering how so many people could have known about what was happening but felt unable to act. It must never again be the case that a member of staff is made to feel they would be letting down the hospital if they act to report abuse.
We have welcomed and supported the action the Government are taking to support NHS whistleblowers—for example, the provisions in the Care Act which put adult safeguarding on a statutory footing—but we cannot think complacently that this will be enough in these situations. Action is needed across schools, hospitals and childcare settings. We need co-ordinated, joined-up government action in response. Does the Minister agree that introducing a mandatory requirement for people in positions of trust to report abuse should be an early legislative priority for the next Parliament, whichever party is in office?
It is also evident from the report that we need to look again at changes to the vetting and barring system. Recent changes mean that convicted sex offenders are only added to the list if they are working in professions with access to children. This means that there are thousands of sex offenders who are today not on the list but perhaps should be.
Finally, in the context that Kate Lampard identifies, of a coming era in which hospitals will be more reliant on volunteers and fundraising, and in the light of the comments in the Statement, do the Government still stand by the changes to vetting and barring, or is there a need to tighten this still further?
This report charts appalling, sickening events and places a dark cloud over the NHS. We applaud the Secretary of State and the Government for the commitment they have shown in response to these reports, and we pledge our full support to help bring about accountability and justice for the victims.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments and for the constructive way in which she has approached these distressing matters. She referred to the issue of accountability and, of course, that is one of the first issues that springs to mind when hearing about these dreadful events. The noble Baroness said that there were people who knew and failed to act. The tragedy was that there were so many victims who knew exactly what had happened but whose cries were left unheard. As she said, picking up on the Statement, there were nine informal complaints and one formal complaint, none of which was followed through. I understand that the investigators have not been able to trace the members of staff involved in those complaints, so that with the passage of time it is difficult to establish exactly what was said and when. However, the facts speak for themselves.
The noble Baroness also asked about the value left in the Jimmy Savile estate. My advice is that last March the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust had a capital balance of just short of £3.5 million. I understand that that balance may be a little less now, but that trust is being used to compensate the victims. If and when the money runs out, the Department of Health will step in. Although the compensation scheme has now officially closed, it is open to anyone else who has not yet come forward to make a claim, and they can also do so to the NHS Litigation Authority. Public funding is there to underpin the money from the Savile trust.
The noble Baroness also asked about the possibility of a further inquiry. Kate Lampard’s lessons-learnt report will feed into the findings of the national group on sexual violence as well as the work of the Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. This inquiry, chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard, will consider whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.
Regarding support and counselling for victims, which the noble Baroness also mentioned, people who have experienced abuse and need advice or support can contact the free confidential support line from the National Association for People Abused in Childhood. They can also contact the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s free confidential support line. During the investigations, each part of the investigation was responsible for ensuring that victims and vulnerable witnesses had access to appropriate support as required. Kate Lampard and the Savile Legacy Unit assured that these processes were put in place. Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of NHS England, wrote to all CCGs in May 2013 to ensure that all GPs within each area were alerted to the possibility of victims and witnesses presenting for help and support. He also asked that arrangements should be put in place with mental health services in each area so that the victims and witnesses could have their support needs, of whatever degree, met in a timely and appropriate fashion.
As regards compensation, slightly more than £58,000 has been paid out so far by the NHS Litigation Authority on behalf of the Secretary of State, of which a third is damages. As I have said, the NHSLA will meet the balance of valid NHS claims on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness asked about the proposal for mandatory reporting of suspected abuse. We have said that we will consult on this issue, which is essentially one of whether people feel that there is a need for legislation. It will be a full 12-week public consultation on the advisability, the risk, the nature and the scope of any reporting duty, including questions on which forms of abuse it should apply to and to whom it should attach. Inevitably, the process of consultation on this issue is complex. It requires careful handling and we believe that it should not be rushed. It will be critical that we consult as widely as possible. The available evidence is inconclusive as to whether mandatory reporting regimes help or hinder or make no difference to child safeguarding outcomes. The Government have no preconceived view on this. However, we are clear that we should consult on the matter as soon as possible.
Reverting to the point made by the noble Baroness at the start of her remarks, the report concludes that it was reasonable for Ministers to pledge government support for the rebuilding of the National Spinal Injuries Centre. However, the processes did not work as they should. It is the job of civil servants to provide full and impartial advice, and it would appear from the surviving documentation that DHSS officials may not have presented the full spectrum of issues concerning the NSIC to Ministers at the outset of the project. That served to minimise the complexity of the situation. It did not specify any potential consequences. It set the scene for the project to be agreed with minimal strategic planning in place that took into account what we would expect to see today, which is both long-term service forecasts and revenue costs. That had the effect of placing a dependence on Jimmy Savile as a continuing fundraiser from that moment on.
I simply say again that the investigation concludes that there was no evidence that either Ministers or officials knew about Savile’s predatory behaviour. Clearly, a number of people within the NHS had strong suspicions about it, but the celebratory status of Savile and the fact that everyone knew that Stoke Mandeville in particular depended on his fundraising skills clearly acted as a brake on people’s ability to speak up when they should have done so.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, there is one fact about this excellent report on a very difficult subject which is so obvious that it is in danger of being overlooked. We are talking here about events within the NHS and specifically about events within NHS organisations which had among their staff people who, due to their professional expertise, should have been able to spot the signs of abuse, as they are experts to whom people turn for treatment when they have been abused. I am not talking about the BBC; I am talking about the NHS. Repeatedly they did not see it or did not speak about it. That makes me draw an uncomfortable conclusion which goes to the heart of a couple of the recommendations—that is, that it is possible, even in the best of organisations which exist for the best of reasons, for there to be a culture so powerful that people can ignore things which are bad almost to the point of disbelief.
Therefore, when the Government consider their response to all this, I ask them to look at recommendations R5 and R8 in the lessons-learnt section. Those recommendations talk about trusts having a review process of their own procedures. They also make reference to the local authority designated officer and the role that he or she might play. I put it to the Minister that, in order to break a culture of silence, it must be possible to bring in a reference to an external expert. If victims and staff had access to such a person as a backstop, it would be a very important means of ensuring that we never saw organisations operating in this way again.
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes a series of extremely powerful and pertinent points and I am in agreement with the thrust of them. She is absolutely right that this is a matter of the culture of an organisation. While I think we can say hand on heart that the culture in the NHS has in many respects changed for the better in recent years, we must never be complacent about this. This matter was particularly identified by Sir Robert Francis in his recent report on whistleblowing, and we have accepted his recommendations. For example, we will ask every NHS organisation to identify one member of staff to whom other members of staff can speak if they have particular concerns and are not being listened to. We will also consult on establishing a new independent national whistleblowing guardian as a full-time post within the CQC to fulfil the kind of independent role that my noble friend refers to. In that context we are legislating to protect from discrimination whistleblowers who apply for NHS jobs. Therefore, I think that there are things that we can do with the mechanisms to ensure that the NHS is a more benign place for people who would otherwise feel too frightened to speak up.
Nevertheless, the further consultation on mandatory reporting which I have undertaken we will carry out will, I am sure, bring all this into the frame again. I have no doubt—at least, I hope—that my noble friend will feed into that consultation in the way that she has just indicated.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have been a patient at the Stoke Mandeville spinal unit since 1958, when I broke my back. I knew Jimmy Savile to some extent over the years. He was very autocratic and very clever, but I never saw his dark side. Many of the people working at Stoke Mandeville did not see that side of him because he was so clever.
There is a problem with hospitals. They do not like bad publicity and there can be cover-ups. We need openness and honesty. I should like to ask the Minister about the present procedure for patients, who need an easy and quick way of raising their concerns. That is very important because many patients are at risk of having bad things done to them. Sometimes those bad things may be done by people on the ward, so patients need to bypass the ward but they cannot just be told that they have to go to the health ombudsman. That takes too long. Therefore, I hope that the procedure for patients will be given great consideration in the future.
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness has our admiration for the way in which she has coped with her spinal injury over these many years. She is, of course, absolutely right about the way in which Jimmy Savile duped so many people. He was a forceful character as well as somebody with a superficial charm, and he got away with what he did. She is, of course, correct that the protection of patients lies at the centre of all this and we must ensure that we have proper systems in place to make them feel confident that they can come forward.
I take the noble Baroness’s point about patients perhaps not feeling able to complain to the ward staff. The answer to her question is that the patient, or someone on their behalf, can complain to the chairman of the organisation or trust or to a member of the board, and thus bypass the clinical staff. There should always be a member of the board at the hospital whose responsibility is the protection of patients above all. In the end, it is for that organisation to investigate its own supposed failings. If somebody is not satisfied with the result of that investigation, it is then open to them to go to the ombudsman. We believe that complaints should be investigated at a local level, either with the provider of the service or, if that is not thought appropriate for any reason, with the commissioner of the service.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, in relation to the protection of patients, I ask the Minister whether it would it be possible, each time a patient is seen by anyone—whether it is an external visitor or, indeed, a doctor—to ensure that there is another person present, such as a nurse. Just recently, a colleague went for a breast examination. She was seen by only one person, a male doctor; no safeguarding was available there. As part of that consultation, I would welcome this assurance.
Earl Howe
I take my noble friend’s point. However, I would hesitate before committing to a situation where, in every instance that a doctor or nurse examined a patient, they had to have somebody with them. In the real world, I do not think that is going to be practical. What one should have, however, is an assurance that whoever examines the patient, or performs some intimate caring service with the patient, should have been checked for both a criminal record and a previous employment history. I will take my noble friend’s point away, but I think that what I have said would be accepted by those in the National Health Service as the only practical way forward.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, senior hospital administrators were criticised in these reports, but senior civil servants were also responsible for facilitating Savile’s influence and access to Broadmoor and Stoke Mandeville hospitals. Have the civil servants been identified? How have they been held accountable? Have the survivors received an individual apology for the governance failures that allowed this catalogue of abuse to take place? I understand the Secretary of State’s general apology, but I think an individual apology would be appropriate for each and every survivor.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s last point. My understanding is that each survivor and each victim has had an apology, but I will look into the possibility of my right honourable friend adding to that.
As regards the civil servants involved, only one has been identified: Mr James Collier, who was, at the time, deputy secretary of the DHSS. Dr Gerard Vaughan, who was the Minister most closely involved with the building of Stoke Mandeville’s spinal injuries centre, assigned Mr Collier to ensure that the project went ahead. The inquiry found that Collier’s role was essentially to remove obstacles to the project. In effect, he was both an enabler and an instrument of the whole project. However, the report says:
“If criticism is to be levelled at James Collier it is because he did not just sweep aside bureaucracy to enable the project, he was instrumental … in sweeping aside some legitimate concerns raised by statutory bodies such as the Oxford Regional Health Authority”,
once he had been placed in charge of the project. So the duty of a senior civil servant to “speak truth unto power” was not, I am afraid, one that he fulfilled. Mr Collier is still alive, and I do not think that it would be proper for me to criticise him other than in the terms that the inquiry has done, but essentially the investigation concludes that,
“it would appear that Savile’s authority was given at the behest of politicians and then made possible by senior civil servants”.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend and his department on the fullness of the information contained in these reports—their very fullness makes one wonder how so much of the evidence passed people by—perhaps I may make one suggestion of presentation. When you read the two reports side by side, the grey-blue report about Stoke Mandeville contains far more upper-case letters as the initial letters of words. The pale mauve report of Kate Lampard is not addicted to that. The consequence is that it is much more difficult with the Stoke Mandeville report to recognise the comparative importance of the information given because it is always in headline elements.
Earl Howe
I understand the point made by my noble friend. At the same time, it is clear from the executive summary of Kate Lampard’s report that Stoke Mandeville is by far the most important and salient element of the report and I had hoped that that would have guided readers’ attention towards the section of the report that deals with Stoke Mandeville. Nevertheless, I am sorry that my noble friend has found it necessary to say that and I understand why he has.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the Statement referred to inadequate systems and the need for a culture change. Does the Minister accept that many people are of the view that what we have is inadequate law and not only inadequate systems? I do not know whether my noble friend heard the “Today” programme this morning in which Mr John Humphrys, in interviewing a lawyer acting for one of the many Jimmy Savile victims, was astonished to discover that there is no offence of ignoring knowledge of child abuse that has been reported. Indeed, a majority of the British public think that it is already the law but the Minister knows that it is not.
I welcome the commitment to a public consultation that resulted from an amendment I tabled to the Serious Crime Bill, but several months have passed since that commitment was made by the Government and we still do not know which department will lead the consultation. Will it be the Home Office, the Department of Health or the Department for Education, or will it be a combination? I heard that in another place the Minister undertook that the consultation would be complete and the Government’s response given within 18 months of the Bill becoming an Act. Can the Minister confirm that that undertaking stands and say whether there has been any progress on which department will lead on this consultation?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I cannot give a specific undertaking on the timescale that we envisage for the consultation or on any legislation that might ensue from it because that raises the question of whether any legislation is necessary. That is what we want to know from the consultation process. However, I can tell my noble friend that the Home Office will be leading the consultation in conjunction with all the other relevant government departments.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl repeated a phrase in the Statement referring to Jimmy Savile as a one-off. Although that is qualified in the sentence that follows, nevertheless the reference is made. Does he consider that describing these incidents as a one-off characteristic of an unusual individual is tremendously helpful? We know that he was not a one-off because a number of other people working in NHS settings engaged in similar behaviour and have already been convicted. Many other people who were not working in NHS settings but doing other kinds of job—for example, in the rock music business—were also engaging in this kind of behaviour. Perhaps we need to take more account of the fact that, hard as it is for us to recognise, there are circumstances in which people, given the opportunity, will engage in this kind of behaviour and will continue to do so. Thinking of them as, as it were, bad apples does not help us to grapple with that reality.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. It is with that thought in mind that Kate Lampard did not simply pigeonhole Savile as a one-off but has come forward with recommendations, most of which we have accepted, as to the wider lessons we should learn from this sorry saga. We know that, while the scale of Savile’s activities was probably unprecedented, there are others who have been found guilty of similar offences.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred in the Statement to the review by Dame Janet Smith into Savile’s activities at the BBC. This review is ongoing. Of course, it was the BBC which gave Jimmy Savile this extraordinary platform in the first place. Will my noble friend confirm that this ongoing review is entirely independent of the BBC’s management and the BBC Trust? Can he also indicate when the review will be completed?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have only limited information about the BBC review. Dame Janet Smith’s review was established by the BBC, in October 2012, as an independent review of its culture and practices during the years that Jimmy Savile worked there. It will receive evidence from those who may have been the subject of inappropriate sexual contact by Jimmy Savile. As my noble friend knows, Dame Janet is a former Court of Appeal judge. The review has been in contact with approximately 740 people. It has had more than 350 telephone conversations with witnesses and almost 190 witness interviews have taken place. The completion of the review has faced delays due to criminal proceedings and new evidence. One instance was that of Stuart Hall, who pleaded guilty to 14 charges of indecent assault. Another was the Dave Lee Travis case, but I do not want to go into detail about that. I do not have information about when the review is likely to be concluded, but if I can find out I will write to my noble friend.
